The environment as an issue
The 2001 Australian Federal election campaign
|
What happened in Morocco in November 2001?
How were the events in Morocco linked to the 2001 Federal election?
In the same week of the above events an important environmental meeting was taking place in Marrakesh, Morocco, where nations were attempting to finalize the Kyoto Treaty on the emission of greenhouse gases that was begun in 1996. At this meeting Japan and Canada, members of the so-called "Umbrella Group" (industrialized nations) indicated that they would ratify the Kyoto Treaty by September 2002 (a requirement agreed to at earlier Kyoto Treaty meetings). This left Australia and the USA as the only members of the Umbrella Group and the last industrialized countries not to have signed the treaty. As delegates from 160 countries met the USA Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Ms Paula Dobriansky said, "Given the very tragic events of September 11 (2001), although we are conducting business in other areas, we have not been able at this time to come forward with a course of action" (Peter Hartcher, "Kyoto alternative slips down US agenda", The Australian Financial Review Weekend, 3-4/11/01, page 19) The USA is the largest greenhouse gas producer, emitting 24% of pollutants which is in close proportion to its relative size in the global economy. The President of a major global environment organisation, The Worldwatch Institute, Mr Chris Flavin, said that the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 had jolted the USA out of a period of unilateralism in foreign affairs. He said, "The administration (USA) now appears to be embracing multilateralism because you can't pursue terrorism without the support of other countries...they are now cooperating with the Russians on missile defence...I wish they would take the same multilateral approach and apply it to Kyoto" (Peter Hartcher, "Kyoto alternative slips down US agenda", The Australian Financial Review Weekend, 3-4/11/01, page 19)
If the Howard Liberal - National Coalition Government ratifies the Kyoto Treaty before September 2002 it will mean that Australia:
- must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 8% above 1990 levels by 2012 (In 2001 emissions were approximately 17% above 1990 levels)
- will face binding legal compliance for emission targets - for every tonne of carbon emitted over Australia's limit it will be required to reduce an additional 1.3 tonnes during the second protocol commitment period, start
- ing in 2012
- will be able to claim "credits" for forestry management schemes and saltbush and also "bank" surplus credits for a limited time
- can sell "spare" emission rights to other signatory countries if it meets it emission targets
In the 2001 Federal election campaign were global and local environmental issues of equal importance?
Even though the important international meeting in Morocco was being conducted at the same time as the Australian Federal election, the emission of greenhouse gases and the Kyoto Treaty was a long way from becoming a major election issue for the two major political parties. However, at the time environmental groups continued to be extremely concerned about what many of them describe as THE most important global issue - in other words they continued to think globally. Some described the threat of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions as THE GREAT EXPERIMENT but most realized that the only thing for them to do was to act locally. By so doing environmental groups were hoping that they could have an impression on voters, perhaps even a decisive impact on the Federal election.
During the second half of the 1990's what was the significance of the Federal Government's National Heritage Trust Fund?
From 1996 onwards the Federal Liberal - National Party Coalition Government calmed many environmentalists through the establishment of the National Heritage Trust Fund (money from the part sale of Telstra). The Fund, of $1.5 billion was strongly used by the Federal Liberal - National Party Coalition Government to provide money for tree planting, salinity abatement programs and the control of land-clearing in agricultural areas.
Did the pitch to the green vote have any drawbacks for the ALP?
Yes. The Federal ALP was very wary of enraging Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie on the environmental issue of land clearing. Beattie was reluctant to antagonise rural voters in areas where farmers were still undertaking land-clearing. The Queensland Government had a track record of lack of cooperation or disobedience in this matter.
At the time of the election what was the Queensland Labor Government doing to improve the quality of water in other "downstream" states in the Murray-Darling Basin?
At the time they had not abided by the federal/state pact they signed to cap the amount of water taken from the Murray-Darling Basin.
Wasn't there a process in place to penalise the Queensland Labor Government for being environmentally irresponsible?
Yes, but the Howard Government had failed to release the National Competition Council report expected to recommend fines against Queensland - and perhaps NSW - for going slow on water reform. The report was due to be made public in August 2001 but wasn't seen until after the election. This environmental issue involved what has been called "bipartisan buck-passing".
During the election campaign how did the Coalition Government's environment platform differ from the ALP?
It differed in the following ways. The Coalition Government:- continued to support the operation of the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory
- refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty without it also being signed by the major world contributor to greenhouse gases - the USA.
What were the positions of the major parties on the question of salinity?
The ALP used the 2001 campaign to outbid the Coalition policy that was announced in 2000. Labor set a target to stop further land clearing by farmers, in net terms, by 2005. The loss of vegetation is one of the culprits for the rising tide of salt which has scarred 5 per cent of the nation's cultivated land mass.
Who said what during the 2001 campaign?
Senator Robert Hill - Federal Minister of the Environment in the Federal Liberal - National Party Coalition Government
During the campaign The Minister described their environmental programs in the following way:
"We have done a lot over the last five years for the environment. We have done it in a way that provides win-win outcomes. We still try to get economic growth and good conservation outcomes at the same time"
"We say that at the moment we should be working with the USA in an attempt to bring them back into the process. In other words don't try and take some short-term political gain for a long term environmental loss"
"We don't seek to attract the extreme green vote because these people will always have a price that we can't meet"
"The conservation of this area has nothing to do with saving the seat of a Federal Minister. We have been working for years to conserve this site. I was involved in the site more than three years ago - looking at the site and the original listing of its attributes. It has been a long and difficult process because there is a substantial amount of money involved. The Federal Government will forgo a return (sale) from 250 hectares of valuable land. It is good to see that in this instance conservation values are being put ahead of the dollar"
Senator Nick Bolkus, Shadow Federal Environment Minister (The official spokesperson on the environment for the Federal Opposition ALP)
During the campaign the Shadow Environment Minister described the ALP's policies in the following way:
"The Government has wasted five years. The Government sold Telstra on the promise of more funds for the environment and yet the core-funding for the environment has been cut back in four out of the last five years."
"The ALP would ratify the Treaty. The cost of doing nothing outweighs any short-term economic impact. No matter what we do in Australia in respect to climate change there needs to be an international response to protect areas such as The Great Barrier Reef and the ski fields of Victoria. That international response has to come through the Kyoto process"
"This could amount to anything up to 0.5% in some critical seats. Now if you take in to consideration that we lost the last election (1998), even though we received 51% of the vote, by a margin of less than a thousand votes, a combination of Greens and Australian Democrat preferential votes will be a potent force - a significant gain for the ALP. A half a percent could make a difference - a half a percent either way could swing on any of these environmental issues" (Note: the ALP were unsuccessful in winning the 2001 election)
Don Henry, Director, Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
Environment organisations such as the ACF play an important role during all forms of Australian elections.
During the campaign the ACF Director described the ACF's views in the following way:
"The National Heritage Trust Fund, which the Government has implemented, has got more people doing things for the environment - it has encouraged people to become actively involved in planting trees. This is a good thing. But the reality is that the Fund has not turned around the continuing environmental degradation that continues in Australia. There has been a lack of tough decisions by the Federal Government"
"Issues like climate change and the problem of salinity are long term issues but we can and must act now - that's why they are critical during an election campaign"
"Because the war on terrorism and the refugee issues dominate in the media the ACF (and other environment groups) have adopted a different strategy. Our independent polling has shown that key marginal seats in Brisbane, northern New South Wales, Melbourne and Adelaide are basically swinging on environment issues"
"If you look at issues like the continuation of uranium mining at Jabiluka, an unwillingness to tackle the emission of greenhouse gases, an unwillingness to tackle land clearing of native vegetation in agricultural areas, this Federal Government has let critical issues continue."
What were the major points in the environment platform of the Australian Democrats?
They strongly supported the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. They also advocated:
Did the Greens Party concentrate only on environmental issues?
Those involved with the most aligned environmental party, The Greens, remained strongly committed to environmental issues throughout the election period. They spoke out strongly on the cutting of "old-growth" forests, particularly in Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, the need for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Treaty and the critical situation that has developed in all Australian states and Territories with the clearing of native vegetation for agricultural purposes. The raising of these issues centred on the principle of ecological sustainability. The Green Party recognized that environmental concerns cannot be divorced from social and economic issues. Thus their election platform gave detailed policies in the following areas.
- Care for People
- Care for the Earth
- Democracy
- Economics
- International Issues
- Services
- Society
Their integrated approach to environmental, social and economic issues helped get their candidates elected. They introduced issues such as the impact of the GST (Goods and Services Tax), mandatory sentencing for criminals, the war in Afghanistan and the treatment of asylum seekers by the Coalition Government, to their campaign. The Greens throughout their campaign suggested that their policies were "based on principles not opinion polls" and "justice and compassion for refugees". The Greens presented their television advertisements on refugees and the war in Afghanistan as an "alternative voice - based on democratic and social justice principles".
How significant were environmental issues in earlier Federal election campaigns?
The attempt to caste a wider electoral appeal by The Greens contrasts strongly with earlier political campaigns. For example, in 1982-83 The Greens were instrumental in the battle to save the Franklin River in Tasmania from further damming for hydro-electricity purposes. Many were arrested and the images of hundreds of environmental activists taking to the Franklin River in rubber boats created tremendous community support. Ultimately this campaign was recognized as a significant one by the ALP and led to the election of the first Hawke Labor Government in Canberra in 1983. By 2001 this type of campaign had lost its political appeal and the major environmental groups had lost faith in the major political parties to respond to environmental issues. During the late 1990's the so-called Green community became cynical and tired of the lack of response on environmental matters from the major political parties. The Green community had considerable difficulty in distinguishing between the two major parties in terms of environmental stances.
Environment groups concentrated on local campaigns and local issues where they could extract specific gains that mattered very little to other Australians outside a single electorate. One example of such a campaign, during the 2001 election, was the conservation of the Australian Defence Industry site (a Federal Government property including a large area of wooded land) in the marginal western Sydney seat of Lindsay. A Liberal Party Minister held this seat for the Federal Coalition Government.
Despite some advances, particularly those achieved through the National Heritage Trust Fund, by the end of the election campaign environment groups gave a "poor" rating to the Coalition Government's environmental record.
Both the Greens and Australian Democrats parties largely decided to give their "preferential' votes to the ALP. (The directions they gave voters on the parties' "How to vote cards" as to how they should caste their votes for the other parties after they vote number one for the Greens or the Australian Democrats) This was a deal that helped the ALP in some seats but was not sufficient to win them the election.
