WHAT PRICE the ENVIRONMENT? by the Han. Barry Hodge, M.L.A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WHAT PRICE THE ENVIRONMENT? by the Han. Barry Hodge, M.L.A., Minister for Conservation and Land Management; the Environment. - 20 - WHAT PRICE THE ENVIRONMENT? I was delighted to be able to accept the Fabian Society's invitation to speak on the new Environmental Protection Bill and to be the first speaker since the Society has been reactivated. It gives me an opportunity to talk about one of the more important pieces of legisation the Labor Government has introduced since winning office in 1983. The environment, its preservation and conservation has become one of the most significant and controversial issues of our times. A better educated and environmentally aware public is demanding improved measures to ensure the environment is better preserved for future generations. But the enigma posed is that at the same time many of the same people are seeking more development, more jobs to maintain or improve their lifestyles and standard of living. The Government has tried to meet these two diverse community requirements. In regard to the new Environmental Protection Bill, we have tried very hard to achieve the necessary degree of compromise through extensive consultation with all parties with an interest - conservation organisations, individuals, the mining industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of Western Australian Industry and all government departments. I'm sure you'll accept that there is a cost associated with most things that-happen in life - some direct, some more abstract. I am going to talk about the price of environment. And included in this budgeting exercise is the price of ownership, the price of involvement and the price of ideology. I'll address the one of ownership• . First a bit of history. The first environmental legislation for Western Australia dates back to October, 1970, when the coalition government under Sir David Brand introduced the Physical Environmental Protection Act. This Act had been drafted by a comm ittee including Professor Main, Mr. Ride of the Museum and Bernie Bowen, the Director of Fisheries. The Bill was introduced at a time when the Government was being roughly and loudly criticised for allowing massive environmental damage in the name of programmes to satisfy its "development at any costs" attitude. Basically, Sir David Brand spoke of the world-wide concern about polluting the earth's environment, brought on by an increasing population and expanding industrial technology. But this legislation gave the new Ministry of Conservation and the Department of Environment Protection nothing - no power, no teeth, no authority to protect the environment. When introducing the Bill in State Parliament Sir David Brand said the basic function of the new Ministry of Conservation was to examine and report on all matters relevant to pollution and protection of the physical environment. "It will provide advice, guidance and leadership," he said. Sir David went on and I quote: "The legislation must of necessity be experimental in nature. The machinery to deal with environmental problems should be kept flexible and capable of adap tion." Wishy washy in other words. "To succeed, the Ministry must rely heavily on the goodwill and co-operation of the community and existing government departments and instrumentalities. The best results can be achieved by relying on the co-operation and goodwill rather than compulsion and penalties." If experience proved there was a need for penalities and compulsion, Sir David said, this could be done at a later time. NO COMMITMENT These comments were a cop-out and showed that the Liberal Government had no comm itment other than that to the development lobby. - 21 - The legislation was a sop to the conservation lobby. Lengthy and colourful debate followed with the Labor Opposition slating the legislation for its lack of substance and authority. Nevertheless the Opposition supported the legislation as being better than nothing and it passed both Houses of State Parliament in November, 1970, but was never promulgated. There was a State election and a Labor Government led by John Tonkin was elected early in 1971. The new Government took up the environmental protection legislation and asked Doctor Brian O'Brien to review and rewrite the Act in a manner more befitting the mood of the community. Doctor O'Brien is an emminent scientist and environmental consultant. He went on to be the Director of Conservation and Environment and Chairm an of the Environmental Protection Authority. When the Labor Government introduced the EnvironmentalProtection Act in September, 1971, John Tonkin was the Prem ier and Minister for Conservation. He said: "The Legislation is needed for Government to take effective steps to control all forms of environmental degradation. We need a Bill to give an Environmental Protection Agency power and authority to protect the environment. "The importance of mining to the economic well-being of Western Australia is well known. But so too is the importance of environmental protection. This Bill covers not only conservation of lands but adequate supervision of pollution and waste em ission." John Tonkin went on: "The fundamental and critical single factor which must be borne in mind in considering this legislation is that it must be realistic. It must take accoun t of what we are, what we have and what '{Je want to have for ourselves and future generations. Therefore, this legislation must be balanced. It must achieve a balance between technological extremism and conservation extremism. This must be legislation that recognises both the comforts that technology can provide us and the comforts that nature can provide us. The first can be measured in gross dollar values, but the second cannot so easily be measured. But a balance of the two is essential if we are to have desirable qualities of life." He summarised the issue by saying: "I want to say that long ago it was pointed out that man is midway between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. Too little light and he cannot see; but too much light and he is dazzled. Too little sound and he cannot hear, but too much sound and he is deafened. So it should be with environmental protection. Too much protection and one is stultified, but too little protection and one is lost in a rubbish dump." There have been amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, in 1972, 1975, and 1980. But the comprehensive rewrite prom ised for so long has taken un til now to produce. Why? There is no one simple answer, except that there were perceptions that the "price" of the Bill exceeded the "benefits". This certainly seemed the case with the previous Conservative Government which had little interest in environmental issues and even less commitment to improving environmental legislation. NEW LEGISLAnON In 1983, the Australian Labor Party gave a commitment to introduce new legislation on winning government. Three years strenuous effort by Ron Davies, the Minister for Conservation and Environment, was unsuccessful - probably for several reasons but there were two main ones. The Bills drafted under Ron Davies set up the Environment Protection Authority with the Department of Conservation and Environment as the "boss cocky" department. In some - 22 - people's eyes it had meddling power over, and threatened, the territory of other departments. I'll outline how the present Bill overcomes this, later. The second reason was because there was little consultation with the people likely to be affected by the legislation, primarily industry and conservationists. With little consultation during the drafting stages of the legislation, these groups took polar standpoints and stuck to their opposing views. The result was total opposition to the Bill with no compromise. In producing the present Bill we have faced up to these two critical factors - and I believe we have done so successfully. The new Bill authorises the Minister to take action to protect the environment in a whole range of circumstances on which he is powerless to act at present. Under the previous legislation, we had the farcical situation where, in many circumstances, the Act allowed for recommendations only - a window dressing Act which had no real power to protect the environment from the type of threats posed by life in 1986. Specifically, the new Bill gives the Minister the power to enforce conditions recommended by the E.P.A. and to impose fines if those conditions are not met. There is provision for heavy fines for pollution and, in extreme cases, the ability to shut down pollutors until licence conditions are met. Provisions also exist for the pollutors to be ordered to pay for rehabilitation. OWNERSHIP To return to the point mentioned earlier that of the ownership of environmental management. Everyone owns the envir,onment, and environment impacts on many other portfolios. The competition between departments, and therefore Ministers, for "who makes which environmental decisions" has been a long-term hindrance to arriving at an acceptable Bill. To understand this problem and its solution, it is necessary to look at the development of structure and function of government departments. Our traditional government department structure was based on one department for each function, and one function for each department. That is, the Mines Department was responsible for mining; the Forests Department for supplying timber; and the Water Authority for supplying water. The difficulties began with increased competition for resources and an increased expectation of public visibility and accountability for decisions. When Forest, Water Supply and Mines all wanted different decisions about the same issue, traditionally the government had to decide. Increasing demands on modern governments to "referee" between departments, has seen us go through an evolution of "special departments" to sit above others and to make the decisions on competition. "BOSS C OCKY" D EPARTMENTS For example, the Whitlam Government tried the Department of Urban and Regional Development between 1973-75 to try to manage all the issues across urban quality of life.