One of the most publicised of the Hawke Government's secret political strategies has been its attempt to use environment issues to win votes. It gained votes in the 1983 election when the damming of the Franklin River was an issue, but lost many due to the influence of the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1985. Party strategists recognised the value of these votes and believed that they could be won by relatively cheap means.

A number of things revealed this ploy as hollow. The Government announced that it would allow the resumption of sales to France, despite the fact that France had not ceased testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific. The Government also went very slowly on the issues of the Daintree Rainforest and Kakadu National Park&emdash;both areas where the Federal Government had powers to act to prevent or limit despoliation. And finally, the environment movement seemed to have started to see its issues as being more than trees and furry animals by being involved in conferences and discussions on a wide range of issues such as Land Rights and civil liberties.

However, the body which regards ilself as 'a national organisation that is active on all major conservation issues including the Great Barrier Reef, forests, toxic waste, nuclear issues, arid Australia and Kakadu' has now decided to endorse the election of the Labor Party in the Federal Election. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has also decided to endorse the election of the Democrats, and some independent candidates in Western Australia, in the Senate.

It is interesting to note the ACF's publications on the election. They first announced that the organisation would be campaigning on the theme 'Vote for the Forests' and that the members of the Foundation's Council were being polled to decide ACF's position. That vote was taken and the following reasons were put forward:

• if a Liberal-National Party Government was elected, Australia would have to kiss goodbye much of our natural heritage including the wet tropic rainforests of Queensland, other native forests, parts of Kakadu, Shelburne Bay, Fraser Island, and even the Franklin River;
• the Liberal Party announcements last week that they would abolish the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and grants to the Australian Conservation Foundation and other bodies show how little the Liberal Party cares for the environment and those who want it protected.

The ACF media release goes on:

"Although thc ALP has made some decisions we disagree with, their policies are overwhelmingly better than the Liberal-National Parties. And the Democrats are needed in the Senate to force Governments to introduce bills protecting the environment and to stop Governments pushing through anti-environrnent bills."

ACF plans to hold public meetings, distribute leaflets and 'campaign heavily on the ground'. A special newsletter will be produced (contact your nearest ACF office or call, toll free, 008-33-8928 for your copy). Their major effort will be in marginal seats in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart and Adelaide.

It is very good to see the ACF getting organised and making a splash in the media but I believe they are very wrong in supporting the ALP. I have my reasons:

• ACF has ignored the Government's total environment record, and it has demonstrated it can be insular and single-issue oriented. It is also going against the trend in most other parts of the environment movement of seeking to have a more holistic view of the environment;
• although only 10 per cent of its annual budget comes from Federal Government grants, it does look as though this has gone towards buying the ACF's electoral support;
• if you were going to support a parliamentary party for its environmental record, you would support the Democrats, and in the ACF material they come second, with most focus on, marginal seats which the Democrats are not contesting;
• like it or not, it is possible that the Liberals and the Nationals could win Government and ACF's lobbying ability would be severely reduced, although the organisation would then be able to re-assess its role vis-a-vis governments.

If ACF is going to gain credibility in the environment movement as the national organisation then it is going to have to do more than circulate lots of bits of papers about saving trees. ACF must be prepared to take an overall view of the environment and take a stand everywhere there is an issue of concern, not just where there is obvious public support for a particular issue.

Back...