The environment was a major issue of the recent Australian federal election but Larry O'Loughlin suggests the environment movement missed some opportunities and took some wrong turns during the campaign.

The recent election had a major focus on the environment, although the major parties cited the economy as the most important issue.

This interest in the environment resulted in a large rise in the number of 'environmental' candidates. The Australian Democrats also recorded a large increase in support, at least in part due to their good environmental policies.

Two of the larger environment organisations embarked on a campaign to influence the voting decisions of their members and the general public. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and The Wilderness Society (TWS) joined forces to question the political parties on their environmental policies, and based on an analysis of those answers recommended a voting pattern for "those concerned for the environment". Their suggestion: support the Australian Democrats, the Western Australian Greens and the United Tasmania Group (the Tasmanian green independents) in the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also recommended that the Australian Labor Party receive voters' next preference.

This campaign consisted of media work, paid advertising on radio and the print media, public forums and debates on the environmental policies of the parties, public rallies and letterboxing of key electorates. The ACF was ready with a direct mail campaign to raise money from members and supporters to conduct the campaign, and TWS sought funds through leafletting.

Why did they do it?

Both ACF and TWS did two things in the 1990 election, they decided to get involved in supporting particular parties and candidates, and they made a decision to support the ALP to form a government.

There are many reasons to get involved in an election campaign, some of them good. Australian politicians are cynical bastards, and election campaigns can be the best time to influence them on a range of issues because their jobs and future careers may be under threat. Of course, they may just say that the issues are too difficult or minor, and should be left until after the election.

Another thing about elections is that the media tend to gather in groups feeding from the politicians, and doing something involving politicians can be a good way of attracting publicity for a particular issue.

One of the major reasons given for supporting the ALP as a government (no one gave the Democrats a serious chance of forming a government), was that the alternative would include the National Party. According to Alislair Graham, Direclor of TWS:

"It was a very hard decision to make, primarily because of the level of disillusionment with the Hawke government. Had it not been for evidence of how awful the Nats are, I don't think we would have decided to interact in a partisan way". (Chain Reaction interview, 17 March, 1990).

Peter Garrett, President of ACF, supports that argument.

"If you look at the States where the National Party have had influence in the Cabinet room, in particular Queensland and New South Wales, the history there is that there is a strong correlation between approval of development projects which have considerable environmental impact and quite often aren't properly measured or thought through". (Chain Reaction interview, 17 March, 1990).

There would be little argument from almost anyone in the environment movement that the National Parly deserves any support. However, there could be much debate over whether fear of the Nationals should mean going to support the ALP, and by implication, supporting the system whereby only two political groupings, either Labor or the Coalition, get to have turns controlling executive government.

Phillip Toyne, Director of the ACF, also suggested a broader reason for being involved in elections.

"It's politicians and governments that are taking the decisions that are clearly affecting our environment, and it's that level of decision making we've got to influence. I don't think that there's any way of standing back and remaining non-political and being effective in influencing the big changes that we think we're going to have to bring about in Australia". (Chain Reaction interview, 19 March, 1990).

Being political is very important, but elections and parliamentary politics are not the only way to be political. A fundamental premise of much 'green' politics is that people must participate in a form of grass roots democracy challenging the power of government to make all these decisions affecting the environment. This is essential if only for the fact that governments are directly responsible for a significant amount of the environmental troubles we now face. And, if we are going to convert the consciousness of the general public it will not be through the power of government. The German Green Party suggests an alternative in its Program for the 1987 Federal Elections:

"The Greens fight neither for the politics of power- acquisition nor the politics of representation. The Greens stand for the beginning of a new politics, a politics from below, a politics with human beings and not over their heads."

A significant number of the questions put to the parties by ACF and TWS sought commitments to use, or even expand, existing powers. This deserves wider discussion throughout the environment movement, as it is not immediately obvious that we need governments with extra powers, or that force and coercion are the path to achieving our environmental needs.

What's wrong with elections

There are some very good arguments against the environment movement becoming involved in election campaigns, especially on behalf of particular candidates. If the environment movement is going to achieve its eventual aims, then there are going to have to be fundamental changes to the way many things operate, including politics.

Brian Martin suggests a number of problems with the electoral and parliamentary processes, and why green groups should be very careful about getting involved in them ('Green Election Fever', Chain Reaction, 59). Grassroots activism loses its power and initiative, as energies are directed to empowering representatives and governments. At best, environmental lobbying and electioneering may achieve reforms of policy, but will not be able to bring about the fundamental change many of us believe is required for real protection of the environment.

One irony worth noting is that the Wilderness Society has adopted the process of consensus decision making. Theoretically it is possible for all 13,000 members to participate in all meetings of the Society, yet it has also become very involved in voting and lobbying to change a few individuals at the level of parliamentary politics.

Green participation in elections not only helps legitimate the process of giving an elite group of people large amounts of power, it also helps extend that power. Elections give governments authority to act, if they did not have popular support, they would not get away with imposing taxes, for example.

And, the ultimate power of a government is its jails and its army and police force. Are we as greens expected to prop up the system that is being used against us time and time again as we struggle to keep and make the world a livable place? Seeking to influence the exercise of government power is implicit support of the power that the Government has.

What has been lost?

The environment 'movement', if it can be called that, is a motley collection of groups and individuals, and much to the annoyance of some politicians and sections of the media, can not be boxed, labelled and pinned down.

This is a strength of the movement. Feelings about the environment run deep, and many are not prone to compromise on principles for a short-term alliance or to elect a representative to make deals. There is such variety, that at the national level, even the big groups only claim to represent a small fraction of the environment movement.

However, this diversity is not being recognised, and the ACF and TWS are partly responsible for this. The media generally wants to talk to someone who represents the 'movement', and the ACF and TWS allow themselves to be represented as such, and have come to dominate media coverage of environment issues. They work hard for media coverage, and bring valuable attention to important issues. But what happens when there is a difference between one of these big two and a small local group on a particular issue? This was a problem when the Coronation Hill delay was announced by the Government. The ACF supported the decision, although some local groups believed that it was a precursor to a go-ahead for the BHP Gold mining operations. Either side may be right, but the views represented on national media were those of the ACF, and those views were said to be those of the environment movement.

This also happened when the Prime Minister made the galaxy's greatest environment statement in July 1989. ACF Director Phillip Toyne called it 'a milestone', which became the measure of environmentalist support for the statement in the eyes of the media, despite the fact that many environmentalists felt that the statement did not go very far, and did not set targets in areas such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Another potential loss to the movement is that participation in elections can reduce the influence of its ideas on Australian society.

This election did not have a single big issue to mark the difference between the parties, and although the environment was dressed up to be such an issue, the lack of a particular green issue in the election campaign, such as the Franklin River in 1983 meant that the debate regarding environmental issues was couched in very general terms. In this context it was very easy for even the Liberals to appear 'green'.

But there may come a day when the wolf really is at the door, and no-one will believe the environment groups, because they seem to always end up supporting the ALP anyway. The next election will be much more divisive than the 1990 election as the Liberals have welcomed some very dangerous and powerful ideologues into their ranks.

Missed opportunities

The lack of specific green issues on the election agenda could have offered a chance for an influential movement to raise new issues for debate, allowing the environmental movement to take the initiative rather than being in the reactive role it all too often finds itself in.

For example, the campaign could have been a time to raise issues of militarisation and arms expenditure but they received little coverage. The environment movement has deep roots in the peace and disarmament movement, yet the ACF and TWS did not reflect this. The ALP government has been militarising Australia's role in the region and increasing already high capital expenditure on re-arming the military. During the election campaign it also agreed to take over the running of the North West Cape submarine communication base from the USA.

There are many reasons to explain a lack of coverage, but the ACF and TWS could have used their high media profile to raise peace and disarmament issues. The ACF in 1986 took over Peace Studies magazine, and promised continued coverage of its concerns, so it does have responsibilities in this area. However, Defence Minister Kim Beazley congratulated the Western Australian Greens for organising a debate with him on defence issues. Stating that "this is the only debate taking in defence in this entire campaign."

The opportunities to highlight other issues on the green agenda were lost, and the level of debate and issues covered were inadequate.

Two Parties is no Choice

The two party system also needs to be called into question. While it remains, one side only needs to be a little bit better than the other to get the accolades for being better for the environment, and therefore deserving environmentalist support.

The 1990 election did little to break down the two parly system. If the environment is to get any sort of chance in the houses of parliament around the country, it will be through true green parties, not one of the major parties.

The ALP is not an environmental party, it is an economic party, and its economics are those of growth and expansion, which combined with the market conditions it encourages, leads to deterioration of the environment. The Liberals are no alternative, and may even make matters worse, but it is entirely unprincipled to ask people to support the ALP because the Coalition would be worse. The ALP's record on some issues, such as uranium mining and arms manufacture, is no better than the Coalition would be in practice. A campaign on such issues would do far more for protecting the environment than delivering government to the better of a bad choice.

It is not the role of the ACF and TWS to build political parties and therefore it is not their fault that there were no strong green parties. They had a choice of not participating in the election and taking a more strategic part in the advancement of the environment movement. A campaign which allowed for the building of green parties may also have had more integrity for organisations intending to influence the exercise of government power for the good of the environment.

But if we are to make a society which can care for its earthly environment, we are going to have to come up with more imaginative solutions than new parliamentary parties. We are certainly going to have to do better than try to recycle one of the old ones.

Back...