The final ESD working group reports were issued at the end of 1991 and were followed up in early 1992 with two other reports compiled by the three people chairing the groups. One report was on the greenhouse effect; the other covered issues such as health, population, urban issues, coastal issues, employment and equity. All these reports contained more than five hundred recommendations for achieving sustainable development.

The working-group process enabled erstwhile opponents to achieve an unprecedented degree of consensus and work out areas of agreement and disagreement. Nevertheless those taking part were not all that confident that their new found consensus would translate into government action. A survey of participants found that 32 per cent said that they thought the government wouldn’t use the reports whilst only 21 percent thought it would. The others didn’t express an opinion on this (Lothian 1992, p. 22).

In the same survey Andrew Lothian, himself a member of one of the working groups, found that 43% of the participants responding to the survey thought that the working groups were not well balanced compared with 49% who thought they were; 57% thought their recommendations were realistic; 43% thought the recommendations were reasonably strong compared with 27% who thought they were weak (Lothian 1992).

The efforts to reach a consensus tended to weaken working group recommendations. It required contentious issues or recommendations to be left out. This meant that the groups concentrated on the more conservative and ‘safe’ policy options, and recommendations were aimed at gradual, incremental change rather than more radical, dramatic change.

However, even the parties involved in the working groups are unhappy with the way the Commonwealth Government subsequently treated their reports and recommendations. Shortly after the working group reports had been published, Paul Keating had replaced Bob Hawke as Prime Minister after a Labor Party leadership struggle. The ESD process had been seen as a Hawke initiative and Paul Keating seemed to be less interested in sustainable development and some have argued that the ESD process lost its way with the change in leadership.

The working group reports were passed on to dozens of government committees, coordinated by an Intergovernmental ESD Steering Committee, which produced a draft National Strategy on Sustainable Development that was made available of public comment. Over 200 submissions were received and the final National Strategy on Sustainable Development was produced at the end of 1992, having been endorsed by all Australian governments (Commonwealth Government 1992). It described itself as “a broad strategic and policy framework under which governments will cooperatively make decisions and take actions to pursue ESD in Australia” (p. 17).

The Government claimed the ESD Working process was valuable in two key respects:

First, it produced wide ranging and innovative recommendations for action both within and across key sectors of activity. While unanimity was not reached in a number of areas, many of the recommendations had a wide measure of support from all the interests represented. Second, and equally important, it promoted a continuing dialogue between interests and community groups. As a result, there is a better understanding of the factual basis of the debate and a greater willingness from the broad range of participants to encourage action which takes account of all the interests involved. The reports of the ESD Working Groups have provided the foundation on which governments have developed this Strategy..... At its meeting on 7 December 1992, the Council of Australian Governments endorsed the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, noting that implementation would be subject to budgetary priorities and constraints in individual jurisdictions. The Council noted that the reports of the ESD Working Groups and Chairs have provided the foundation on which governments have developed the Strategy. The Council noted that the document is intended to play a critical role in setting the scene for the broad changes in direction and approach that governments will take to try to ensure that Australia's future development is ecologically sustainable. The Council agreed that the future development of all relevant policies and programs, particularly those which are national in character, should take place within the framework of the ESD Strategy and the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment which came into effect on 1 May 1992. The Council encouraged business, unions and community groups to use the ESD Strategy as a basis for actions which contribute to the pursuit of Australia's national goal for ESD.

The National Strategy was a shock for many of the participants in the working groups. Environmental groups, business groups and others were disappointed with the watered-down document produced by the government which like the Canadian Green Plan concentrated on information generation and dissemination but unlike the Green Plan did not come with a budget allocation for implementation. For example the 230 page Working Group Report on Manufacturing was reduced down to 3.5 pages in the National Strategy. The objectives and actions detailed in this section merely talked about giving advice, encouragement and support to industry to adopt environmentally sound practices but included no specific targets or goals or regulatory measures. Moreover the report included a major proviso:

It should also be recognised that many of the broad strategic directions and actions outlined in this Strategy will require substantial funding. In light of the very significant budgetary constraints facing all levels of government for the foreseeable future, each jurisdiction will determine its own priorities for implementation of actions following assessment of the budgetary priority they should command, both between indvidual ESD-related actions and against other competing demands for public funding (Commonwealth Government 1992, p. 18).

Researchers at the Institute for Science and Technology Policy at Murdoch University have argued that “it is erroneous to see ESD as an expense competing with other expensive demands.” They have argued that the lack of specific targets and time frames in the National Strategy casts doubt on the governments commitment to the ESD process (Barnes, Mouritz & Stocker 1992).

The National Strategy aims to continue the process of consensus decision-making by setting up ESD Roundtable meetings at the national level. During the 1996 election campaign, both parties announced very similar environmental policies. Like the Canadian politicians, Australian politicians realise that their best electoral chances lie with concentrating environmental benefits through large expenditures in particular areas where votes are needed, in this case in rural areas, without concentrating costs on any particular sector of the community. Both parties announced major spending initiatives, funded in one case by proposed privatisation of a public utility (Telsta) and in the other by more diligently policing tax avoidance, but their policies neglected direct regulatory measures to deal with pollution and other pressing environmental problems.

The process of decision-making has, to date, come up with very little challenge to the status quo. Recommendations in both the working group reports and the final strategy accepted the traditional frameworks of business activity, the priority of economic goals over environmental goals, and existing social or political structures, institutions and goals.

Back...