Sustainable Development: The Union Perspective

Links:

ACTU Workers and Unions

I speak as the ACTU's Co-ordinator for the ESD Working Group process, a task which my union volunteered to undertake. Given the economic recession, and the immense agenda that the Australian trade union movement has set itself in restructuring work processes and the very structure of the union movement itself, allocating the desired level of resources to what is obviously a key public policy issue has not been possible. Nevertheless the ACTU participated in all nine working groups, a task undertaken by no other peak organisation, and is in the process of further developing its own policies to take ESD issues into account....

The ESD reports

To return to the immediate focus of today's forum; the ESD reports. The ACTU has welcomed the release of the reports, but has expressed disappointment that more was not achieved in the year-long process. I would be surprised if any participant or reader of the reports considered the process to be an unqualified success. The reports are often overly wordy, sometimes impenetrable, and couched in terminology that was carefully designed to obtain the consent of all participants rather than to present to the government and public a clear vision or description of an ecologically sustainable future.

The exercise has nevertheless been a success in a number of ways. I see three major benefits:

• firstly, it has helped develop a dialogue where previously there was only conflict, and has thereby set up the basis for improved decision-making;
• secondly, it has focused the debate by defining broad areas of agreement and highlighting the outstanding disagreements; and
• thirdly, it has identified some of the longer term and more intractable issues that we must face up to; that our current market and non-market systems do not cope with effectively and which will require the development of a new strategic vision and a new role for governments and public administration.

In the first case, it has brought to the negotiating table participants in the environment debate who have never been there before. In Australia, since the election of the Labor government in 1983, we have had tripartite consultative processes in many areas, where government, trade unions and business have attempted to resolve differences or at least reach negotiated compromises on key issues. Of course, it doesn't eliminate conflict, but it stands in stark contrast to the confrontationist approach of other nations which have left societies bitterly divided and with zero social consensus on future directions.

However, the environment debate has not, till now, been part of that process. As a result we have had major conflict between development and the environment, with battles in the media and "on the ground" between environmentalists, business and trade unions. As a result we have often had governments making policy "on the run" on the basis of who shouts loudest and how near the next election is. The decisions that have been made have often pleased no one, and have served neither the interests of the environment nor of people or of industry.

If nothing else, the ESD Working Group process has established a process of consultation and dialogue which will enable policies that address the sustainable development issue to be made on a more rational and considered basis. We must seek to avoid any spread of the debacle that is the forest industry debate in this country.

The second major, and immediate, result of the Working Group process has been a narrowing of the points of conflict to specific issues. Consensus or tentative agreement has been reached in some areas, whilst the major differences of view yet to be reconciled have been highlighted. There is agreement that Australia must have further development, and that as a developed nation we have a responsibility to assist other nations to develop in the most sustainable way possible. There is agreement that we need broader definitions of development than simply Gross Domestic Product or GDP per person; we need a greater emphasis on quality of life indicators such as literacy levels, public health, income distribution and equality of opportunity, as well as ecological indicators. There is agreement that we can have economic growth without equal or greater increases in resource use per unit of growth; it is possible to produce wealth without using ever increasing amounts of material resources and energy.

It is even agreed that mining is an industry which is crucial to Australia's future.What is not agreed are questions like:

• how effective is current minesite rehabilitation, and what are the limits to the practice of "multiple land use"
• where the same piece of land fulfils both conservation and economic roles;
• what should be the ground rules for the expansion of the network of national parks and conservation areas; should proposed sites be exam ined for both their ecological and mineral values, or only on ecological criteria;
• how strong should measures be to deal with soil degradation, chemicals use and forest clearance in farming;
• what sort of pricing and regulatory measures should governments take to encourage the development of a less resource-intensive transport sector, and to transform our highly inefficient and polluting cities;
• finally, and most crucially, there has been no agreement on the role of energy pricing in achieving sustainable energy use, or the longer term role of fossil fuel energy sources, especially coal, in Australia's economic development.

Everybody seems to agree that we should use energy more efficiently, and that we should seek to use Less of it for any given activity. There is even agreement that the most appropriate technology should be used for any particular application. So we should have programs to achieve much greater use of solar/gas hot water heaters, and the use of gas in domestic cooking applications.

But the Working Groups have not recommended any across-the-board increase in the price of energy, of any size, as a means of either forcing changes in consumption by itself, or as a means of financing energy efficiency programs.

In this key area, business groups and the State governments were totally opposed to any new energy tax on the basis that sound grounds for its introduction and appropriate size had not been established. Environmental groups were in favour of a small "climate change levy" in order to finance their alternative energy programs, but were very unclear as to the size and exact workings of the tax or levy. Some federal government departments were in favour, on the grounds that it was or is the appropriate market solution to a perceived problem, whilst others were opposed because they could see the adverse implications for Australian industry. Welfare groups are opposed, because they see the tax as inherently regressive. The ACTU representatives on the Working Groups expressed interest in the idea of such a levy, but only on the basis that it does impact adversely on our international competitiveness or on social equity.

The reason? Energy is a key consumption item and a fundamental necessity of life. Arbitrarily increasing the price would impact more on the poor and disadvantaged than on higher income groups. Further, a major part of Australia's comparative advantage in international trade is based on energy and on energy-intensive products. So, in the absence of international consensus on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it does not make sense for Australia to raise energy prices which would inevitably increase inequality in our society and hurt our international trading position which is already poor.

This leads me to the third major outcome of the ESD Working Groups. Whilst maintaining a focus on the here-and-now, and in general recommending the "greening" of our current industries rather than the creation of alternatives, the groups have thrown up some longer term issues which must not be under-estimated in their gravity.

The structure of our cities and our transport sector have been found to be unsustainable in the long run. Many of our manufacturing industries face the daunting prospect of upgrading their waste management practices to previously inconceivable standards. Soil degradation and loss of water quality are a continuing problem which threatens to devastate large parts of this continent. The massive contamination of Australia's largest river in recent weeks highlights how close to certain biological limits we already are.

Most difficult of all is the question of fossil fuel use. If further scientific research confirms our worst fears about global warming, then major and costly global action to avert the change will become necessary. Whilst there are many low or zero cost measures that will mitigate global warming, there are no overall solutions that will meet "Toronto" style targets painlessly, and any environmental group which says so is deceiving its membership and the public. Further, Australia is more dependent than most nations on fossil fuels. In fact, our low cost energy supplies are the basis of our largest export industry, coal, and the basis of many resource-processing industries such as aluminium and iron and steel, which have been identified previously as the basis of Australia's economic future. Strong greenhouse measures may well destroy such a future. What we are good at producing will no longer be wanted. The basis of our current standard of living will be gone. Our net foreign debt will spiral out of control.

It is in the face of such grim scenarios that the strategies of government must be rethought. The rhetoric of free markets and of the level playing field, much favoured by both the Federal Government and the Opposition in this country cannot come to grips with a radical restructuring of the long term future of this country. None but the bravest orthodox economist believes that a simple altering of prices in the market place will of itself produce a solution to the dilemma. Comparative advantage and economic .prosperity are not achieved overnight; they are the result of both natural endowments and of conscious economic strategy. The loss of a major comparative advantage will not automatically lead to the creation of another, at least not without immense social and economic dislocation.

The current "hands-off" approach of most public policy; the absence of strategic industry development policy, is compounded by the attitude of much of business in this country. Only a few have research and development, investment and business growth strategies that span more than ten years. It is in the nature of business that it cannot think in the long term; the dictates of the market are that assets today, and returns in the next few years, are worth much more than assets and profits in 30 years time. Only today's generation are players in the market place; the generations of the future have no market power. So companies are largely incapable of conducting their activities on the longer term basis that society needs if it is to meet the challenge of sustainability.

As I see it, this is the core challenge of ESD. Whilst Australian trade unions are restructuring themselves for the 21 st century, whilst we are developing and redeveloping industry policy to ensure Australia's economic security in the coming decades, many in business, bureaucracy and government want to believe that fiddling with pricing and correcting market mechanisms will produce the solutions. The evidence is emerging that the market simply cannot, in many cases. appropriately value and manage natural assets on a long term, inter-generational basis.

This is not to say that markets do not play a key role; they do. No one wishes for a centrally planned economy; and trade unions are certainly not naive enough to think that governments and bureaucrats can or should replace freedom of choice in the market place. But the message of ESD is that governments have a responsibility to both this generation and those yet to come. In a world where resources are not really finite for practical purposes but the capacity of our planet to absorb our use of them is, governments will be required to develop long term strategic visions; visions which do not seek to simply capitalise on what is already there, but which seek to develop new industries; new ways of living and working, new markets and market structures, and new choices for players in those markets.

That, to me, is what sustainable development means. It is occasionally hinted at in the Reports but it is certainly not the agreed conclusion. The debate is still young. It is evident that Australia is a world leader in formulating policy in this way and that we cannot look to packaged solutions from other nations. Much of the research now being undertaken in Australia on energy use and economic modelling has not been done by the OECD, the International Energy Agency or any other nation; again we are world leaders. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of learning to do. Most importantly, there is a desperate need for intensive information sharing and dissemination on ESD issues, so that easy options can be implemented now, and so that the entire community is aware of the benefits and costs of the harder options.

Further, there is a need to internationalise the debate. At the moment it seems to me that each nation is choosing to go its own way, developing policies that suit its own combination of environmental problems and economic imperatives. At the international level it seems that opportunism rather than altruism are the order of the day, which no doubt brings a smile to the face of most economists. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in June 1992 is in danger of turning into a straight battle over foreign aid between Developed and Developing Countries; the familiar North/South conflict. It is to be hoped that, for the sake of the planet and those who live on it, that a more positive agenda is is at least set in motion.

Back...