By Clare Henderson
In 1994, for the first time, environment groups made comprehensive pre-budget submissions to the federal government. The parliamentary Greens and the Democrats also made submissions which recommended integration of environment and economic policy.
Common to all the green submissions was an emphasis on the need for economic development to be linked to environmental protection, through mechanisms to promote green jobs, cleaner production and sustainable resource development. Their proposals included innovative revenue raising to pay for programs.
All groups were disappointed, although not surprised, that the 1994-95 budget shows no innovation or gain in environmental policy. Overall environment funding has been cut, and once again the government treated the environment as an issue separate from the economy, and did not take opportunities to "green" existing or new economic programs.
The budget papers state that there has been an increase in environmental protection outlays of 21.3% in real terms over the last decade, yet the appropriations for 1994-95 show a decrease in the principal Environment Program alone of 1.6% in dollar terms (the Environment Program only incorporates the activities falling under the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and its agencies — the Australian Heritage Commission; Australian Nature Conservation Agency and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority).
The budget papers also predict that outlays in the "environment protection" will decline in future years due to the completion of current commitments.
Many other departments also have specific environmental programs such as the National Landcare program, Eco-tourism Strategy, components of the National Urban and Regional Development Program, National Bike Strategy and international contributions through Foreign Affairs and Trade. Not all of these are clearly identified in the budget, making a true assessment of environmental program funding difficult.
The broad range of departments with some type of "environment protection" program highlights the need for an "environment budget statement" which outlines not only specific environmental programs but also the environmental effects of all policy and program initiatives.
A disturbing aspect is the general trend across all departments for non-expenditure of 1993-94 allocations. Some shortfalls in the environment area include: National Estate and Parks down $29 million; Environment Program down $7.7 million; Natural Resources and Landcare, down $5.2 million.
Another trend is the use of existing resources for new initiatives, such as the measures to control wildlife exports and wetlands protection, both of which are to be funded from "existing resources" of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency.
The budget, through the employment white paper, announces changes which will allow greater private provision of infrastructure, including energy transmission and distribution, water supply and sewerage works. Additionally, the changes require government infrastructure projects to be profitable.
These measures will almost certainly be bad for the environment, as managers are forced to squeeze profit out of air, water and energy. The right of every person to clean air, water and energy may be threatened.
[Clare Henderson is co-editor of Chain Reaction, the national magazine of Friends of the Earth Australia.]