By Cam Walker
The election of the Coalition government is having a huge impact on the way the environment movement operates. Whereas a number of groups either tacitly or openly supported the Coalition in the pre-election period, the situation has changed radically in only a few months as the new government's world view and political agenda become clear.
What is remarkable to many in the environmental movement is that anyone could have believed that the Liberals had been born again (à la Senator Richardson?) and would "do the right thing" on the environment. Some went so far as to suggest that even the National Party had "reformed" itself on environmental issues and was worthy of support.
One of the environment movement's greatest problems that needs to be seriously addressed now is how green groups, especially those with a narrowly defined mandate or mission, position themselves in relation to the much broader social change movements around Australia. This was highlighted by the early debate about the Coalition's proposal to sell one-third of Telstra in order to fund part of the environment portfolio.
From the beginning, it was clear that this proposal, ostensibly to ensure adequate funding for the environment in a slash-and-burn federal budget, was a transparent ploy to force through the Coalition's privatisation policy. The public debate soon became one-dimensional and oversimplified in the mass media, with environment minister Senator Robert Hill and Prime Minister John Howard branding those opposing the sale as "dinosaurs" and "environmental vandals".
Despite opinion polls showing strong support for the position of the Democrats and the Greens in opposing the Telstra Bill in the Senate, the government continually browbeat anyone who opposed the sale, arguing that we could have funding for the environment, or a publicly owned Telstra, but not both. To their shame, a number of groups came out with "take the money and run" statements.
The timing of the Telstra environment debate was difficult, coming just after the election, with both the government and the green movement adapting to the new situation. Within the movement, and especially the peak conservation organisations, there was a reshuffling of power and relationships with the government. Both sides could have "given a little" and made compromises to ensure outcomes that suited everyone.
What was horrifying was that some groups were ready to sell out social concerns to support the government's proposed Natural Heritage Trust Fund. The kindest thing that can be said for this environment program, as proposed, was that it was ordinary; at worst, it signalled an increasing tendency to make the "environment" budget a "sustainable agriculture" budget. Why key green groups chose not to rail against this says a lot about the politics of these organisations.
The very worrying precedent was that if the Telstra sale were to proceed, then it could become a standard whereby, in the future, funding for essential services could be held hostage to further forced privatisations. Even if one were to accept this situation, there are obviously only a limited number of public utilities left to be sold. Any possibility of building alliances with other popular movements — such as the unions or social sector — becomes impossible if environmental organisations say that their funding needs and issues of concern are greater than anyone else's, and that, in effect, they will accept the right-wing agenda of the Coalition government by supporting this precedent.
The situation at the federal level is similar to that in Victoria after the Kennett government was elected. The government moved so fast on so many fronts that it was difficult to work strategically on issues; there was a sense of there being so many bushfires that it was impossible to get to the real cause of the fire. Federally, the green movement in just four months has faced the prospect of a huge expansion in Australia's involvement in the nuclear cycle through increased uranium mining; the approval of massive and unsustainable developments, such as Oyster Bay at Hinchinbrook; and a 40% increase in woodchipping from native forests.
The Wilderness Society has announced it is "leaving Canberra" because the government is so unresponsive that lobbying is no longer worthwhile. Many other groups are looking to return to the grassroots organising that was the hallmark of the movement in its earlier days, with tactics including consumer boycotts and broadly based alliances. The practical reality of campaigning — whether at the local, state or national level — is that the environment movement is under-resourced and overworked, which can at times cloud strategic thinking. We are in a period of regroupment and evaluation of our tactics: what has worked, what hasn't and what needs to change.
At such a time, it is useful to look at how the movement has evolved in recent decades. This was addressed by Phil Shannon in his article "Red and Green: too late to get together?" (Green Left Weekly, April 17, 1996; FrontLine, June 1996). We must recognise that the movement has, in many ways, grown up with Labor in power. The vast majority of people currently active in the movement have lived most, if not all, of their adult life under a federal Labor government. From the days of the Franklin River campaign, which saw the then government acknowledge the power of the movement to sway elections, Labor systematically incorporated the movement into the structures of government.
While this certainly influenced the direction of government, it also had a profound impact on movement tactics, strategies and political outlook. The early days, which brought a number of important environmental victories, suggested that results would be achieved if the movement chose the "right" party at election time. Labor's 13-year reign meant that for a number of green groups this type of cultivated friendship with the government is the way it had always been.
Now things have changed entirely. Those early months of "give them time" have now gone, and it is clear that the government is rigorously enforcing its economic rationalist world view, and that not even the environment will be spared. Some ill will remains between green groups, because support from some sections of the environment movement for the Telstra-environment deal was considered to be an act of treason to other movements.
Certainly, the days of getting a "return" from a close relationship with the government are gone. It is still too early to see what the current re-evaluation will produce. Old habits die hard, and it is likely that a substantial amount of time will still go into lobbying. With the current balance of power in the Senate, it is vital that the Greens, Democrats and friendly elements in the ALP are not abandoned. Any destructive policy that can be stopped in parliament is one that doesn't have to be fought later.
The movement needs to be strategic in its lobbying and apply more of a "movement" perspective and allegiance, rather than the existing "organisational" one that sees different groups vying with each other. This will be especially important as resources become more scarce, and there is little doubt that the government will persevere with divide-and-conquer tactics to build distrust between green groups and keep the movement inwardly focused.
However, there are clear signs that there is already a move to more grassroots organising. Small local groups continue to flourish — although not at the rate of the early 1990s — while national groups are facing stagnant or dwindling memberships and incomes. One danger is that local groups will not embrace broader agendas that extend beyond their own projects, thus leading to a depoliticisation of the movement.
The increasingly grassroots nature of the movement may be supported by larger groups, which would find a new niche in supporting and training these groups. In turn, national groups could concentrate on policy development and strategic lobbying to ensure adequate legislation and planning frameworks. Once these are in place, we won't have to fight the endless issue-specific battles that currently involve us.
The movement also needs to clarify its relationship with broader movements, especially those under assault from the common foe, the government. Issues such as the sale of Telstra, privatisation and cutting of the social sector provide an opportunity for people to find common ground.
The sight of green activists and unionists blockading the annual meeting of RTZ-CRA must surely be a snapshot of the direction in which the movement should be heading. Although green-worker alliances are often quoted as articles of faith for those of us at the interface between the union and environment movements, they do present a very possible future direction for the movement. Rather than being based on high-level peak agreements, perhaps the starting point is to support workers' struggles; you don't have to travel far to find one, and joining a picket or vigil or union rally — especially under the banner of a green group — is a good and practical start.
[Cam Walker is an activist based at Friends of the Earth, Melbourne. This article first appeared in FrontLine.]