As I write this article the time window for public comment on the draft of the National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES Standard) has just closed.
Justine Bell-James, Professor at the TC Beirne School of Law who reviewed the standards in detail after they were released 4 weeks ago, crystalised what many people who care about the environment intuitively know, “in essence – this will take us back to square one. Tick some procedural boxes and make whatever decision you like”. So, it is surely no surprise that in conversations with people about whether they were planning to make a submission, many have expressed a “what’s the point mindset”.
There is now ample evidence that these public consultations are nothing more that performative political theatre and greenwashing. People simply don’t trust the government when the recommendations of so many enquires have been ignored. And, let’s face it they have a point – there is an endless list of state and federal governments ignoring public opinion.
Federal Labor Online gambling reform
The Labor federal government committed to online gambling reform, yet the legislation it now proposes falls massively short of the recommendations of its own inquiry and public expectations.
To hide this, “Labor dropped their long-awaited gambling report on budget day. Were they betting no one would notice?” a Guardian article outlines, concluding, “everyone is also waiting for more detail about what is to be done, and whether the government’s rhetoric on addressing gambling harms will match its actions.”
Victorian State Labor Inquiry Into Duck shooting
You could equally look at the Victorian state Labor enquiry into duck shooting. Despite a 2023 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry recommending a total ban on recreational duck shooting, the Allan Labor Government just rejected the recommendation.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-29/duck-hunting-to-remain-legal-in-victoria/103399288
This was despite receiving over 10,000 public submissions—the most ever recorded for a parliamentary committee in the state and the report acknowledging the level of public sentiment against duck shoot. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/4a9151/contentassets/1dbd275555b9401a93f298ec115c421f/lc-native-birds-60-01_vic_rec_nativebirdhunting.pdf
But this isn’t only a Labor government issue.
Joint Parliamentary Inquiry Into Domestic Trade In Elephant Ivory & Rhino Horn
When then federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg, nominated then Craig Kelly MP – a member of the conservative right-wing faction inside the Liberal Party – to Chair the enquiry, it came a surprise that his 2018 report recommended closing down the domestic trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn in Australia, acknowledging this received bipartisan support. The then Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley, announced that Australia would close down the domestic trade in elephant and rhino products in 2019, at CITES CoP18.
The federal government still hasn’t closed this trade. They are using the same performative techniques that all federal governments use – let’s pretend it is a state government issue, when it isn’t. As an Australian constitutional lawyer confirmed, “Under the Australian Constitution, when a federal law and a state law are inconsistent, the state law is invalid”, continuing, “You have to have a rule like this in a federal country like Australia”.
So, let’s be clear, the Albanese Government’s announcement that it will provide more than $45 million to progress bilateral agreements with states and territories so as not to duplicate environmental approvals associated with environmental law reforms, is equally performative theatre.
Royal Commision Into Femicide
The tragic scale of this is summarised by Professor Jess Hill, a UTS researching gender-based violence. In an opinion piece she says, “Australians want a royal commission into femicide. What haunts me is wondering if it’ll be enough to make leaders act”.
She goes on to say, “The solutions to ending gender-based violence aren’t a mystery. The problem is that governments refuse to act on them”, continuing, “More than 15 years after Australia first implemented a national plan to end gender-based violence, public frustration has reached a boiling point”. This frustration has led to more than 110,000 people signing a petition calling for a federal royal commission into femicide, in the hope that the process “will force governments to take it seriously”.
Over the past 50 years Australia has held more than 130 royal commissions, placing a powerful microscope on some of the most intractable areas of social injustice. But they can also end up being vehicles for cathartic truth-telling that leads to little or no actual change.
When there is little evidence that people believe that politicians and their parties care enough to solve domestic and family violence, you can understand why their addiction to growth mindset means they won’t do anything useful for wildlife and the environment.
If Inquiries And Royal Commissions Aren’t Trusted – What Next?
When parliamentary inquiries and even royal commissions are becoming performative in nature, what hope is there for acting on the input from public consultation? People have realised now that making a submission would actually be counterproductive – it validates a hollow process that only exits to perpetuate the appearance of democracy.
Is it time to test something different?
There is no question that Australians want stronger environmental standards. This was clarified by the recent Biodiversity Concerns Survey. In terms of the policies that voters most strongly support it found that:
- Labor voters most strongly support strengthening national environmental laws (82%), establishing national standards (80%), and establishing new national parks (78%).
- Liberal party voters identified establishing new marine parks (71%), regulating logging under national law (71%), and strengthening environmental laws (70%) as their top supported policies.
- National Party voters listed establishing national standards (65%), strengthening environmental laws (64%), and investing in science (64%) as their top supported policies.
- Greens voters strongly supported strengthening national environmental laws (86%) and establishing national standards (83%), protecting native species habitats from development (83%), along with establishing new national parks (82%).
Yet, the proposed environmental standards confirm that the Albanese government isn’t moved by public sentiment. The current consultation on national environmental standards has to be seen in the same vein as all the other instances of ignoring public opinion – its purely performative, ticking the required boxes but in the end doing what industry demands, which is the lowest, least restrictive standards that they feel they can get away with.
With the main political parties and One Nation having no intention of doing anything about strengthening environmental laws, the question arises why the independents are equally disinterested in this topic. They profess to caring about climate action but have very little in the way of biodiversity policies.
The lack of evidence that independents are willing to step into this void seems a missed opportunity, clearly spelt out by the Biodiversity Concerns Survey. That voters want alternatives is obvious from the fracturing of the two-party system and the strong shift towards a radical departure from the status quo, as evidenced by the surging One Nation vote.
When we have reached a level that citizens don’t trust at the government will take any meaningful action, even with the recommendations of a royal commission, what can be done?
The first thing the government must hear is that people haven’t made submissions to public consultations not because they don’t care but because they simply don’t believe in them anymore.
Representative democracy is clearly failing anyone who cares for wildlife and ecosystems. Is it time for Australia’s national environmental laws and standards to be decided by a Citizens’ Assembly?
They have been shown to successfully deal with intractable issues, where it is difficult for politicians to do so, which is certainly the case for the Commonwealth government when it comes to environmental policies and laws. This is a pragmatic example of how democracies can renew themselves.
Sould citizens assemblies be given the chance to drive the necessary change? As the saying goes, if the current strategy isn’t working, it is time to change the strategy. And when it comes to Australian wildlife and the environment, the current strategy really isn’t working and hasn’t for decades.
Lynn Johnson is a physicist by education and has worked as an executive coach and a strategy consultant for over 20 years. In her work she pushes for systemic change, not piecemeal solutions, this includes campaigning for modernising the legal trade in endangered species, to help tackle the illegal wildlife trade.
