A new plan, a new paradigm
A new plan for dealing with industrial development in WA’s Kimberley region has been announced by Environment Minister Peter Garrett. The Kimberley is home to whale and turtle breeding grounds, coral reefs, ancient Aboriginal rock art, and has World Heritage listed sites. But it’s also home to a lot of natural gas deposits, nickel, diamonds and oil…
Previously, the Wilderness Society, the WWF, the Conservation Council of WA and FARA (and probably several more groups) were trying to preserve the region. Industrial companies working in the region include Woodside, Rio Tinto and BHP. Their mining leads to land clearing and increased water usage - which results in increased extinctions of local native plants and animals, and degradation of wetlands. The Woodside development has already destroyed some of the Aboriginal rock art, which is over 30,000 years old. But all that mining has been contributing to the resources boom in our north, providing more money and more jobs, with flow-on effects that benefit many Australians. So you can’t just ban any development at all, it’s not practical.
Garrett has proposed a unified development plan - instead of the current bits and pieces of development scattered over the region, with various environment groups protesting separately, everyone will be asked to contribute to a plan for the whole region, working with the WA government. The idea is that development will be gathered together in one area, the Browse Basin, while the rest of the region will remain free from heavy industries. At first, a few eco-groups were a bit miffed that they hadn’t been consulted, but now I’ve seen several press releases from green groups praising the new plan - the WWF has even called it a “paradigm shift”.
Is this what we can expect now that we’ve got a Minister for the Environment who’s actually campaigned for environmental issues before becoming a politician? Fewer talk-fests and “community consultations” designed to make people feel like the government might actually do the right thing, which are really delaying tactics in disguise? More diving right in with a plan of action? Garrett is one of the few ministers to actually have hands-on experience with his portfolio - he used to be the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and was well known for protesting against uranium mining in the Northern Territory. He’s also Minister for the Arts, which is a good fit too given his Midnight Oil background.
In the past, ministers for health haven’t ever worked in a hospital; ministers for education haven’t been teachers; and only occasionally do ministers for financial issues have any experience with economics or finance. We’ve had a bunch of career politicians, ex-lawyers, and ex-CEOs. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with someone who actually knows the issues they’re responsible for.
PS - I tried to find photos of Garrett actually protesting at Jabiluka or similar, but they’re not available for me to just take. This photo came from his own website, which also includes a list of books and websites he recommends. I see a few that I already know and like, so I’ll be checking out a few of those I haven’t heard of before.
Tags: Kimberley, mining, World Heritage areas
February 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am
What MR Garret lacks apperntly is political courtesy. Kimberley Indigenous groups who have been working hard as the sole support for thier environment and true culture of the Kimberely have just had several years of hard work and sustainable negotiations slapped in the face by abrupt and vote mongering comments without prior consoltation with the true stakeholders of the Kimberely the Aboriginal communities and its other residents who call the Kimberely home.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Thank you for writing about this. I don’t often take notice of news, so I’m always behind in my current affairs. I would like to just ban all development! but then my plan for the world is kind of out-there.
Garrett does seem to be doing a lot of good things since his election, but climate change isn’t figuring so much. I know it’s not his portfolio, but it is kind of important. Re: ministers not having experience of their portfolio. I once read that this is necessary because if they’ve worked in the area before they may have a vested interest (obviously this is a good thing in Garrett’s case). Their staff are meant to do the research in order to find out about the area, from all points of view. And ministers do have an army of staff.
Your link to “green groups praising the new plan” is an ABC story that mentions WWF and Environs Kimberley. Are there other groups who like the plan? I don’t like WWF Australia because they have a habit of praising the federal government and resource companies. See what I wrote about them here (at the end of the post). Some would say its not capitulation, but working together. Perhaps I’m just too pessimistic.
Good luck with running from the huntsman spiders
February 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Kymberley, I know Indigenous groups in the region have been working really hard to preserve the natural environment and culture there - but do you really think it’s a bad idea to get a co-ordinated response going among the many other groups who’ve been working there too? I think it will pool the resources for environmental work instead of having each small group struggle for recognition and assistance.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Clare, thanks for the info about why ministers aren’t often experienced in their portfolios. It makes a lot of sense, and I’d prefer not to have conflicts of interest, particularly in areas like finance and trade!
The WWF isn’t my favourite green group by any means, although I feel like it’s worth following what they’re doing. I read your link, and have bookmarked the The Australia Institute report for later - I’ve generally been on board with stuff from Hamilton and TAI in the past, so if they’re not happy with WWF I think that’s really important to consider.
I do think that it’s good to have green groups that are willing to work with businesses though - corporations won’t turn eco-pure overnight, but if they’re willing to make a start then we can hold them to higher standards as they go along. If they don’t even acknowledge the environment as an issue, it’s hard to get any kind of action at all.
As for other green groups, the ACF approves of the Kimberley plan so far, although you’ll notice that they call it a ‘first step’ only and intend to follow up on the details as they become available.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“In the past, ministers for health haven’t ever worked in a hospital; ministers for education haven’t been teachers; and only occasionally do ministers for financial issues have any experience with economics or finance.”
Not entirely accurate. Much as I loathe the previous govt, one of its health ministers, a Dr Michael Woolridge, was actually a doctor. There are other examples. Peter Baume, another Liberal health minister, was also a doctor.
David Kemp, who was Education Minister in the former govt, was previously a university lecturer. Susan Ryan, a former Labor EM was a school teacher.
Simon Crean, former Labor treasurer, has a degree in economics, as did John Dawkins, another former Labor treasurer and minister for finance. And Ralph Willis had a commerce background, arguably also relevant. Margaret Guilfoyle, a Liberal minister of finance, had an accounting degree.
There are more examples. I think the argument about vested interests is specious, personally - there are fairly strict rules about what politicians are allowed to invest in, and if they don’t have a financial interest, having a good working knowledge of their portfolio is an advantage, I’d have thought. That said, they have plenty of expertise in the form of advisers and their departments, and their job is to make decisions, not to know off the top of their heads every detail about their portfolios.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Wow, I didn’t know that - thanks so much for sharing the info. I’m not surprised by the finance/economics backgrounds, but the health and education ones are good to know.
I do think having background knowledge of the issues would be good for the ministers - I wouldn’t expect Garrett, for example, to be word-perfect on the nitty gritty of every ecological niche in Australia, but it helps that he’s aware of the sorts of problems that are likely to arise, and tactics that have been tried in the past for similar problems.
The more I think about it, as long as financial interests are declared and known to the public, I don’t see that much of a problem with it. However, that relies on politicians to be honest, or the media to actually investigate things, so I dunno how reliable a course of action that’d be