Home
* Contact * INDEX *
Current Issues * Priority Issues *
Reference Index * Selwyn's
Profile * Your
Comments
.
The Environment and How it is Managed
When
we talk about 'The Environment' we have to define fairly accurately what we are
talking about.
If
you live next door to the 'neighbours from hell' you don’t live in a good 'environment'
but is that what we mean when we use the global term 'environment'. Similarly,
how far back do we take 'environmental' matters in other distinct policy areas?
Immigration,
for example, do we consider environmental aspects in say setting an immigration
target?
Like
most things in both politics and government {and there is a difference} it's all
a matter of balance involving a number of competing ends. With government,
hopefully, this balance leads to better, more effective and more efficient
public interest management. In politics the benefit is generally directed to the
betterment of the 'party' and 'policy' without necessarily any gain to the
public.
In
government today money management is the name of the game, especially when you
elect not to collect taxes, but have the need or the desire to spend. In order
to manage budgets, and to allow for Nation wide comparison and control, it is
necessary to have the same terms meaning the same thing.
For
this reason budgets have something like 10 'Expenditure Categories' and this is
where 'pigeon holing' begins, with Health, Education, Defence and Environment
being some of the categories.
For
convenience in practical management, environmental issues are divided into 'the
brown' and 'the green'. 'The brown' includes the areas of air, water, noise
quality and issues of pollution generally, whereas 'the green' side of the
equation deals with matters of bio-diversity, native flora and fauna, reserved
land and the like. Into this equation put heritage and coastal management and we
already have a fairly wide area to cover.
Even
within these two areas, without the add-ons, two completely different sets of
expertise are required, and the areas operate as separate areas of style and
discipline even within the one administrative area.
So to
try to include into this administrative area things like weather {long and short
term}, town planning, development, transport and such, would become very
cumbersome.
To
overcome this we have an Executive and a Parliament. Each area of Government
actually competes for the available funds, and sometimes for funding that
isn’t available {borrowings}. So, if one area is dynamic, popular or in need,
the Government can direct resources in that direction. As a crosscheck on the
Executives decisions, we have the Parliament and particularly the Estimates
Debates and Estimates Committees as watchdogs.
While
the system is not perfect it is reasonably practical and there are controls.
Taking
the matter even further, our economy depends on growth. Not that it has to, but
as a statement of fact it does. Growth in the main depends on productivity, and
a market for that productivity. As the most secure market is the domestic
market, the idea is to bolster up the domestic market. If we don’t have the
population growth within the community we have to 'import consumers' and right
now Australia does this in spades.
Such
a course of action puts pressure on the environment, greater need for water,
hospitals, schools, housing, transport and such. So while the 'environment' is a
broad church in its own right, if we go to the end of its tentacles we include a
lot of the area of Government.
So
better to keep it segmented and separate, simply for ease of working!
RETURN
TO: INDEX
