Why there should be a stand-alone environment department

However, we have felt compelled to issue this clarifying statement, as having re-looked at the media release, and re-looked at some of the posts made on Tas Times in response to our media release, it has become clear that some posters have either misunderstood or misrepresented the thrust of our comments on the Environment Department and the need for one in Tasmania.
First of all, let us clarify what Environment Tasmania (ET) has said about the axing of DEPHA, at the time of the decision to axe the department, and since:

* The decision to axe the Department sent a very poor signal about the Tasmanian government’s commitment to the environment in Tasmania – and was a big step in the wrong direction;

* The decision to also cut funding to Parks & other environment related portfolio areas was also a very poor decision, and a big step in the wrong direction;

* The housing of Environment related portfolio areas within the same Department or under the carriage of the same Minister who has primary responsibility for resource extraction portfolio areas or industries that often have interests that come into conflict with the interests of the environment creates very clear conflicts of interest;

* Tasmania is now the only state in Australia that doesn’t have a stand-alone Environment Department free from resource extractive industries. We have obviously, before and during the original decision to axe DEPHA, closely looked at the Departmental structures of other states and territories – and, as far as we can see, there is no other Departmental structure that actually has Primary Industries or resource extractive industries embedded within the same Department, or under the jurisdiction of the same Minister as the Department that houses environmental responsibilities; and

* An Environment Department plays a crucially important governance and environmental protection role within government. An Environment Department needs to be able to give free, frank and fearless advice to the relevant Minister and to cabinet, that is unfettered, and that gives a crystal clear indication of what the real or potential environmental implications of government decisions will be, so that Ministers and Cabinet can make an informed decision about what impacts their decisions may be having on the environment. Similarly, of course, there should be a Department and Minister that advocates for the interests of Primary Industries, Fishing, Forestry and Mining. However, the interests of the Environment, and the interests of these industries sometimes come into conflict, and housing parts of these two sectors within the same Department or under the jurisdiction of the same Minister creates clear conflicts of interest, and we believe, poor outcomes for the environment.

Obviously, within the confines of one short media release, we didn’t complete a detailed structural breakdown of the different segments of what should be housed within an Environment Department in Tasmania, such as the EPA, Water, Threatened Species, Pollution control, etc. However, we have done that in the past, and will, I’m sure, do so again in the future. (Please download the detailed critique of the Tasmanian Government’s budget and its relevance for the environment, including all departmental sections, that was posted on Tas Times by Environment Tasmania earlier in the year).

Let us also make it crystal clear about what Environment Tasmania at no stage what-so-ever has claimed, but it appears that we have been mis-interpreted or misquoted as having said:

* At no point has ET said or implied that threatened species was housed in DEPHA before its axing;

* At no point have we attacked the integrity, professionalism or intentions of the staff who work within the various environment related portfolio areas within the Tasmanian government bureaucracy. (In fact, our criticisms of the decision to axe DEPHA, and our critique of the current Departmental structure and suggestions for reform, shouldn’t even necessarily be seen as a criticism of the relevant Minister(s) either – they are a critique of the current departmental structure). We have strongly criticised the decision to axe DEPHA, and have strongly criticised certain policy decisions on the environment made by Government or by certain Ministers where we believe those decisions are not in the best interests of the environment, but that is completely different than criticising the role, intentions and professionalism of staff. In fact, our belief is quite the reverse, that the vast majority of staff who work within the bureaucracy, work incredibly hard, do the very best that they can to act in the best interests of the environment & the public, but unfortunately do so with meagre resources, and within a system that is in need of some structural reform. Such reform won’t be a magic bullet – but has the potential to greatly improve environmental governance and environmental outcomes in Tasmania;

* At no point in time have we stated that, despite the axing of DEPHA, there isn’t still an EPA, (though an incredibly scarcely resourced one), that there aren’t other important and useful environmental protection mechanisms in place within legislation and within government such as EMPCA and the Environment Division, or that there aren’t other mechanisms in place for cooperation across the bureaucracy and across departmental sections, etc; and

* Of course we understand that Infrastructure, Energy and Resources are housed within DIER – but the point is that the same Minister that has carriage for these portfolio areas, also has carriage for Threatened species and the Department that currently houses most of the Environment related portfolio areas.

By all means, if there is a belief that the decision to axe DEPHA was a good one, or the decision to cut funding for the Parks & Wildlife service and other environment related areas was a good one, please argue that case forcefully and strongly. If you believe that a single, stand-alone Environment Department that looks after public land management and all environment related portfolio areas is a bad idea for Tasmania, please put your case forward aggressively. Similarly if you believe that it is a good idea to have threatened species housed within a department or under the carriage of a Minister that also has primary responsibility for industries that potentially may have a detrimental impact on those threatened species – please argue the case forcefully and stridently. But please do not play a game of playing the man and not the ball, or of misrepresenting our statements or policy suggestions to distract and divert attention away from what is a very important and serious policy debate for Tasmania.

We’ll be signing out on this one for now, but will continue to articulate our belief in the strong case for a stand-alone Environment Department for Tassie.

Download analysis: Tasmanian_Government_Budget_Environment_Analysis.pdf