Lessons from History

Details

Created on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:00

Written by Julian Amos

A Social Licence

Details

Created on Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:00

Written by Julian Amos

The term “social licence” is a term that is much used these days, essentially by activist organisations wanting to stop something from occurring.  It is a relatively new concept, and has only come into general use only over the last 10 years or so.

It is generally used to define the relationship between a business and the community in which it operates.  Interest groups have “encouraged” businesses to act in a certain way in order to obtain a social licence.  However, business operates under laws and regulations, and the term is one that can equally be directed at governments.

Governments operate under certain Acts of Parliament, face elections, and receive a continuing mandate from the electorate on the basis that actions conducted under such Acts continue.

If a government breaks its word, does not conform to the wishes of the majority, or abuses the rights of a minority, then it can equally be argued that the government has lost its social licence to govern.  Yet many interest groups call on government to break this social licence in order to promote their own agendas, claiming government has no social licence to act in the first place.

By way of example, Environment Tasmania claims that government has no social licence to continue to operate in native forest.  The “Tarkine National Coalition” claims social licence in its call for Heritage listing of the Tarkine.  The group “Markets for Change” is offering a social licence to retailers only if they purchase product made from a particular feedstock.  and so on.

These groups parade themselves as the true representatives of society with the authority to award and withdraw such licence.   These claims are worthy of some scrutiny,

Environment Tasmania (ET) states that it is a group that represents the interests of a number of conservation groups.  This is questionable, as each of these groups reserves the right to disagree when it suits them.  In fact, on many issues ET would appear to be just one person.

The Tarkine National Coalition sounds like an impressive organisation.  The title of this organisation is illuminating.  “Coalition” suggests a coming together of a wide range of interests, and “National” suggests a nation-wide interest.  In reality the coalition would appear to be a single person.  Even the word “Tarkine” is an artificial construct, a word that first appeared in 1986 to represent a piece of ground whose boundaries keep changing (and expanding) with each successive conservation claim.

Markets for Change is another group whose membership numbers are suspect.  It has recently appointed former Greens leader Peg Putt to spearhead its so-called “honesty campaign” yet it refuses to name the source of its budget.

And so it goes with each new group established in order to influence public opinion.  How many people really are active members of organisations claiming a “social licence” power such as the Huon Environment Centre, The Last Stand, Our Common Ground, Code Green and others, and how many of them are local, and what is the level of overlap between them all?

Even long-standing and respected conservation outfits, such as the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, can be manipulated by a singular interest.  The recent fracas surrounding lobster exports is essentially the view of one person not accepting the scientific evidence surrounding that fishery.  As an aside, it is of interest to note that “science” is used when it suits (eg with climate change), but is denigrated when it does not suit a broader agenda (eg forestry, aquaculture)

And then there is the situation where deliberate misinformation is paraded as fact.  The Wilderness Society is represented by individual campaign spokespeople who are encouraged to be outspoken to see what sort of a mark they can make – a badge of honour so to speak.  Such an approach encourages extreme behavior, and exposes the real purpose of this group, which is to stop things from happening at any cost.

Their latest ‘success’ has the Federal Environment Minister withdrawing an approval for a $1.4 billion investment at Weipa in Queensland, based primarily on a one-page flawed submission from the Wilderness Society regarding shipping movements.  Its arguments regarding the Tasmanian forests are also flawed, relying on emotive language (eg “ancient”,” iconic”) and based on spurious logic (eg “high conservation value”).  It does not bode well for the Minister’s independence in his upcoming review of the IGA process and the West report.

I do not deny for a moment the right to question, and the right to protest.  It is a fundamental tenet of an open and questioning society.  It is a sign of a healthy democracy.  But that is not the point here.  It is when such action involves deliberate distortion and misrepresentation, and on that basis causes significant disruption – economic and social - then it moves beyond a simple right to a much more sinister construct.

So how has it come to pass that these individuals and groups can wield such influence within the public arena?    From a business perspective, the targeting of markets has focused attention on the need to keep the community informed and engaged and on-side, which in turn has led to a more responsible approach to running the business.  It is called corporate social responsibility.

At a political level, politics has evolved into what can be described as a collaborative approach or a consensus style.  “Let’s try and get everyone in the same tent!”.  However, such an approach is basically a cop-out, because it is essentially saying that politics is simply about management.  And yet government is actually about leadership, which is a different beast altogether.

The alternative approach to consensus is conviction politics, where a government is elected on the basis of a policy platform, against an opposing platform.  It is an approach which by its nature is adversarial and competitive.  A competition of ideas.  This approach would appear to be out of favour, because it involves losers as well as winners, and politicians wish to appeal to everyone - which has led to the tweedle-dum tweedle-dee criticism of the two major parties.

Premier Bartlett’s Round Table was a classic example of the consensus approach, and was promulgated on the basis of finding a lasting peace.  However that peace is illusory because the competing claims simply cannot be reconciled.  When asked the question “Given the choice between industry and preservation, what is the government’s position/priority?” the answer was equivocal.  “We want both”.

Trying to get everyone on the same page is a tremendous goal, and should not be denigrated or discarded as a legitimate tool in the toolbox .  In some cases, it may actually work.  If it does work, fantastic.  Premier Bacon’s program of “Tasmania Together” was an attempt to do just that, and had some early success.

However, at the end of the day, every issue will find its crossroad, where a choice needs to be made.  And that choice should be based on the mandate given a government by the people, based on its stated policy position.  It should not be based on a few unelected individuals giving themselves grandiose titles and misrepresenting their identity.

It is this factor, the competition of ideas and the acceptance of a policy platform by the community, that gives a social licence to government.  All else is froth and bubble.

Where to for LABOR?

Details

Created on Thursday, 02 August 2012 10:00

Written by Julian Amos

Labor is waking up from a long long sleep to find its sleeping partner has gone, the house is trashed and the silver has been taken.  With a nasty hangover, it is now looking around and taking stock of the situation. 

I am talking of course of the relationship and the courting rituals between Labor and the Greens. Once the arrangement was regarded as secure.  Now, friends have become foes, and conversations that were once taboo are now being put out for public display, and many are questioning the wisdom of the past relationship.

It all began in the 1980’s when Senator Richardson, the then Federal Minister for the Environment, overruled the Helsham Committee findings into forestry in Tasmania, and on the urging of Bob Brown allocated further ground for preservation.  He now freely admits that his decision at the time was concerned not so much with the environmental issue of saving trees, so much as the political issue of gaining preference votes from the Greens.

For him it was an easy deal to do, to preserve more forest and have a slightly reduced access to a resource in exchange for preferences.  It proved up Labor’s environmental credentials in the eyes of those who mattered, especially in the urban seats of Melbourne and Sydney, and the preference deal was done.  Being the major party, the deal meant more to Labor than it did to the Greens.  Getting Green preferences helped Labor, more than Labor preferences helped the Greens.  And it seemed such a small price to pay.

The tactic worked - Labor won and held on to government federally.  However, the deal had a number of unintended consequences.

First, it encouraged voters who would at one time have voted for Labor to cast their first vote for the Greens.  After all, their vote would return to Labor under the preference arrangement.  So slowly but surely, a number of Labor voters became Green voters.

Second, it gave the Greens a place at the table.  And they exploited this position to the hilt.  Their environmental policies became the de facto environmental policies of Labor.  After all, the Greens were idealistic and caring, and wasn’t that what Labor was also about?

Third, it gave the Greens access to government, and in that regard, exposed them to another policy dimension.  Slowly but surely, the Greens expanded their brief from forests to other issues, and began to take over much of Labor’s social agenda.   It became the repository not only for votes but also for ideas and policy.  For Labor it was easier to play with the trappings of power than it was for them to be concerned with the hard yards of policy development. And in doing so, Labor became compromised

Then the arrangement started to become unstuck.

In Tasmania, the Labor Green Accord, established in 1989 to provide “stable government”, broke down over environmental issues, leaving a lasting legacy of bitterness between the participants.

At that time, the Greens had also commenced to endorse a full ticket of candidates, thereby enabling the vote to exhaust without flowing through to other parties.  This enabled them to not only operate independently of any other political party, but gave them greater clout because it gave them greater options, such as to exhaust or offer preferences.

And the Greens began to use their new-found power and authority by supporting a Liberal government in the late nineties.  Another relationship that broke down.

Their policy positions began to include social issues.  No longer were they the dreamers on the fringes of politics.  They were now not only offering environmental solutions, but running campaigns on the major social issues as well. They argued from a position of high moral principle, and their position hardened.  Impractical it might have been, but it sounded good.

Labor was now in a much weaker position, having lost primary votes to other parties, and had become more dependent on the Greens for their support and votes.  If Labor behaved, the Greens would allocate preferences to them, but if they did not, then the votes would be directed elsewhere.

Labor began to compromise on its social stances.  As Labor became more dependent on the Greens its voter base decreased.  Some, wanting to “save the planet”, had gone over to the Greens.  However many traditional Labor voters had viewed with concern the dalliance and had started to move their vote to the Liberals and elsewhere. 

The warning bells should have been ringing when Tasmanian timber workers cheered Prime Minister Howard during the 2004 campaign.  Their sense of betrayal was palpable.  The then Prime Minister captured the mood, and the drift became known as “Howard’s battlers”.

Federally we have seen the situation surrounding the mining tax, emissions legislation and asylum seekers, where Labor is now taking the odium for compromised policy positions, while the Greens maintain their purity arguing a purely ideological position and remaining intransigent to compromise. And locally, the forestry policy is a mess.

Labor has for too long been seduced by the argument that their one time ally is ideologically pure and caring. Appeasement has come at a cost - to their credibility and their base.  Labor has been bashed around the ears.  It is now waking up to the fact that its one-time friend is now its foe.  What was once benign has now become toxic.  Green Senators are now saying that they are the only party with values, that Labor has no values, and that they will take over from Labor as the progressive force in politics.  Labor’s reputation - its “house” - has been trashed and the voters – its “silver” - have gone.

And yet the real situation is that the Greens present ambit claims that cannot be realized, and promises that cannot be delivered.  It all sounds good in theory, but totally impractical and unrealistic

In Tasmania, we have even seen the strange spectacle of Green ministers choosing when they want to be in Cabinet, and when they don’t.  This image of the tail wagging the dog makes a mockery of the notion of cabinet responsibility, and of the government.

Arguments of balancing the budget or stable government ring hollow to those whose jobs have gone or are under threat. The Greens “high moral principle” actually represents a real threat to the job security of working people.  Being absolutist and pure is one thing – representing the interests and needs of people is quite another.

The recent by-election in the state seat of Melbourne, a contest between the Greens and Labor, was a narrow win for Labor and the latest wake-up call.  It now has a hard decision to make. It needs to win back its voter base.  It can try and win over the Green voters, or it can move back to its traditional base of supporting working people, and the people in need.  It cannot do both.  To do the former will court disaster as it will alienate its remaining support base, and the return to the fold would be minimal.

To follow the latter path will be its salvation.  Whether it be in forestry, mining or manufacturing, health care, education or pensions and welfare support, Labor must rediscover its policy positions and re-engage with its base.

The Advent Of Mob Rule

Details

Created on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:00

Written by Julian Amos

The recent withdrawal by the Chandler Corporation from taking an interest in Gunns has left the Premier “disappointed”.  She goes on to say she would be “very disappointed” if the orchestrated and well-funded campaigns of conservation groups and the fierce lobbying by those groups led to this decision.

Fighting words indeed from the Premier – not only to be “disappointed”, but to be “very disappointed”.  And this in the same week when in Parliament the Premier defended the right of one of her Ministers to sabotage this very investment against the policy of her government.

Democracy is by its essence rule by the majority.  Minority rights need to be protected, including the right of free speech. However, the will of the majority should prevail.  This is no longer occurring in Tasmania.

The Premier acknowledges that a majority of people and of Parliament are in support of the pulp mill development.  A minority, including some members of parliament, don’t want the development to proceed.  The minority view has been heard.  Their rights have not been trammeled on in this debate.

The proposal has the support of both Commonwealth and State Governments.  It has passed all the environmental requirements required of it.  It will source its feedstock from private plantations, so this is NO LONGER a forestry issue.

Yet a minority remain opposed to it.  So be it.  However, that is not good enough for the protest groups.  Their view is such that if they do not get their way, then they will take whatever disruptive action they see as appropriate in order that their view does prevail.

The conservation movement has demonstrated time and time again that they will stop at nothing to ensure they succeed in their endeavours.  Protest in the streets, invasion of work sites, disruption of businesses, lobbying financial institutions, damaging overseas markets, threatening overseas boycotts, whatever it takes for their will to prevail.

That is not democracy, that is mob rule.  And for a response – one would hope it would be more than to simply express “disappointment”.

When the challenge comes to our fishfarms, our mining operations, our agricultural enterprises and anything else that helps create wealth, what are we going to do?  Be very disappointed?  We have to do better than that.

Wealth creation is not a bad thing.  Not only is it the basic tenet for employing people, but it creates a tax base which helps pay for our schools, our hospitals and our public servants.  For those reading this article who are not in the wealth generation business, the present challenge to our natural resource-based activities is just as much an attack on you as it is on them.

Because there is the broader issue, which is that investors are frightened off from investing in Tasmania.  As much as the Greens may argue otherwise, there is no evidence whatsoever that their antics have actually attracted on e dollar of wealth-generating capital to this State.  And without investment, and jobs, there is now an exodus of people seeking employment out of the State.

As I have stated previously, eco-based consumer boycotts of this nature could be justified where there is irrefutable evidence of resource use causing significant and permanent environmental damage.  However, inciting consumer boycotts by deliberately promulgating misinformation to manufacture an unwarranted imperative for change constitutes a form of extortion.

The protest groups have received much media coverage, but little analysis of their position.  This in part is a result of misleading information that has been promulgated by these groups (eg use of plantation timber) and a conservation language that covers complicated matters with simple but meaningless generalisations (eg “ancient forests”, “high conservation value”, “sustainability”, “social licence”, “intergenerational equity”, etc). 

The phrase “social licence” has been bandied around a lot of late, but its relevance is arguable.  In its present context, it not only means if you don’t agree with the protestors then you will not have their support, but that they have the right to say your view is wrong and should not prevail.  Even if “your view” is a majority view.  It can even be used for the more sinister purpose of blackmail, to gain an advantage by threatening to claim the lack of “social licence”.        

And arguments of intergenerational fairness fall flat when the existing generation suffers for no good purpose.

As a recent editorial opined:  “certain people have …economic views informed by a neo-Arcadian fantasy of phasing out resource-based activity in favour of untried and untested technologies, which … leaves battlers paying to satisfy an eco-vanity.”  A high price indeed.  

Are we to accept the dictates of the mob?  To date it would appear to be the case, with arguments promulgated based on the right of free speech and the right of Cabinet Ministers to not act as Cabinet Ministers when they don’t want to.  However, this is nothing other than the politics of appeasement, of the tail wagging the dog, and the boundaries of this argument are already moving to other resource management and water catchment issues with a much wider brief, including aquaculture, agriculture, nature-based tourism and mining.

Our natural resources should play a part in our economy, and proper systems of management are in place to obtain a competitive sustainable advantage with them.  This is a more difficult road to follow, and those who advocate it will be pilloried by those who demand no activity at all. This is the vital issue to be confronted surrounding such protest action, which is the targeting of individuals and firms and organisations that do not agree with the views of the protesters.  

However, the argument must be mounted – already the declining fortunes of the forest-based industries are having a seriously detrimental effect on our State’s economic activity.  And all based on the myth of meaningless and emotional generalisations.

If mob rule becomes the order of the day, and more enterprises are targeted, then maybe the Premier could even become ”extremely disappointed”.  She will need to do better than that.