When ‘further consultation’ is code for ‘let’s kick the can down the road’
Writing my last blog about a climate trigger prompted me to go back to the government’s April 2024 statement justifying its decision to put most of the Nature Positive Plan reforms on a slow track.
And to re-read it, closely. This got me thinking about the politics of consultation.
Kicking the can…
It seems clear that the real reason for the delay on the Nature Positive Plan was to avoid some very tricky politics in the lead-up to an election, involving opposition to the reforms from the mining sector and the mining sector-dominant state, Western Australia.
Not wanting to acknowledge this, the government justified its ‘slow-track switch’, retrospectively, as a sensible decision to break a large reform into stages, because ‘further consultation is helpful to make sure the detailed policy settings are right …’
By happy coincidence, most of the controversial reforms now fall into ‘stage 3’ of the plan which, by another happy coincidence, requires detailed consultation that will almost certainly extend past the election, taking much of the controversy with it.
In other words, the government has solved a significant political problem with a standard political move: kicking the can down the road.
Compromise is something that other people do …
With all this extra consultation, you might think the government was open to making some policy changes in light of all the push-back it’s received from stakeholders.
After all, consultation leads to negotiation and negotiation leads to compromise, right?
If you did think that, you’d be wrong. In announcing its new approach, the environment department said that:
Further consultation is helpful to make sure the detailed policy settings are right, and that any additional policy work required is completed and thoroughly tested with stakeholders. Delivery of the plan will require a bit of cooperation, compromise and common sense from all parties.
So, a bit of give and take all round?
Not so fast. ‘Compromise … from all parties’ doesn’t necessarily include the government, as the statement makes clear:
The Government is putting all these issues on the table for further discussion to encourage stakeholders to reach that compromise. [my emphasis]
However, the government itself is no mere stakeholder. Rather:
The Government is committed to legislating the remainder of the commitments in the Nature Positive Plan’ … They [the six major issues on which the government will further consult] do not necessarily reflect a commitment from the Government to alter any current policy settings.
I can only translate this double-speak as:
Quelle horreur! The stakeholders [representing, as ever, diverse business and environment interests] are squabbling among themselves! If we consult for long enough, maybe they’ll see common sense and endorse our announced policy!!
Or, to rehash an old comedy line:
Officer: Sire! The peasants are revolting!
King: They are, aren’t they? Summon them to the castle for a good talking to! And don’t let them out until they see the sense of my decisions!
Banner image: ‘Thanks for your input people. We’ll workshop your feedback and get back to you next year (probably).’ (Image by toodlingstudio from Pixabay)
0 Comments