The 2015 Budget and the Environment

Treasurer Mr Joe Hockey gave his second budget speech earlier this month and it proposed a bright future for Australians. Tax cuts to businesses, increased resources for military and national defence purposes as well as boosting access of parents to childcare assistance through a subsidy program will no doubt lift the spirits of Australians. However, as a member of the Sustainability Committee it is my duty to reflect on how the budget both relates to and affects the environment. Some of the main features of the budget that relates to sustainability include:

• A $400 million package to assist farmers who have suffered from drought.
• A $100 million subsidy to the care and protection of the Great Barrier Reef.
• A $73 million cut to the environmental action program- the “Green Army”- over four years. 
• A $400 million subsidy per year to businesses who undergo environmentally sound projects.
• No additional funding for public urban transport but billions spent on road projects.

The view from the Liberal Environment Minister, Mr Greg Hunt is that the budget will ensure both a “healthy environment” and a “flourishing economy”. The Labor and Greens environmental spokespersons say the budget is not “…taking appropriate action on climate change” and that it “…almost completely ignores the environment.” The budget cuts have also disappointed environmentalists and it is viewed as a step backwards in the battle against climate change. So what is the Government’s aim? Simply, to reduce the deficit.

Australia’s total government debt is approximately $682 billion and it appears that Mr Hockey has decided that the best way to clear the debt is to promote economic growth through tax cuts. The question is this: is climate change a high priority issue for Australia and if so, what is the best way to go about it? The budget from the Government has so far told us that the answer is: not really.   Australia’s proposed approach of funding some businesses who undertake environmentally-friendly projects is one environmental approach criticised by climate economists who claim that it is inefficient and ineffective compared to an emissions trading scheme that could bring $2 billion a year into the budget.

While Australia still may not have the most efficient mechanisms in place to protect the environment, it is not neglecting it. The budget isn’t an attack on the environment, it is merely an arrangement of Australia’s priorities. In fact, in many cases the industrial development that the Liberal government is trying to promote will improve, not harm environmental conditions. It is never in the developing countries such as Vietnam that clean air is found, rather it is in the more progressive and industrious societies such as Australia or Singapore where the environment is the most protected. Nevertheless, policies still need to be adopted to balance the costs and benefits of societal development on the environment.

George Papasavvas (11/FL)
Sustainability Committee – Building a sustainable future.