Fifty-five years ago, on this day, August 27th, 1970, there was a big public meeting in Sydney, with the Great and the Good and green hoi polloi. Read this account, from Hansard, and weep.
Senator MULVIHILL: New South Wales
“I suppose that one of the most effective testimonials that could be directed to the Committee was given at a public meeting held at the Sydney Town Hall at 8 p.m. on 27 August under the chairmanship of Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court and Chairman of the Australian Conservation Foundation. This was a very representative gathering and it adopted a 5-point recommendation which endorsed the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. As a matter of fact the recommendation went further and asked for the establishment of a national environmental council. Our Committee looked beyond the area which could be dealt with by a national water commission, but I think it will be seen that the recommendation which came from this public meeting in Sydney virtually endorses the contents of our report. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate that recommendation in Hansard.
That this representative meeting of citizens, held at the Sydney Town Hall on August 27th, 1970, endorses the view that –
Water pollution is only part of the broader problem of the pollution which is threatening our environment.
It therefore also endorses the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water pollution that “the prevention and abatement of pollution requires a comprehensive approach involving land use planning, sociological and ecological assessments, and the approach of specialist water pollution technology”, and agrees with that Committee that such a comprehensive approach to the problem should be the objective of all levels of Government.
That the Water Pollution Bill in its present form is only a piecemeal approach to the problem of environmental pollution in this State, and for this reason is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn, and that the initiation of effective measures to control Water Pollution should become the responsibility of the proposed single pollution authority to be established by the State Government.
i. That the proposed Pollution Control Authority should be vested with executive powers to ensure effective control of all forms of pollution, the policing of all regulations, and the prosecution of offenders,
The powers and resources to undertake a continuous programme of research and education on environmental problems.
This representative meeting also believes that in the interest of the environment, and the co-ordination of the activities of all the States in the field of pollution, a National Environment Council should be established by the Commonwealth Government.
Most of the States have attempted to introduce some type of legislation. Our Committee was particularly interested in some of the experiments in the United States and Canada by some of the regional authorities. I know that each State has its own particular problems but, speaking for myself, I was tremendously impressed with the way in which the Swan River Conservation Board had gone about its activities in Western Australia. I can say of metropolitan Sydney that people in local government, and particularly those in an organisation known as the Sydney HarbourParramatta River Anti-Pollution Committee, which represents 16 riverside and harbourside councils, are tremendously impressed with the appendix to our report which dealt with the Swan River Conservation Board.
One lesson which we have learnt and which we must apply to any future government activity, particularly in the field of pollution but also in so many other areas, is that we must be able to feel that the various tiers of government are making some contribution. Possibly all of us, although we are members of the Commonwealth Parliament, realise that the day has gone when the Commonwealth can issue directions from Canberra about what the States shall do. We must have this teamwork of the 3-tier system, and it is for that reason that we indicated that regional authorities also should become involved in this problem. I have never been one who has. held the Utopian concept that the Commonwealth can always pay the piper. I think the contrary is the case. If the Commonwealth is going to make sizeable amounts of finance available to combat various facets of water pollution it should lay down water standards. That is what the Committee had in mind in framing all its recommendations. When we talk to people like Alderman Parkinson, who is the Mayor of Mosman, and Alderman Wild, the Mayor of Parramatta – I instance these 2 gentlemen as extremely efficient mayors who are already concerned in problems of water pollution – we find that they want to be able to help but that they realise that the resources to help are beyond the means of their respective councils. This brings me to a consideration of all the things which are set out in our report and other facets with which….
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that there had been an “environmental turn” in 1969 – people waking up to water pollution, air pollution and other forms of pollution.
What I think we can learn from this is that people knew what the score was before most of us were born. But knowing about a problem and creating robust organisations to force corporations and states (governments, bureaucracies) to do anything meaningful about it, well those are different things, now aren’t they?
What happened next – the Australian Conservation Foundation got taken over by “radicals” in the early 1970s. “Pollution” became a normalised thing, one of many to worry about. Slowly, we drowned in our own effluents, and set fire to the planet. Ooops.
The specific context was that two Senate Select Committee reports – one on Air Pollution and one on Water Pollution – had come out. Books were being published, magazines launching, groups like “Ecology Action” getting going in June 1971. Elite types making doomsday pronouncements (like this guy in Adelaide).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Also on this day:
August 27, 1859 – The Oil Age begins. UPDATED TO BE a) accurate b) less Eurocentric
August 27, 1962 – Mariner 2 sets off for Venus
August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward
August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.