Tag: Phillip Toyne

Categories
Australia

November 6, 1991 – met the new federalism, same as the old federalism

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 6th, 1991,

A leading Australian conservationist has denounced the “new federalism” initiative as being “old federalism rejigged” and if implemented could jeopardise the future of proposed ecologically sustainable development policies.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, the executive director for the Australian Conservation Fund, Phillip Toyne, said that the initiative put forward by the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was not “a rethinking of our apportionment of power in government” but mere “rhetoric of change, not change itself”.

Iffland, K. 1991. Toyne: new federalism old federalism rejigged. Canberra Times, 7 November, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 in 1988 the Australian public had been woken up to the threat of carbon dioxide build up, thanks in part to hard work by the CSIRO and various politicians. There had been an intense period of promises of policy making, etc. etc. including the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) process. There had also been loose talk about holding a referendum, so that the federal government would have more power over states around greenhouse issues. This had come to nothing. The ESD, by this stage, was a dead letter, and everybody kind of knew it. Everyone was waiting for former treasurer Paul Keating to make his move to become Prime Minister, and Keating was infamously opposed to climate action.

What I think we can learn from this is that by late 1989 sorry, 1991 unless you were really sucking hard on the hopium pipe, you knew that there were serious problems ahead. 

What happened next Keating did, in fact, topple Hawke, and he did bin all of the ecologically sustainable development stuff. Australia announced an absolutely pitiful National Greenhouse Response Strategy, which they then ignored, and Australian emissions domestically climbed, and their coal exports climbed, and Australian prime ministers like Keating and Howard and Rudd do belong at The Hague, (it would be a relatively crowded dock).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

November 6, 1961 – “Air Over Cities” pollution conference begins 

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

November 6, 2001 – Howard plays the jobs-card vs Kyoto in Hunter Valley

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

November 6, 2011 – Keystone…

Categories
Activism Australia

June 22, 1990 – ALP already undermining green agenda

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1990, the governing Labor Party of Australia is – gasp – siding with the rich and against the future.

Conservation groups have accused economic ministers within the Hawke Government of hijacking the environment debate and pre-empting discussion of a paper on sustainable development due to go to Cabinet next Tuesday.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said yesterday that the ACF was “extremely concerned” to express disquiet with the fact that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, and other economic ministers were trying to dominate the sustainability debate.

1990 Lamberton, H. 1990. Environment debate ‘hijacked’. Canberra Times, 23 June, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had clung to power at the March 1990 election thanks to green-concerned voters holding their noses and voting for Labor candidates.  Some Labor figures (Peter Walsh, for instance) hated this, and hated the greens (the Greens didn’t exist yet). Meanwhile, the business pushback against all things environmental (except greenwash, obvs) had begun in earnest in March 1990….

What I think we can learn from this is that the ALP has never been able to cope with green issues. On some level they know this, I assume.

What happened next. The Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process got underway, and came up with some decent workable ideas, which were then watered down/ignored and then memory-holed – see here for the spectacular implosion of the whole process- … And the emissions kept climbing.

xxx

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.

References

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 5, 1994 – that referendum idea is back again…

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1994, the referendum idea that has been around since early 1989 is still being mooted…

Any national referendum to decide the republican issue should also include a proposal to give the Federal Government increased powers and responsibility to protect the environment, Democrat Leader Senator Cheryl Kernot said yesterday.

“The debate on constitutional reform must be broadened to include concerns about the environment,” Senator Kernot said, marking World Environment Day.

Senator Kernot said the Democrats supported a proposal by a former executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, which would confer on the Commonwealth the power to make laws about:

• Land, air and water conservation affecting more than one state or territory.

• Nuclear energy and ionising radiation.

• Protection of areas of national and international significance.

• Protection of flora and fauna from extinction.

• Regulation of genetically or biologically manipulated life forms.

A spokesman for Senator Kernot said later there was no present consideration for such a referendum to be held in tandem with the next federal election, but it should happen and “the sooner and the better.”

Grose, S. 1994. Ecology should go to vote: Kernot. Canberra Times, 6 June p 2.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118168960

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the heady days of 1988-9 were long gone. It was in early 1989 that the ALP’s Federal Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, had mooted the referendum at a fundraising dinner in Adelaide (LINK).  Since then the business pushback had been very determined and pretty successful.

The specific context was that Environment Minister John Faulkner was making noises about a carbon tax, because he knew Australia had to have SOMETHING to take to COP1 in Berlin if it wasn’t to get hammered in the negotiations. Meanwhile, the moves for a referendum on dumping the monarchy was on its way…

What I think we can learn from this is that ideas persist for a certain period, but there is only so many times they can be pulled out of Cohen’s “garbage can” and dusted off…

What happened next – there was no eco-referendum. The Republic referendum was held, and failed.

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: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant)

Thirty years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1994, as the battle for a carbon tax heats up…

THE FRIENDS and enemies of Phillip Toyne, acquired during years of very public struggle over Aboriginal land rights and the environment, were in a stunned state at the ALP’s national conference in Hobart this week.

The news that one of the hardest nosed and most controversial among Australian activists had joined, of all things, the Commonwealth’s environment bureaucracy (at deputy secretary, level, no less), delighted and appalled in equal measure.. …..

Brough, J. 1994. What kind of pudding will Toyne make? Canberra Times, 2 October, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Phillip Toyne had been a thorn in the side of the Hawke government. He, as the chair of the Australian Conservation Foundation, had also done really useful work on Aboriginal land rights. And now he was tempted to try to change the system from within by becoming a senior bureaucrat for John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, who was publicly toying with the idea of introducing a carbon tax. 

What we learn is that people who try to change the system from within get sentenced to 20 months or years of boredom. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. 

What happened next. Toyne was unsuccessful. I don’t know when he quit, but it was pretty clear after February 10 1995, that no meaningful action was going to happen on climate change in Australia, at least not at the federal level. Toyne died in 2015. Having fought the good fight. 

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: 

 October 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die.

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!!

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

Categories
Australia

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 6, 1993, the Canberra Times reported on how everyone had a beef with the Keating government on climate…

The agreement between Commonwealth and state and territory governments on broad environmental issues was widely criticised yesterday by both sides of the debate during an environmental law conference in Canberra

The chief protagonists were Phillip Toyne, former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation and now Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Centre for Environment law, and Dr Brian O’Brien, a Penh based consultant and physicist and former chairman of the WA Environmental Protection Authority. 

1993 Campbell, R. 1993. Both sides criticise green agreement. Canberra Times, 6 July, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labour government of Paul Keating had just won the “unwinnable” election of 1993, despite the economy having been in the toilet. The ALP had been silent on the greenhouse issue, as had the Liberals, and the concern of 1988-1991 a distant memory.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have two people attacking a government from “opposite perspectives” (so Toyne is a greenie and O’Brien as “nothing to see here everything is okay” kind of guy) but that doesn’t mean that the government is right. It can simply mean, as it does in this case, that one lot of critics are simply wrong. 

But we so often take triangulation as the safest course. And of course, “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.”

What happened next

Toyne ended up as a civil servant, albeit briefly, trying to get a carbon tax through. O’Brien kept trading on his time with NASA. And being an ass. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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.