Fortifying freedoms

When asked to contemplate the future of ‘freedom’ in a world ravaged by the effects of a changing climate, I am always reluctant to paint a dystopian future. My natural disposition is to live with a degree of optimism and hope. Besides, my bookshelf is littered with serious tomes from the sixties and seventies by intellectuals far more gifted than myself, picturing a doom awaiting us that is yet to transpire. However, I confess that rising geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, supply chain disruptions and the recent pandemic have tested my optimistic disposition.

Senator Andrew McLachlan CSC CStJ is a Senator in the Australian Federal Parliament. He previously served in the South Australian Parliament. He is guided in public life by his love of the natural world, his faith, and his professional experience in finance and law.

My use of the word ‘freedom’ is not just confined to civil rights, but also the liberty we enjoy to live our lives free from unnecessary state interference in affluent nations, such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Further, this missive is penned from the perspective of a Federal Senator from the State of South Australia. This perspective is most relevant when I touch upon the Australian experience during the COVID–19 pandemic.

As a parliamentarian, my thoughts have increasingly turned to the extent of state intervention needed to not only avoid the irreversible denigration of our natural inheritance, but to adapt to climate change. In response to climate change, we need co-operation between nations, co-operation between all levels of government, and co-operation between and within communities. Even a cursory read of history provides insight into the magnitude of the challenge to overcome layers upon layers of vested interests and ideological differences.

The King (then a Prince) in his speech at COP26 made the point that, while global pandemics are devastating, climate change and biodiversity loss present an even greater existential threat. He argue that we must respond with collective action, as if on a military campaign. The King was not calling for us to relinquish our freedom. Rather, to marshal our resources and talent, and work together to build a better future.

Nevertheless, there are growing schools of thought that democratic government is unfit to tackle a climate crisis. Elected representatives yield to public unwillingness to make sacrifices and demonstrate inability to resist powerful interest groups. It is argued by some that an authoritarian government is best to implement the economic and social transformation needed to save the planet.

One must acknowledge there is a longstanding practice in the Westminster tradition that in times of crisis, the workings of parliamentary democracy can be partially or completely suspended. The obvious examples are in war, combating terrorism and responding to public health risks.

This tradition, that the state can take extraordinary steps to save itself, has been adopted by Australia. In my lifetime, we have experienced profoundly interventionist state government action in South Australia – ranging from water restrictions during drought to the use of emergency powers during the pandemic.

An Australian Government report indicates that “climate change is exacerbating threats and risks to Australia's national security. These include sea level rise, bushfires, droughts, extreme rainfall events, and

higher–intensity cyclones.”

We have already witnessed neighbouring Pacific Island nations experience the more immediate impacts of our changing climate, where rising sea levels and extreme weather events have led to the evacuation of some communities.

While climate risks are being considered at the whole–of–government level and by individual agencies, including Defence and Home Affairs, I question whether our longstanding arrangements for states, territories and the Commonwealth to respond to extreme weather events will be sufficiently robust going forward.

It may be that more ‘aggressive’ government interventions into the lives of its citizens will be required into the future, particularly as the impact of climate change places pressure on our capacity to manage

these weather events. We witnessed the impacts of strong state interference throughout the COVID–19 pandemic, with the Federal Government controlling the national borders, and the states controlling their own borders and the liberties of their citizenry. The usual deliberations of both Federal and State Parliament were curtailed with responsibilities devolved to committees or key individuals. Students of French revolutionary history would have recognised some of the structures of arbitrary governance.

As far as I could discern at the time, the justification was the scale of the threat to life and that the measures would be temporary. By and large, the public accepted infringement of their liberties; of

concern was the lack of widespread debate regarding this assault on democracy. I suspect this was because it was a public health response, and the restriction of liberty was such a new experience for

everyone. Those who sought to question the public health dictates or measures themselves were ridiculed and silenced. In my view, our community took its democratic processes and freedoms for granted and surrendered them willingly without a real debate.

The ambition of government must be the provision of high living standards, and the opportunity for both present and future generations to live a satisfying and rewarding life. Conservation is key to sustainable productivity, as it requires planning the rational use of the entire environment. Yet the pace of the decline of biodiversity tell us we may be facing a critical point of no return for the planet. While we have the means to face the challenge, our respective communities and their institutions must also have the confidence, commitment and willpower to act with sufficient urgency.

Transforming our respective nations’ economic endeavours to a sustainable footing will be a long march. By implication, governments will need to consider greater market interventions and the restrictions

of people’s freedoms. The scale of intervention in fighting climate change is one of the most important policy questions, especially for democracies.

Conservative parliamentarians must be vigilant that a declared ‘climate emergency’ could automatically shield governments from opposition to legislating oppressive measures that suit and underpin the ideologies of the left. There is many a Marxist seeking to hide their revolutionary ambitions beneath a green flag.

Yet we are experiencing a systematic failure of leadership across government and business. We seem unable to contemplate the unthinkable or imagine a new future. As Kenneth Clark noted,

civilisation is always at risk of being diminished by a lack of confidence. “We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusionment.” He further argues that the moral and intellectual failure of Marxism left

us with no alternative but to worship heroic materialism.

Even when political discourse does acknowledge the anxieties of the day, it is accompanied by little or no emphasis on the real costs. This type of debate is described by some as ‘trade–off denial’. The complex and difficult nature of the issue is used to justify postponing or compromising any response.

As conservatives, we must strive to make our democratic structures fit for purpose. The left denigrates our existing institutions. Conservatives, by contrast, value and improve them. It is the role of the conservative to act as a steward, not as an environmental chauvinist. Market and societal intervention must be carried out with a mindfulness that temporary measures risk becoming permanent. For a fatigued or resigned population may come to accept ongoing redundant restrictions. This poses a threat to liberty and the vitality of democratic life.

The changing environment has already begun to test our governance structures, regardless of whether democratic governance cares to impact it. It is affecting (inter alia) national security, food security, water supply, migration and disaster management. Western economies may require a scale of mobilisation not experienced since the last world war.

The response of democracies cannot be a series of independent initiatives. However, any slide into oppression will not release the creativity needed. A well–led democracy is best placed to nurture, engage and encourage its peoples. Our uncoordinated, democratic governance structures must be adapted to avoid short–term decision making captured by vested interests and weak accountability mechanisms.

The scale and urgency of the response needed to address climate change presents a considerable challenge to our democratic institutions and the culture of the body politic. We can only protect our natural inheritance if we have a clear vision of what action must be undertaken, the real costs associated with said action and who is responsible for underwriting those costs. We must revisit our idea of how we address problems, and from there, take renewed purpose.

There is cause to be optimistic that we can achieve genuine sustainability. We can draw strength from our western inheritance, that communities have survived the plague and industrial–scale wars.

This means placing faith in our people’s ingenuity and the robustness of our democracies. We will need leadership to galvanise the commitment of our peoples. That commitment will come when they feel they can trust the institutions of state and its leadership to

serve them and their interests into the future.

---

Views expressed in this chapter are those of the author, not necessarily those of the Conservative Environment Network.