Hutton suggests that it is the persistence of this out-dated attitude that is hampering many advances in environmental issues. While he acknowledges the Australian attitude towards the environment and environmental issues has improved, we are still finding it hard to completely abandon this idea of nature as the enemy. .
I agree that fundamentally this attitude has not disappeared. I do feel, however, that it has changed slightly over the years. This "man vs. nature" attitude has morphed into a "man-developing-nature" attitude , where the environment is sacrificed for the sake of the development of society. The governments of today struggle between the idea of trying to be both "developer" and "protector" of the environment (Summers, Woodward & Parkin, 2002). Summers et al. suggest that lack of environmental action on behalf of State and Federal governments is largely due to the tensions between both roles. They need to look towards economic and social development, while trying to do what is best for the environment. As is pointed out, this is not easy to do, since in many cases, what is in the best interests of economic and social development is not always what is best for the environment, and vice versa. This can be seen in many environmental issues. The dispute over what should be done about saving the Murray River is a good example. Action clearly needs to be taken immediately but any solution will have a large impact on the industries and communities that rely on the river. (Advertiser, 19/03/2002). This has seen the delay and in some cases, the abandonment of policies. It is difficult for the government to decide how much responsibility it has to development and how much to protection. An article in The Australian highlights this ongoing struggle (Williams, 2003). It talks about how dairy farmers in the Murray region have decided not to support plans to rehabilitate "flood-irrigated" land.