Looking Back—Australia’s Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy Agendas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

After reviewing your manuscript, I would like to make the following comments:

 

1.-It has been impossible for me to find in your manuscript any reference to the type of work you have done or what are really the objectives you are pursuing.

Please define clearly, the following aspects of your manuscripts:

1.- What are your objectives in this manuscript?

2.- Ok, this clearly is a narrative review but, please, define this point clearly  in the text to avoid confusion between the future readers

3.- If you consider that the review you have performed follows some kind of search structure and has followed clear criteria, please indicate this clearly with a methodology section. 

4.- When you do a narrative review, you should clearly indicate that it is a narrative review and, in addition, show that it may simply be an opinion regarding the texts used.

Author Response

Please see the attached response to Reviewer 1 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

With a staggering number of documents issued by a wide variety of bodies since 1987, the review demonstrates that while there has been talk of sustainable development in Australia for decades, there has been little progress, although the author expects a great deal from the government that took office in May, unlike previous governments.  It is instructive to see how the achievement of a meaningful and important goal can be sabotaged by keeping it on the agenda, adopting action plans and then doing nothing. On the other hand, it may be more important to know what has been learned in a particular sub-area than to document in detail what has not been done.

Some specific comments:

- the author talks about 25 years of observation, starting in 1987, but 35 years have passed since then

- at times the author's political sympathies (29-31) and antipathies (32, 126-129) are clearly visible, it would be useful to make this more neutral

- Health policy is highlighted in the title, but the very general wording does not really make it clear that this is the main focus of the article.

- In fact, very little is actually revealed about what should be done (and what has not been done), as the author mainly quotes fine-sounding political slogans.

Author Response

Please see response to Reviewer 2 attached in Word document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript, “Looking Back and Looking Forward? Australia’s Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy Agendas from a Health Policy Perspective”, provides an overview of the Australian Government environmental policies in the past 25 years. This paper also criticizes the absence of strategy and plans for government investment in sustainable healthcare in Australia. While a valuable and noteworthy topic, I believe the manuscript will benefit from clarifying the following points:

1. Australia is one of the developed countries that has continuously and increasingly been affected by the consequences of climate change. In this line, I would recommend to add highlights and examples of cases where the climate change has posed a threat to the public health in Australia.

2. I think the paper should note that many of the problems raised here are also global and being non-committal/nonbinding is a common issue in policies across the world.

3. The paper should also distinguish between different nexus of public health, healthcare systems, and the climate change. Impacts of the climate change on citizens’ health (that directly relates to SDG3), preparedness of the healthcare system to meet the needs of the population in light of the climate change, and responsibility of healthcare as a sector in reducing their environmental impacts (e.g. in terms of efficiency and sustainable procurement) are rather different topics that each requires to be addressed separately. It appears to me that the latest government policy, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy 2021 – 2025, mainly focuses on adapting and climate change mitigation rather than taking actions towards reducing the environmental footprint of the healthcare system. I would recommend that the author has a review of their arguments while bearing these differences in mind as at the moment, these various arguments appear rather mixed together.

4. In terms of “looking forward”, I think the paper needs more substance and also to identify barriers. Moreover, the suggestion of incorporating the wealth of knowledge and experience of Indigenous communities require further elaboration with links drawn to the healthcare policies.

Author Response

Please see response to Reviewer 3 in Word document attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

thank you for the corrections

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments and I have no further recommendations.