TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEWS WITH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7.30 REPORT,
JULY 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
LYNEHAM: Mr Hawke, thanks for joining us.
HAWKE: Thanks Paul.
LYNEHAM: How much of today was about saving the environment
and how much of it was about winning green votes to save the
Government? PM: All of it was about saving the environment. I believe
that when the election has come, that the people of
Australia as far as they take the environment into account
will give us the marks, not just because of today, but we
have been an environmentally conscious and active government
since day one. We saved the Franklin. If the people
represented by Senator Puplick had been in and had their
way, the Franklin would be dammed. Every nomination that
we've made for the world Heritage List was opposed by the
Puplick crowd, all of them. They have been anti-government,
anti-environment, on every issue. So we will be judged not
as a government which made a statement today on 20 July, but
as a government which has been judged by the international
body advising the World Heritage Commission that's the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
natural resources. They have said that no government, no
government in the world has done more to advance
environmental issues under the world Heritage Convention
than the Australian Government.
LYNEHA4: Well Rick Farley in Adelaide. It's all very well
for the farmers to be getting involved now when they've got
a few dolars in their pockets, prices are good. What
happens though if bad times return to the bush?
FARLEY: Well farmers I think, are commited to a land ethic.
I think that's rapidly developing throughout Australia
because even before today's statement, hundreds of Landcare
and voluntary groups have been formed from the Kimberleys
right down to Tasmania.
LYNEHAM: But they bashed the country around a bit in past
generations, haven't they?
FARLEY: Sure. If we'd known then what we know now I'm sure
things would've been done differently. That's not only for
agriculture, it applies to a whole range of different
industries. I think what we've got to do now is look to the
future, not into the past.
LYNEHAN: And now they see it very much in their own self
interest to look after that land better, do they?
-2-
FARLEY: Very, very clearly because the economic imperative
is increasingly apparent. We're losing productivity as a
result of land degredation and I think one of the great
things about the Prime Minister's statement today is that
there is a long term commitment so that farmers now can
undertake long term planning.
LYNEHAM: Phillip Toyne, tell us about this extraordinary
alliance between the farmers and the greenies. I mean, many
farmers think of the greenies as greenless, many greenies
think of farmers as rednecks don't they? I mean, are they
really comfortable in bed together?
TOYNE: Well as a form of necessity. I think we both
realise as groups that if we've got a problem that's so
widespread, so chronic, that's going to be so costly to
repair, then we've both got a very strong interest in seeing
that it happens. It seemed to me and it seemed to Rick
Farley that the best way to go was to combine forces and to
make sure that it did happen.
LYNEHAM: Which meant this sort of consensus that is
politically irresistible to a man like Bob Hawke?
TOYNE: Absolutely. I think that the Prime minister was
extremely sensible, extremely visionary in accepting such an
arrangement and his statement today will be well remembered
for the land management package that he announced today. I
mean, it was an exciting package to the extent that it was
the first time, I think, that a Federal Government has
really attempted to grapple effectively with the issues of
economic development and environmental sustainability. I'm
excited by that. We had our criticisms of the package but
by and large I see it as a very positive step.
LYNEHAM: Well, Mr Hawke, it's a good idea to see the
bureaucracy using recycled paper. What about your own
household though at the Lodge. Are you changing things
there at all?
PM: we are looking at what we can do as individuals, not
only in regard to paper but, for instance, in the area of
the pressure packs and so on. We're getting rid of those
and they will be banned by legislation completely, I hope,
within five years. But yes, we're going to look at what we
can do. It's not going to be just words, it's action as far
as we're concerned.
LYNEHAM: perhaps recycled paper in the Prime
Ministerial loo?
PM: Well I'd like to see that, yes.
LYNEHAM: The compost heap, is there one at the Lodge?
PM: Yes there is.
-3-
LYNEHAM: Is there a brick in the cistern?
PM: brick in the cistern?
LYNEHAM: Well it's supposed to save water isn't it?
PM: Is that right? Well, I'll have to talk to the people
in charge there and see about that.
LYNEHAM: Prime Minister, given that the States have control
of the coastal zone, is there very much the Commonwealth can
do? PM: There are various things we can and will do. Firstly
we've, as you know, referred to the Resource Assessment
Commission the whole question of the coastal zone and we'll
seek to involve all the States in the terms of reference so
that all levels of government will be involved
LYNEHAM: It's like a big stocktaking exercise is it?
PM: Well, yes but it's an important thing to do. Secondly,
we've established a national working group on coastal
management which again will involve all groups the
environmental groups, tourist industry and governments. We
want to get this thing settled and work through an
acceptable way, via the process of concensus. But let me
say this, that the Commonwealth does have powers in regard
to the corporations and it does have a corporation power and
I'm not holding that up as a threat. But if the processes
of consensus were not to work and you were to get something
which was aggreviously unacceptable, then the corporation
power and the foreign investment power would be available as
a last resort. But obviously I think the Australian people,
Paul, overwhelmingly would want the State Governments to
accept their responsibilities in these matters, to follow
the lead that we as a Commonwealth Government are giving.
LYNEHAM: Prime Minister, on another Tasmanian issue the
CSIRO report today on pulp mill standards. Bill Paisley of
North Broken Hill says it vindicates the Wesley Vale
proposal and he wants to see that back on track within 12
months or so.
PM: I don't think there'll be a mill at Wesley Vale. Let
me remind you what CSIRO told us, and it was the basis upon
which we made the decision we did. They said that the
proposal there which would involve the pumping into the
ocean each day of 13 tonnes of organochlorides was not
acceptable. That's a view which I share. On the question
of pulp mills our position is and I think with respect to
our friends in the green movement, they have never, as I
understand it, said, ' no pulp mills'. But what they have
said, I think responsibly is, ' only pulp mills if you have
acceptable environmental standards'. What we are going to
do is to ensure that there are created national guidelines
-4-
in regard to these matters which will ensure that the
standards are acceptable. It may be that in Tasmania you
could have a pulp mill but not on the Wesley Vale site
pumping that 13 tonnes a day into the ocean. You may at
another environmentally acceptable site, and with
environmentally acceptable standards of operation, you may
be able to do it.
LYNEHA4: Let's go to Sydney now and the Opposition
spokesman on the environment, Senator Chris Puplick.
Senator, should there be a pulp mill at Wesley Vale?
PUPLICK: I don't think that's the important environmental
issue Paul. I think that that's just a side track on this
particular issue.
LYNEHAM: ( inaudible)
PUPLICK: If you want to talk about the CSIRO you can
talk about why it is with all of this research that CSIRO
has now got to do as a result of this package, the Hawke
Government has cut CSIRO funding by 32% over five years. If
there's going to be all this money for foreign aid to deal
with those questions, why in fact it's cut foreign aid from
down to 0.3% of GDP. Why don't you get on to the
substantive issues about soil and water quality matters
which really are important in this debate.
LYNEHA4: Alright, if you don't want to talk about Wesley
Vale, let's talk about today's statement. What's the
Opposition's reaction to it?
PUPLICK: As far as the Government's decision to build on
the soil conservation program introduced by the previous
coalition government, and the national tree program
introduced by the previous coalition government, we welcome
those initiatives. But let me say in terms of one of the
water quality management problems that the first act
undertaken by the Hawke Government in May 1983 was to cut
out the waters program introduced by the Fraser Government
which within the five years from there on would've spent
$ 640 million on improving water quality and water management
in Australia. Now that was the first thing that the Hawke
Government cut out when it came to office. cutting back
all of the areas which are important and just relying on
more studies, another one on coastal management when in fact
we've already got a report down which'tells us what needs to
be done there, no targets about Greenhouse gas emission, no
ban on ozone depleting substances and this nonsense about
World Heritage listing when you bear in mind that in fact it
was our previous government that entered the first five
places on the World Heritage list.
LYNEHAM: Senator, very briefly, what did you think of Sir
Ninian Stephen's appointment?
PUPLICK: I welcomed Sir Ninian's appointment. He is a most
distinguished and emminent Australian. I'm sure he will do
a brilliant job for Australia. we look forward to working
with him in government.
LYNEHAM: Thanks very much. Mr Hawke, if you have to rely
on discussion with the States, without using the external
affairs powers or without the extra powers you would have
from the referendum, in the end what can you do except write
them cheques?
PM: Let me point out Paul that it's not a question of just
talking with the States. We have overridden the States. We
overrode the States in respect of the Franklin River. I
remind you. Puplick's people condemned my Government for
saving the Franklin. If they'd been in power the Franklin
would be dammed. Now, we overrode them. We overrode the
Queensland Government in regard to the Daintree Forest. I
much prefer because it's my nature, you know that I much
prefer concensus
LYNEHAM: like that referendum. If you thought you
could pull it off, wouldn't you?
PM: Absolutely. There'd be no question about that. If in
fact the Australian people could come to an understanding
that the sorts of issues with which we are dealing are ones
which in the end, many of them are global in nature and
therefore require a national involvement and other issues
just take no notice of State boundaries. There is a need
for that sort of power. The responsibility is upon these
people, our political opponents who have opposed us on every
issue where we've saved the environment. If they would join
us in helping to create a climate of opinion and support a
referendum we would have one.
LYNEHAM: Let's go back to Adelaide now. Lachlan MacIntosh,
the mining Industy Council. If the farmers can get together
with the greenies, why can't the miners?
MacIntosh: There's no reason why they can't. There's been
plenty of opportunities in the past and there has been
discussions in the past. But I think the issue is really
one of co-operation with all parties, not just, if you like,
greenies and industrialists. I think the Prime Minister
today has actually talked about some new mechanisms, new
consultative mechanisms which he talked about before. we
would like to see those happen. The sooner they happen then
everybody will get round and talk about the real issues.
That's the important one and I think the other important
thing today is the global nature of the problem. There is a
lot industry can do and will do in improving environmental
management and a lot of technologies that can be exchanged
between the different groups between the farming groups
and the industry groups.
-6-
LYNEHA4: Are you worried that the coastal zone study of
resources might put some of the sand miners in jeopardy?
MACINTOSH: I don't think so. I think they would welcome
the opporutunity to put their case openly and honestly to
the RAC because that's an appropriate body for that to be
done. I was there yesterday at Stradbroke Island. There is
an enormous amount of restoration technology available which
could be useful in other parts of the coast.
LYNEHA4: And your reaction to the fact that the Prime
minister did not set firm limits on Greenhouse gas
emissions? You'd be pleased about that wouldn't you?
MACINTOSH: He might not have set clear targets but he's
actually talked about the problem. I think that's important
because it's no good saying in Australia that we take a
level that's important perhaps in Europe. It's important to
look in more detail at can we use our coal better here in
Australia LYNEHAM: Not a global problem?
MACINTOSH: It is a global problem but the CO2 issue is not
necessarily the only issue. Setting a target to reduce here
will mean no new power stations, no new jobs and perhaps no
new processing plants. That's not what we want to do here.
We are a developing country, not a developed country.
LYNEHAM: So you want to see more downstream processing,
don't you?
MACINTOSH: I think that's what everyone in Australia does.
Then we can afford to pay for the large amounts of money we
need to redress the past problems in the environment.
LYNEHA4: If we process here they won't be processed
somewhere else.
MACINTOSH: People need the minerals in the world. We all
need them. You need them for your television screen
tonight. People need those minerals, not only here but in
the developing world generally. It's the important
technology we can develop here in Australia if we do more
processing. If we don't do it someone else will do it.
LYNEHAM: Thanks very much for your time. Mr Hawke, any
final comments?
PM: Just on this last issue. Let me say it is right that
there can be discussions between our friends in the mining
industry and our friends in the environmental movement and
ourselves. Don't let's just blacken the mining industry
overall. I think there is now in the mining industry,
compared with earlier days, a greater sense of understanding
of their responsibility. On this final issue that you've
-7-
talked about, about the levels. We accept our
responsibility to play our part within the international
context to work for a reduction of emission of gases. What
Lachlan is talking about is that we are more efficient users
of energy than most other countries. In terms of an overall
global level, enterprise in Australia relatively is more
likely to have a lower level of emission than in other
places. So what we've got to do is to look at what we can
do there and what we can do in other areas It's not
only CO2there's methane, and there's a lot we can do in
that area. our responsibility.
LYNEHAM: Time's got away from us. Thanks to all our guests
for joining us tonight. That's it. See you tomorrow night.
PM: Thank you Paul.
ends