PRIME MINISTER
k; HMK XDAINITT IM. -EMBARGOED GAINS-T DELIVERY
SPEECH By THE PRIME MINISTER
LAUNCH OF THE COIOIONWEALTH/ STATE
TASK FORCE ON TASMANIA
HOBART 19 NOVEMBER 1989
L am delighted to be here in Tasmania this morning on a very
special occasion that marks a new era of co-operatian and
gor'dwill between my Government aad the Gove. rnment of
Tasmania. when Premier Michael Field announced earlier this year that
he intended to hold an Employment Summit on 2a3 and 29
November in Parliament House, Hobart, I was determined that
the Commonwealth Government would take an active and
constructive part.
Because the Summit represents a new approach to put Tasmania
back on the path towards co-operation and prosperity.
I want to oUtline today how we will be working with
Michael Field's Government, both to make the Summit a
success, and in the longer-term to ensure Tasmania's
particular problems receive the attention they deserve.
Let me say at the outset that the initiative of
Michael Field, and or my Parliamentary colleague
Duncan Kerr, is a very welcome one.
it's a serious endeavour to foster employment and
enterprise development in Tasmania.
For too long, under the previous State Government,
Tasmania's economic plight was ignored or concealed behind
the bluster of a P'remier and a conservative party which had
no idea of how to go about remedying the problem..
The fact is, Tasmania's unemployment is high relative to the
rest of Australia and employment growth is well below the
national average.
That appalling situation appalling for the well-being of
the State as a whole and debilitating for those directly hit
by unemployment never received any constructive attention
from the previous Government.
Indeed, their confrontationist approach exacerbated the
situation. What is essential now is that we develop a strategy which
will create a base for sustainable economic growth, thereby
generating permanent employment opportunities for
Tasmanians. In doing this, let us not ign-ore thet number or real
advantages that Tasmanian brings to the question of building
the basis for long-term growth. For example, labour costs
in Tasmania are lower than on the mainland, ana tnis
reflecting not a difference in the structure of industry in
the State but a real difference in the cost structure of
comparable industries.
In recent years Tasmania has also had an especially good
industrial relations record, with the workxing days lost per
employee in the Imst two years being less than half the
national average wnicn itself is nearly 60 per cent lower
than under the previous Federal conservative government.
This is a credit to employers and to the trade union
movement in Tasmania whose co-operation under the principles
of the Accord has provided an outstanding industrial climate
in the State.
Another major asset that Tasmania enjoys is the substantial
assistance rendered by the Commonwealth to relieve the
employment problems in the State.
First, under the policy of fiscal equalisation, Tasmania
receives a per capita level of Commonwealth assistance which
is more than 40 per cent higher than the average for
Australia as a whole. This permits Tasmania to fund higher
levels of outlays and public sector employment than would
otherwise be the case.
Second, Tasmania enjoys a number of forms of assistance not
available in other states: the $ 50 million forestry
industry package, the $ 45 million paid under the
Gordon-below-Frankclin Package; the Tasmanian freight
equalisation package of more than $ 30 million this year and
the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, worth some
$ 3.6 million this year.
Third, the Commonwealth provides a full range of programs
designed to assist employment, education and training in
Tasmania. This year the total cost of these programs was
million including substantial uujumiUtrlts to TAI'E, to
trade training, the Australian Traineeship system and the
programs Jobstart, Jobtrain and SkillShare.
To ensure that these forms of assistance available from the
Commonwealth can be directed and focused to maximum effect,
and to sharpen the effectiveness of the Summit, I have
decided, in consultation with Premier Field to establish a
special Commonwealth-State Task Force on Tasmania.
The Task Force will report to me on action which the
Commonwealth can take to assist the economic and social
development of Tasmania.
The Task Force members all have a close understanding of
Tasmanian needs. It will be chaired by the Federal member
for Denison, Duncan Kerr, who developed the concept of the
Task Force with me. The members of the Task Force will be:
Peter Duncan, Commonwealth Minister for Employment and
Education Services;
Michael Tate, Commonwealth Minister for Justice;
Peter Patmore, Deputy Premier of Tasmania;
Michael Aird, Tasmanian Minister for the Environment
and Planning, Minister for. Employment, Industrial
Relations and Training, minister Assisting the Premier
on Youth Affairs;
Mr Kerry O'Brien, President, Trades and Labour Council
and Secretary, Miscellaneous workers Union;
H r Paul Salmon, Managing Director, Electrolytic Zinc
Company Of Australia Ltd; and
1Ms Robyn Cooney, Consultant to the Tasmanian
Development Authority, Community Representative.
I want this Task Force to perform three key roles;
irst to examine ways of better integrating
Commonwealth and Tasmanian State programs which have a
bearing on employment generation and economic and
social development;
Second to develop Commonwealth-State proposals which
would further the economic and social development of
Tasmania, while recognising the fiscal constraints
within which both governments must operate;
Third, to advise me on appropriate commonwealth
responses to the Tasmanian Employment Summit.
First, the Antarctic environment is extremely fragile and
critically important to the whole global ecosystem.
second, mining in Antarctica will always be dangerous, and
could be catastrophically so.
In the light of those propositions, we are convinced that
the Minerals Convention is basically flawed.
It is based on the clearly incorrect assumption current in
the 1970s that mining in the Antarctic could be consistent
with the preservation of the continent's fragile
environment. But any mining operation, with its accompanying
infrastructure and bulk transport needs, would have a
lasting and major impact on the area in which it takes
place. I do not believe that the risk of accidents can ever be
totally eliminated either by paper regimes or by advances
in technology.
The recent oil spills at the United States' Scott-Amundsen
and McMurdo Stations, although minor, demonstrate that it is
hard enough to prevent mishaps with existing, much lower
level, non-resource-based activity.
The Minerals Convention might provide for some a dangerous
illusion of environment protection.
But by permitting immediate prospecting and setting-out a
path by which mining might proceed it will in fact be
working in precisely the opposite direction.
So with France, Australia is pursuing the initiative of a
comprehensive environmental protection convention which will
establish Antarctica as'a " Natural Reserve Land of
science." I am aware that our decision has caused considerable anxiety
amongst those Antarctic Treaty members who believed that the
coming into force of the Minerals Convention was not just a
correct outcome but a foregone conclusion.
And I'm also aware of assertions that our opposition to the
convention is purely tactical, or has been adopted for
short-term electoral reasons and will be reversed as soon as
convenient. Let me urge anyone who might still harbour that fantasy to
abandon it.
Because the reverse is true.
I am convinced that more and more countries will come to
share the position that President Mitterrand, Prime Minister
Rocard and I have outlined. Already we are receiving strong
support from countries sucn as uelgiwn, Italy, the Federal
Republic of Germany, and India.
In the end, that position will prevail because it is
correct, and because it is being endorsed by international
public opinion which, in the coming months and years, will
only gather further momentum and strength.
The current discussions taking place about the Minerals
Convention, and the guidelines, codes of conduct and other
measures that Treaty parties have already put into place
including the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources attest to the environmental
sensitivity that has characterised the management of
Antarctica under the Treaty system.
Australia and France are not challenging the Treaty system,
or the operation of the consensus principle that has
underpinned its operation.
But we = m challenging Treaty members to accept that times
have changed since the 1970s, that our levels of knowledge
have changed, and that we need to continue to justify the
Antarctic Treaty Parties' management regime in Antarctica.
in taking the initiative on this issue, we are seeking to
achieve a goal that we believe would yield important
benefits mutual~ benefits for all the people of the world.
Australia, as a middle power, puts great store in
multilateral forums, because they are the best vehicles for
tackling global problems that are too broad and complex for
individual nations to resolve alone.
So, we are leading the efforts to liberalise world trade in
the Uruguay Round; initiating moves to establish closer
economic co-operation in our Asia Pacific region; hosting
the recent Government and industry conference against
chemical weapons; ' actively exerting international pressure
on the abhorrent system or apartheid.
diverse issues, but all requiring serious and
concerted efforts by many nations if the global
community is to reap the benefits they promise.
it is with that attitude and that aspiration that we
approach these vital decisions that must be made about the
future of Antarctica.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The intrepid voyages and scientific activities of Jacques
Cousteau, from whom we will hear shortly, have inspired our
generation, just as those of Dumont D'tUrville, Amnundsen and
Mawson captured the imagination of our forebears.
If we don't measure up in our decisions to protect the
Antarctic environment, we can be certain that people like
Jacques Cousteau will be there to tell us so.
I am firmly convinced that one of the greatest legacies our
generation can leave to the future may yet be one of the
simplest: one continent unspoilt, a testament to our own
recognition that in other corners of the world we have
already gone too far.