PRIME MINISTER
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UJNTIL. DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
ENVIRONMENT 1990 CONFERENCE
SYDNEY 2 MAY 1990
Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
All elements of the Australian community must be involved in
this vital task for the 1990s: developing the strategies
for safeguarding the environment that our children will
inherit and demanding of government at all levels, of
industry and of interest groups that those strategies be
implemented. This conference, bringing together a diverse group drawn
from industry, government, conservation groups and academia,
is a valuable contribution to the consideration of these
important questions, and I am grateful for your invitation
to address you this morning.
The range of topics to be addressed at this conference
clearly demonstrates how pervasive environmental
considerations have become. It highlights the stark fact
that the environment has never been more prominent in the
public mind than it is today. It highlights too the range
of pressures that will be exerted on, and opportunities that
will be available to, the Australian business community, as
it responds to this critical issue.
To an outsider it might seem that the community debate about
the future of Australia is being conducted in two entirely
different languages. One language is the language of
aesthetics this is the language spoken by some who regard
preservation of the environment as a totally overriding and
inflexible goal. The other language is spoken by some
industrialists. In this hardheaded language, natural
resource development is seen as the lone goal, bringing with
i-t-a-be~ n-ess-number-of---jobs---afd-easy--solut-ions to
Australia' s economic difficulties.
As in the tower of Babel, the proliferation of languages
does not improve the level of communication between human
beings. It impedes constructive dialogue and handicaps
those who wish to develop workable solutions.
If Australians were to conduct a debate on these issues in
such uncompromising terms, we would make no progress. We
would simply talk past one another; we would not in fact
have real debate at all but merely assertion, antagonism and
name calling. The real question is not, which of the two
languages must we speak? But, how do we translate the best
concepts of both languages into a new language that we can
all understand and that will break through deadlocks in the
resolution of environmental and development issues.
The name of that new language of course is ecologically
sustainable development.
For its part, my Government has never accepted a dichotomy
between economy and ecology. Economic development is
sustainable in the long term only if it is environmentally
sustainable. My Government has succeeded both in creating
jobs at a rate twice as fast as the rest of the western
world and in preserving the environment to such an extent
that the World Heritage Bureau has acknowledged Australia as
having done more to promote world heritage values than any
other country.
So it can be done: economy and ecology can be made to go
hand in hand. But for Australia the job is far from
complete. It is time to move to the next stage.
One of the principal tasks facing my-Government, as it
enters its fourth term in office a task that confronts the
entire Australian community as it enters the 1990s is the
challenge of turning the principle of sustainable
development into practical policies for each major industry
sector. We want sustainable development to be not merely a
concept, but a recipe for decision making.
Certainly, the community will sometimes be faced with a
stark choice between the development of, say, a mineral
resource and the preservation of a pristine wilderness area.
The notion of multiple land use is not applicable in all
instances. But often the task will be one of ensuring that
development activities are managed in such a way as not to
cause irreparable or unacceptable damage to the surrounding
environment. Sustainable development must start from the proposition that
our environmental assets need to be looked after and
mdintained in much the same way as we care for and invest in
othc-assets-that sustainandenhance_ our productive
capacity for the future. In that sense, good environmental
management means sound economic management.
Environmental considerations must be fully integrated into
our decision making.
It is essential that business, along with other interest
groups and governments, are all involved in the task of
identifying problems and developing solutions to overcome
them. I have therefore asked State Governments and
industry, union and environmental interest groups to work
with us in the formulation of a sustainable development
strategy. The first step is the preparation of a discussion paper on
the concept of sustainable development. Once that concept
has been well articulated and the key principles identified,
I propose to establish working groups to translate these
findings into practical policies for particular industry
sectors. It will be vital for the success of this process
that industry and other key interest groups participate
fully in the development of these strategies. The
Commonwealth's part in the formulation of a sustainable
development strategy will be over-sighted by a special new
Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable development.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Most of the issues which you will be considering over the
next three days indeed, most of the problems that we are
facing are also being experienced in other countries.
Success in dealing with our national problems will mean that
we are well placed to assist others. We have already
increased the environmental component of our aid program.
And there could also be significant export opportunities to
be grasped for those in the vanguard of developing new
products and more environmentally benign technology.
There are, however, other problems that are global in scope
and which cannot be solved by any one country acting alone.
Their very nature demands a co-operative and co-ordinated
international effort. It is an extraordinary mark of the
increased public consciousness of previously arcane
scientific issues that these problems are now familiar to us
all especially the greenhouse effect and depletion of the
ozone layer. And it is an extraordinary mark of the
modernisation of Australia's foreign policy objectives as we
enter the 1990s that Australia is now playing a leading role
in international efforts to deal with these problems. We
shall continue to do so.
We will continue to work hard for an international
convention on climate change that will bind all countries to
a -program-of -reduc-ing.. greenhouse. gas emi ss ions.
At the same time we must ensure that Australia continues to
be at the forefront of world responses to this problem. A
special working group has been set up at my direction to
examine options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
Australia. Its preliminary report was released at the end
of 1989 for public comment.
We will be continuing to support a greenhouse research
program to improve our knowledge of the atmospheric changes
taking place and of their likely impact. Over the next
three years we will be providing funding of at least $ 5.7
million per year for this purpose.
Australia has also taken a strong stand in response to the
threat to the ozone layer. Under the Montreal Protocol,
Australia is required to have reduced consumption of ozone
depleting substances by 50 per cent by 1998. In fact, under
our Strategy for Ozone Protection, developed after extensive
consultation with industry, unions and public interest
groups, we will have achieved a reduction of 95 per cent by
1995 and a complete phase-out by 1998.
The greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer are
matters which could affect all Australians directly and
profoundly. Our interest in promoting international action
to deal with this is clear. My Government is also very
conscious of our responsibility to act on other
international issues even though the benefits may be less
obvious or immediate.
We have been instrumental in shifting world opinion towards
the view that humanity should conserve the Antarctic, the
last pristine continent on earth, for scientific and
recreational purposes; and that the barbaric and inefficient
practice of drift-net fishing should be banned. And we will
be working hard for the development of an international
biological diversity convention.
Now, Australia cannot talk with influence and credibility to
the rest of the world about the need to preserve the global
environment unless we are practicing what we preach at home.
I am proud that we are meeting that obligation.
Last year, in my statement on the environment, I outlined
the program of action that we are undertaking. Last month I
issued a progress report and announced a new series of
measures which continue our commitment to the protection of
the environment. I do not propose to itemise them all
today, but several are worthy of particular mention.
One of our most serious environmental problems has been the
threat to our soil. But the point is that this is a problem
for the national economic interest as well a clear cut
cdse where preservation of the environment and protection of
v-ita----i~ ndust-ry -our--iarming-industy,--go. hand in hand.
It is encouraging that large numbers of Australians not only
recognise the importance of addressing this problem but are
prepared to do something about it themselves. The response
to the Landcare program has been very encouraging and gives
us great hope for the future.
If balanced, reasoned decisions on the environment are to be
made then we must have extensive and reliable data to
facilitate the decision making process.
My Government has long recognised this need and has made
significant progress towards the establishment of a system
of data bases that will satisfy it. These include the
National Resource Information Centre, the National Forest
Inventory and the National Wilderness Inventory. These
systems are being developed so that they can be integrated
to allow ready assessment of the full resource implications
of alternative courses of action.
The Resource Assessment Commission, established last year,
will also assist better decision making. This independent
advisory body will conduct inquiries into complex resource
use matters with terms of reference that range across both
the environmental and economic factors involved. The public
inquiry process will contribute to a better and wider
understanding of the facts of a particular situation and of
the issues and options open to us as a nation.
There could be, perhaps, no more contentious and vexed
question than the subject of the Commission's first
reference: the use of our forest resources.
A growing number of Australians have made it clear that they
want to see substantial areas of our native forests
preserved. But the community's demand for timber, paper and
paper products continues to grow. The industry provides
jobs for many thousands and makes a ' very significant
contribution to the Australian economy.
We are confident that, in time, a strategy can be developed
which can Accommodate both the demands for forest
preservation and the need to maintain a thriving and secure
timber industry. We have committed ourselves to that end
and have already announced that we will be taking steps to
expand the supply of pulpwood by encouraging the
establishment of eucalypt plantations. We will be
continuing to work closely with the major interest groups
and the States in the further development of a national
forest strategy. In the end governments must take the
decisions that is what we are elected to do and we will
not shirk that responsibility. But we will be looking to
the Resource Assessment Commission's report to provide a
major input into our decisions.
We have also announced that we will strive for national
siandards of air and water quality and national strategies
to .4mpl-ement-them, We -are-eomi4tted--to -establishing an
Environment Protection Agency to coordinate this work.
Constitutionally the responsibility for these matters rests
in the main with the States, but, as the national
Government, we will assert a role. We must, for a very
simple but compelling reason problems of air and water
quality transcend State boundaries.
The advantages of establishing national environmental
standards are, I believe, also demonstrated by the
guidelines developed for bleached eucalypt kraft pulp mills.
These were developed in consultation with the States as well
as with industry and environmental groups. I am not saying
that there is no place in our system for regional and indeed
local variations in attitudes to issues of the environment
and economic development. But where as with pulp milling
we are concerned with issues impacting on the national
economy, our current account situation and the environment
beyond a particular locality the Commonwealth has a clear
interest and role.
I referred earlier to the pressures and opportunities of the
new environmental awareness for businesses and companies.
Those who own or manage operations with clean,
environmentally sound processes will increasingly gain
commercial advantage over those without. The recent
announcement by the Heinz company that its subsidiaries will
not accept tuna caught in drift nets is a clear and dramatic
example of the commercial power of the community's
environmental consciousness and a welcome and sensitive
expense by a major corporation.
For Australia there will be increasing commercial
opportunities in helping others to make their production
processes more environmentally friendly. New technologies
are needed to increase energy efficiency, to replace
chlorofluorocarbons, to reduce gas emissions.
Some Australian companies are already taking advantage of
these opportunities. The Neutralysis process of waste
disposal and lightweight aggregate production is a
significant world development in waste technology. I am
happy to say that the Commonwealth assisted in this
development through an Industry Research and Development
Grant exceeding $ 1.5 million. We announced recently that up
to $ 4 million a year from this scheme will be made available
for the development of new technologies in waste and
environmental management. The MEMTEC filtration system is
another example of innovation and development by an
Australian company.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The debate on environmental issues is not only more
wfdespread now than ever before more prominent on the
nati-onal-poitical-agenda-than-ever-before but also much
more informed. It is also increasingly co-operative rather
than adversarial. The focus of debate is moving away from
whether we need to change our ways towards the best way of
going about it. This is an extraordinarily healthy
development and one, I suggest, we must all encourage.
Companies in all sectors of the Australian economy are
boosting their environmental sections to ensure that they
keep up with the best of their competition. It is more and
more simply good business practice to do so.
We are all faced with a challenge today, a challenge we
cannot avoid. This challenge is to continue to meet the
reasonable economic expectations and aspirations of all
Australians something which has always been central to the
objectives of my Party without incurring an environmental
debt that will doom future generations to an impoverished
land of greatly reduced opportunities.
I am confident that we can meet this challenge. But to do
so we must work together governments, businesses, unions
and environmental groups.
This conference is evidence of your commitment to
co-operative solutions. We need it we need more of it.
So I wholeheartedly congratulate the organisers for their
vision and hard work, and I have great pleasure in declaring
the International Environmental Solutions Conference open.