PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
22 DECEMBER 1994
PM: As a result of the disquiet has been occasioned by the decision by the
Government on export woodchips in the last few days, I have taken the
opportunity in consultation with the senior members of the Cabinet
to advance the Government's thinking and policy on the question of
export woodchipping from native forests. Now, as you may know,
there is a persistent circularity in these arguments about
woodchipping. The Government has had a policy since early 1991 of
phasing out export woodchips by the year 2000, or soon thereafter.
And at this point, there hasn't been a phase-down in volumes. What is
said to the industry is this phase-down will be diminished if you
downstream process. The industry says " we won't invest in downstream
processing without resource security, we can't get that without
Regional Forest Agreements under the National Forest Policy
Statement", but the Commonwealth can't produce the Regional Forest
Agreements because under the statement we can only do so if the
Commonwealth is invited by a State into the arrangements. The
Commonwealth is not invited in the 2 years since the Statement, has
not been invited into any arrangement by any state not NSW, not
Victoria and not Tasmania. And one of the reasons we are not invited
is because the industry doesn't encourage the invitation. So, it is a
phase-down in exports unless they're in secondary processing, but
there isn't secondary processing without the security coming from
Regional Forest Policy statements, but the Commonwealth can't get
into them without an invitation from the States, and we don't get an
invitation because the industry doesn't want it. So that's the circle.
Now, what I have decided to do is to throw a grenade into that circle,
and to get that particular log-jam moving. What I am doing now is
announcing on behalf of the Government that we are implementing a
firm program under which Australia's native forest will be properly
protected and preserved. As a consequence, from 1996 we will be
reducing the maximum permissible level of exports by about 20% a
year, so that for 1996 the maximum permissible level of export of
woodchips will be 5 million tonnes about 1 million tonnes less than
this year. And the next year it will be around 4 million tonnes, and the
next year around 3, until it is phased out by the year 2000. Now, save
for and except where conditions outlined in this statement are met
that is in respect to Regional Forest Agreements and domestic
downstream processing. Now, where-that happens, the arrangements
will then reserve for domestic consumption woodchipping in areas
which are now currently going to export. So, in other words, instead of
this process where we have had just evaluation of coupes each year
which has old growth environmental values as to old growth, rare
species etc but where the tonnages are still moving, what we will be
doing is actually ratchetting the tonnages down. So by the year 2000,
the Government will ban the export of woodchips from those areas of
Australia's native forests which are not covered by Regional Forest
Agreements incorporating a reserve system that comprehensively
represents all forest types.
Now, export woodchip licences in the future will only be granted in
relation to areas where there has been significant progress towards, or
the completion of, Regional Forest Agreements. Let me just decipher
that for you, because these take about 18 months to 2 years to put in
place. There has to be significant progress towards the completion of
Regional Forest Agreements, as required under the National Forest
Policy Statement, and the establishment of a comprehensive,
adequate and representative reserve system. In those areas,
companies which increase their domestic downstream processing
capacity and have a demonstrable commitment to doing so in other
words, where it is very clear that they are actually going to do it will
have this taken into account when the Government is determining the
export licence quotas between 1996 and 2000. So, we are now
developing a strict timetable for each Regional Forest Agreement, and
these will be developed on the basis of scientific and technical
assessments of the values of all forests, particularly old growth and
wilderness. We are also saying here that the Government will also
consider helping the industry make the transition to a greater use and
development of plantation and regrowth timbers. At the moment they
are saying " let's hop into the native forests and get as much of it out of
the road as we possibly can while the window's open, and we will think
about the future of plantations and regrowth". We're saying that
perhaps you ought to think about that earlier, and I think that approach
will represent a significant step towards a sustainable forest products
industry by the end of the century. Because this is a quite significant
employer, and we in the Government wish to see this industry
continue, but on a basis which is sustainable.
As to the process for the actual coupes that is, there are 2 questions
here the volume of the timber, and the quality of it and where it
comes from. As to that, as I make clear in the statement, the
Government is to alter the process for considering the terms,
conditions and size of woodchip exports in future the process for
advising the Minister for Resources will be co-ordinated by the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Minister for
Resources will formally consult me before making this decision. That
would mean that all of these.. . that there will be a broader process
where we are actually looking at the conservation values and the
environmental values at particular coupes, albeit in the context of a
declining level of volumes. The two things would amount to the
implementation of certainly an advance of the Government's policy
in respect of native forests, where in fact this conversation has been
running now to the States for years. But where we haven't seen any
movement on the National Forest Policy Statement towards Regional
Forest Agreements, and in implementing a firm program under which
Australia's native forests will be properly protected and preserved,
while at the same time, keeping an eye to the regional employment
consequences, and trying to refocus the timber industry into regrowth
areas or into plantations. Now I'll be glad to take your questions.
J: Prime Minister, given that all these problems were apparent before
Tuesday's decision, wouldn't it have been wiser for full Cabinet
consideration of this phasedown and also the problems surrounding
the annual decisions on woodchip licences to have been done in an
orderly fashion by Cabinet, rather than waiting for a botched decision
from a junior Minister to force your hand?
PM: Well, the thing is you can always you know, if I have got enough
time I can strip the tariff barriers out of Australia, open up the financial
markets, deal with native title issues, fix the old growth forest policy
problems, and then move onto some of the bigger, broader identity
issues into the bargain. I mean, it is all a matter of what one can
reasonably do. This is an area which is essentially run by the States.
I mean lets be clear about this the principal authorities in forest policy
are the States
J: Not in exports
PM:.. not in exports, but this is not about simply exports -a lot of this
argument is about what is being logged and what isn't. And we
entered into the National Forest Policy Statement with the States,
which is as a document of principle a good document. But it has got
to be made to work. Now, in the event that these processes show that
it is not working, at some point probably in the next 12 months, as we
head towards that 2000 target we would have to do something about
reducing the volume of exports of woodchips. I think all that has
happened with this is that we have decided to do it now. I think better
earlier than later.
J: Do you agree with the decision announced by Minister Beddall and if
not, did you make your views known to him before he made it?
PM: Well, I made my views clear to him but, in the end, and under the
arrangements we had for this decision the final judgements were his.
We set this up in the Cabinet process last year where Michael Lee
actually went through this process on advice from the then
environment Minister, Ros Kelly. I might say, by the way, when Mrs
Kelly went out and said she scored a victory in Cabinet, being able to
offer advice to the Minister for Resources, her antagonists in the
Environment movement dismissed it. This year, of course, it is of
major importance.
J: Are you saying Mr Beddall ignored your advice?
PM: I made my views clear to him but he was the one that had to go
through the coupes and make assessments from information which
was, in some respects, arriving. I think what was happening here was
a problem, perhaps, of process rather than anything else. And, as I
have just announced that change to you, we'll change the process over
next year. So, we'll change the process and we'll change the process
in the context of a much clearer policy about where we are actually
going.
J: Mr Keating, are you pleased with Minister Beddall's decision?
PM: Well, look, I have made my position clear about that. Within the
context of the responsibilities to make these judgements, as he
understood it, he made the best decision he could make. And,
therefore, what I am about is rather than giving any of you
characters any cheap lines is moving on with how we actually do
something good about the forests and how we draw some strength
from this discussion, this debate.
J: interpretation that can be put on it is that he misunderstood your
guidance?
PM: Well, you're a good interpreter of things, normally, Jim. That's why
they pay you all that money.
J: Prime Minister you say that the Government will consider rescheduling
existing logging operations in some areas. Does that mean that some
companies might not be able to fulfil their licences?
PM: Well, there are licences and licences, here. There are licences which
are just a tick on the previous year's licence, where there is no
discretion by ministers, at all, as to coupes, etcetera. Where there is a
discretion, what we are saying, the government will consider
rescheduling some of the operations. In other words, where we are
looking at volume and quality I use the word quality in the broadest
context of environmental values.... Where we are talking about, say,
volume and environmental values, where the licences are a pro forma
reissuance, well, that's done. Where they are not that, where there is
a discretion, where environmental values are an issue, yes we will
consider rescheduling some of the operations while, at the same
time trying to maintain the volumes.
J: Mr Keating, is the fact that your department will now have a role in
advising the Minister for Resources, a sign that there was a problem
with the way John Faulkner handled the process?
PM: It is, rather, the process, I think. Look, what happens here is, there is
the pressure from those interested in native forests in this country to
transfer the state forestry problem to the Commonwealth. And, the
device is export controls, which means Commonwealth ministers who
don't run forestry departments then have to offer advice and take
advice on which coupes are important in environmental terms and
which are not. OK, it's not perfect, we live in a federation, there is a
division of responsibilities, there is a lot of intransigence on forests,
everybody does their best. But, better in the context of knowing where
we are going. The policy has been about phasing out wood chipping
in favour of downstream processing. If there isn't to be downstream
processing, if there is to be simply a jamming up of those issues, then
something has to change it. This is what is going to change it. We're
simply going to reduce the volumes.
J: But, you said that was always your policy, to take it down to zero by
2000?
PM: Well, I think it was first announced by Bob Hawke in the thing called,
Building a Competitive Australia ( 12 March, 1991). And what he says
is that it is the government's objective, in cooperation with the states,
to phase out the export of woodchip by the year 2000 and soon
thereafter be replaced by the manufacture of pulp and paper and other
value added products for domestic use and export. And, then, later on
we said at a Premiers' conference, " And after that, on a case by case
basis."
J: Mr Keating, were you surprised by the outcry that this decision
triggered?
PM: It's on every year, now. It's like a ritual, the incantations are starting
while the paper is still shuffling. And, everybody's ready to do their
best or their worst when it is published. Now, because these decisions
were perceived to have cut across the interests of environmentalists,
well, they've gone into as is their right, to make their case...
J: Do you think the government miscalculated the backlash?
PM: I don't think the government has miscalculated anything at all, here.
The problem here is the protagonists for, or the antagonists to logging,
lack all influence with the states who run forest policy. Now, Bob
Brown's up there talking about, ' What's the difference between this
Prime Minister and a National Party figure?' He has no influence
whatsoever, with Premiers Fahey, Kennett and Groom, who make the
decisions, primarily, about forests. And that is the fact of it. All this
huffing and puffing and incantations, when it comes to the cutting
edge, he is useless except for running around the corridors here in
Parliament House, Canberra. OK, the Commonwealth has a split
responsibility, we will give further, definition to our part of that
responsibility. But, in the end, the Commonwealth has some control
over wood chipping but it has none whatsoever over saw log. If
someone wants to fell a tree for saw log, it's entirely a matter for the
states. So, what's he going to do down at Parliament House,
Macquarie Street? Poke his tongue out outside St Stephens Church?
I mean, do a little war dance in Spring Street? What is going to bring
the State Premiers around to some influence other than banging out a
press statement in the Canberra gallery? That's pretty easy.
J: Don't you have to keep these people on side for the next election, Mr
Keating?
PM: Bob Brown is an opponent of ours. He's running for a seat in the
senate.
J: But, in terms of green preferences?
PM: I don't want to keep him on side, I want to sideline him. Sideline him.
J: Is this the best way to do it?
PM: Well, it has generally been effective as a policy.
J: What about your own caucus, Mr Keating, do you thinK this will stave
off the proposed motion for the new year?
PM: Oh well, there are caucus processes we all understand about, there is
a bit of incantation going on there, too. That's true on most issues.
J: Prime Minister, John Devereaux, accused you, yesterday, of conning
the 43 backbenchers and two ministers who wrote to you urging the
protection of high conservation areas. What is your response to that
accusation?
PM: I think John basically likes me, to be honest, and I like him. But, I'd
prefer that he didn't take his obvious and conscientious interest in the
forests to the end of leaving the Labor caucus because this is where
he can be most effective.
J: But, did you give them the impression that...?
PM: No, No. Because I was not involved in that process under the
Cabinet's arrangements.
J: Did your office give backbenchers that impression?
PM: No.
J: Well, that's a difference because they thought it was, " under control".
PM: Well, that's what most people say when something comes out that they
think isn't right, in their terms.
J: Why shouldn't Mr Beddall take it, as a vote of no confidence in him,
that you've had to change the process after his decision?
PM: Well, I think he thinks that the process was fairly limited, too as to
judgements about coupes and no, if you like, overall guideline as to
volumes. That's now come in here.
J: If you had any faith in him you wouldn't have to change the process?
PM: Well, that's not right. Faith in him and the process are two different
things.
J: So, you have complete faith in him?
PM: Well, there is no doubt that he exercised his responsibility in terms of
that which he perceived to be his judgements, to be made about the
imperatives of volumes versus the issues of environmental values.
And, you can only do that on certain advice.
J: But he didn't listen to advice, did he?
PM: Well, you're only going over old ground, so...
J: What stage of the process, Prime Minister, did you communicate your
views to Mr Beddall and how did you put that to him?
PM; Look, I have told you I communicated my views, and that is enough.
J: With the benefit of hindsight would you have communicated your views
to him, more strongly...?
.18
PM: No, but in the end, what's come from this, but a very large change.
Where is the news in this. The news I mean, let me go through my
own little incantation the news is where the weight is, right, for those
of you who didn't go through the appropriate formalities of training as
journalists. The news is where the weight is, the weight is a policy
change, here, that cuts the volumes down.
J: You've talked about incentives, when and what sort?
PM: I think when the industry comes back seriously and knows they're in a
serious game, we can talk about in which way they might move
towards plantations or regrowth. But, at the moment they think, if
they've got a closing window, they'll go for the things of greatest value
in the greatest quantity. And, I think they've got to know that a) the
government does want the industry to keep going and b) that it is best
on a sustainable basis, and if they get into regrowth and plantation
we'll be of a mind to help them. But, nothing we can do, though, will
transpose ourselves over the primary responsibility of the States for
running forestry. And, this is in the division of responsibilities, under
the Constitution, they are there. Now, we're into it because of our
environmental interests and our export powers, our external affairs
powers. But, they are in it, primarily on a function basis and that is
going to be, always, the key determinant. Thank you.
Ends.