E 0 E PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THE MINISTER FOR ARTS,
HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT, MR COHEN, AND THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY
INDUSTRY, MR KERIN MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 1986
PM: The Cabinet has had a lengthy consideration of the question
of protecting National Estate values in Tasmania forests. It's
made a decision that it will oppose forestry operations in
National Estate areas of Tasmania until it can be satisfied that
National Estate values are protected, or that there are not
feasible alternatives. We want, as you will see from our press
statement from the decision of Cabinet, to have the co-operation
of the Tasmanian Government in this matter. To that intent the
Minister, Mr Kerin, will actively pursue negotiations with his
counterpart in Tasmania, Mr Groom, with a view to reaching
agreement on feasible alternatives to forestry operations
continuing in the National Estate areas. we would hope to secure
such agreement, but in the event that that's not possible then we
would seek, ourselves, to establish a review process. But we
hope if the consultation with the Tasmanian Government doesn't
produce agreement that they would, themselves, agree to a review
process to examine the question of a feasible and prudent
alternative. As I say, if we can't get that position, and we
will try very hard to get it, then we would establish those
review mechanisms ourselves. We have taken this decision
conscious of the responsibility that we, as a national
government, have to protect the National Estate. We also take
the decision, in the way we have, conscious of the importance of
the forestry industry to the State of Tasmania. We believe that
if the processes we have decided upon are followed that there
need not be any loss of jobs in Tasmania, because there are ample
feasible alternative sources of supply available to replace those
in the areas in question. We say therefore, as is indicated in
the press release, we see no reason why a single job need be lost
as a result of the Government's decision. I hope that as a
result of the lengthy consideration that has been given to this
important matter, and the decision that's been taken, that we're
going to have a position in which those who properly have a deep
concern for the preservation of the National Estate in this
country, and those who, on the other hand, perhaps prime interest
is the question of the economics of the forestry industry will be
able to come together in a way which will produce a result which
is acceptable. I make the point that really what is involved is
in a sense ultimately testing a position which is common to the
two protagonists, if you like. Let me make it clear, the
conservation movement assert, and have asserted consistently,
that there is no need to proceed with forestry*
operations in the areas in question because there are ample
feasible, prudent alternatives outside those areas. on the other
hand, the Tasmanian Government and the Forestry Commission there
and the industry disputes that proposition. So it seems to us
sensible that that fundamental position be tested. We do not
seek, as a Commonwealth Government, to impose a judgement upon
Tasmania. That is not consistent with the approach to decision
making which my Government has followed from the first day we've
been in office. We seek co-operation of the Tasmanian Government
and I hope that as a result of the discussions that John Kerin
will be having with his counterpart, that that will be
forthcoming. But we as a government are committed to processes
which, as I say, will do all within the power of this government
to protect National Estate values.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you believe that jobs will be now lost
as the ACTU has said, because you have made a decision on this
issue? PM: No. As I said in my statement, there cannot, I believe, be
any argument as to the immediate availability of alternative
resources and provided the Tasmanian Government is co-operative
those alternative resources can be turned to now while the
processes of consultation and, if necessary, review are
undertaken. JOURNALIST: Who's going to conduct the review?
PM: What the decision makes clear is that we would seek, as I
say, to get co-operation of the Tasmanian Government and if they
will agree we can consult together on the composition of that
review. And I hope that will be the case, that we can get their
co-operation, if not then we would have to, ourselves, establish
that review. We have made no decision as to composition, but the
Cabinet decision leaves the composition of that review body to
myself and John and Barry.
JOURNALIST: Mr Prime Minister, it does seem that the underlying
thread of your announcement is that if it comes to a choice
between jobs and the environment this government will choose to
maintain jobs. Is this a fair summary?
PM: I don't think that puts it properly. You'll see at the
beginning of the press release that we have issued, we are saying
we are opposing forestry operations in National Estate areas of
Tasmania until we're satisfied that National Estate values are
protected, or there are not feasible alternatives. On the
information available to us, we believe that you needn't
necessarily be looking at one, or the other, and an essential
part of decision we've taken is really to test the issue which is
common to both sides. I repeat, the conservationists are saying
and I accept the integrity with which they are putting their
position they say, don't paint us as not having a concern for
jobs. Don't paint us as saying we are not concerned with
peoples' employment. They are saying that they believe that
without proceeding, and certainly without proceeding at this
point, into National Estate areas there are adequate viable and
prudent alternatives. what the decision of the Cabinet provides
is a process of testing that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if logging does start in either the
, Lemonthyme or Southern Forests area, how effective a blocking
measure can the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act be?
PM: We believe that it does provide power to the Commonwealth.
Obviously, in the division of powers that exists between the
Executive and the Parliament, and the judiciary, we do not have
the final right to determine what that power is. We believe the
power exists, but ultimately it is a matter which may be tested
in the High Court.
JOURNALIST: Mr Cohen, are you disappointed you were unable to
announce today no logging no matter what?
COHEN: I'm delighted with the decision Cabinet's made.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you think a similar inquiry process
would be appropriate to resolve the question of new mining in
Kakadu Stage III?
PM: We'll be dealing with the question of Stage III in the
Cabinet tomorrow. Cabinet will be making its decision there, and
it's my judgment we'll be making an appropriate decision in those
circumstances. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, is it unlikely the Tasmanian Government
will co-operate?
PM: I hope not. We sought, when we first came to government in
regard to the dam, to get co-operation. It wasn't forthcoming.
I would hope the Government and the people of Tasmania would see
from the events there that this is a government which seeks to
get resolutions by way of co-operation. We believe there is a
way through by co-operation. So I hope that arises. I'm not
here to be seen as waving big sticks. It ought to be established
now, after about four years in government, that's not my way of
doing things or the way of my government.
JOURNALIST: How much longer will this decision allow logging in
Jackeys Marsh and particularly if there is any inclination to
continue logging next year, would the Government also invoke the
World Heritage Conservation Act as you suggest
PM: No, as we understand it now and as we are given to
understand from some discussions with some representatives of the
conservation movement there is a clear understanding that this
season's operations in Jackey's Marsh are virtually completed.
There is not very long to go and the conservation movement, as we
have spoken to them, accepts the reality that it can be
completed. But the decision takes the view that in the general
review that will emerge from these processes it is appropriate
for the question of alternatives, feasible and prudent resources
to be applied to the consideration of Jackey's Marsh. But as to
the application of the World Heritage protection mechanism, it is
identified as being appropriate to the two areas of the National
Estate, that is Lemonthyme and the Southern Forest.
JOURNALIST: So you haven't got that off the agenda with Jackey's
Marsh? PM: Well, it is conceded I mean by all those involved that the
same considerations do not apply to Jackey's Marsh and the
Douglas River area.
COHEN: It is not considered. Even the conservation movement
doesn't consider that Jackeys Marsh is of World Heritage status
or Douglas River.
JOURNALIST: Are you prepared to take these two areas to the
World Heritage courts to protect them?
PM: Well, I made it clear in an earlier answer that in one way
or another it is quite possible that you will get to the High
Court on this issue. What we have made clear in our decision that
we are prepared to use those powers that we believe do exist
under that legislation. Now, as I say in one way or another that
may be tested. But we think it is an appropriate head of power.
JOURNALIST: What will you do if Mr Gray moves into those areas
next week and starts logging?
PM: Well, quite clearly the decision is unequivocal. We say that
we would oppose that and then it would be up to us to use our
powers. That would presumably and obviously have to be advised by
our legal advisers but in those circumstances you would seek an
injunction seeking to use that power.
JOURNALIST: Mr Kerin, do you see this decision consistent with
your role as Primary Industry Minister, that is the development
of primary industry n this country?
KERIN: I think one thing you have to focus on Greg, is that what
we are doing today is still giving the Memorandum of
Understanding a chance to work. That was negotiated over six
months and if the Tasmanian Government is prepared to look at
this whole question of prudent and feasible alternatives we still
maintain the position of trying to get a balance between
environment and jobs which is what the basic decision was. Today
is actually the anniversary of the Cabinet decision we took a
year ago. So the same things are on the board. We want to give
the MOU a chance to work. It is all about a balance between
environment and jobs. And that is the way it has always been.
What we want to do here is test the prudent and feasible
alternative and/ or sequencing of forestry operations.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, in the Parliament you gave an
unequivocal guarantee that the Government would fight
Peko-Walisend in the court if it sought to exercise mining.
Is your resolve as strong in this case as it was against Peko on
the Kakadu issue?
PM: of course our resolve is as strong. We have got a position
in regard to the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth's powers
up there which are different from the situation in regard to
Tasmania. JOURNALIST: Mr Kerin, have you got any idea in terms of the
total area and volume that would constitute a feasible set of
alternatives? KERIN: Well, there's lots of figures around. If I can just give
an example. The National Estate value on the Lemonthyme is the
visual values from the world Heritage area adjacent. The
Tasmanian Government wants to log about 40% of that area over
years. In terms of the size of those coops, in terms of the
sequence of operations, what we would be looking at is areas that
are available to the Tasmanian Forestry Commission whether or not
that logging needs to go ahead now. And that is a perfectly
reasonable, rational approach and I believe that if the Tasmanian
Forestry Commission co-operates and gives us an idea of their
logging proposals we may be able to get a more prudent and a more
feasible alternative than what we have confronting us at present.
JOURNALIST: You have alreay had talks with Mr Groom. How
hopeful are you that he will be co-operative this time?
KERIN: I had one conversation with Mr Groom today just out of
courtesy to advise him of what had been vocadexed down to him. I
hope to see him on Wednesday or Thursday this week, probably
Thursday. JOURNALIST: What was his response?
KERIN: He appreciated the courtesy of letting him know.
JOURNALIST: If at the beginning of next seasons logging they go
back into Jackeys marsh, what action are you prepared to take
there? Is there any, action
PM: I am not going into hypotheticals. What I rest upon and-what
the Government rests upon is the decision and that is that we
have attempted to set up a process of consultation and/ or review.
And ' the answer that I gave earlier and that John has given is
valid. We hope to get that process of co-operation through the
consultation or review process to which they agree. I don't think
anyone's interest is served by dealing with that hypothetical
question. We have said that we believe that the realistic thing
now, given that the committee has looked at Jackey's Marsh, is to
allow this season's operations to finish. They are virtually
finished now. But we believe it is appropriate to include
Jackey's Marsh in that overall review process. Now that is our
decision and no one's interest is served by becoming hypothetical
about a years time.
JOURNALIST: Have the Tasmanian loggers got any option but to go
into those areas? Is there enough areas outside
PM: I would have thought that if there is one thing that is
clear out of the decision we have taken that that is the precise
question that is an issue and we are. trying to set up a process
for establishing that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, it could be argued that if the National
Estate is to be conserved that the cost of that preservation
should be undertaken by the nation as a whole and not Tasmania
alone. If possible alternatives are not an economic proposition
for logging, does the Federal Government stand ready to weigh in
with a subsidy to preserve the National Estate forests in
Tasmania. PM: well, that question is both irrelevant and hypothetical at
this stage because what we are doing is the same comment that I
made before to the previous questi-on is that we are about testing
the question of the existence of adequate prudent alternatives.
Now, quite clearly if the outcome of that inquiry is to show that
there are then the question doesn't arise. And again no one's
interests are served by addressing what at this stage must be by
definition entirely a hypothetical question.
ENDS