TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR THE HON
GARETH EVANS QC AND SENATOR THE HON GRAHAM RICHARDSON,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 22 NAY 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: I apologise that Senator Richardson has been delayed,
but we understand that you've got some other timetable and
deadline and schedule that you want to adhere to so we
decided it best to start.
The Cabinet considered the question of Antarctic
environment at its meeting this morning and we have decided
that we will not sign the Minerals Convention, but instead
will pursue the urgent negotiation of the comprehensive
environmental protection convention within the framework of
the Antarctic Treaty system. We recognise that the proposal
to have such a Convention could offer something better than
the existing situation or no Convention at all, but we
believe it wasn't acceptable to us in terms of the absolute
commitment that the Australian Government has to no mining
in the Antarctic.
So we will be pursuing, as we've indicated in our joint
Press Release, in the relevant forums the attempt to create
such an expanded and comprehensive Convention to protect the
environment there. Within that context to attempt to secure
the establishment of an Antarctic Wilderness Park.
Let me make the point in regard to the concept of an
Antarctic Wilderness Park that this is to be pursued within
the extisting framework of the Antarctic Treaty system which
provides a context in the framework for such an
international regime to be established.
We recognised, and the whole Cabinet understood, that to
achieve what we want to do, this comprehensive protection of
the environment in the Antarctic is not going to be a simple
process. Putting it the other way, it's going to be
extremely hard row to hoe because there is, as we understand
it, a fair degree of opposition to that approach.
Nevertheless, we believe that there is a growing perception
around the world of the responsibility that governments have
to protect these fragile environments. That is a generally
growing perception we believe and it has been enhanced more
recently by the disastrous oil spill in Alaska. So we
intend to try and muster within the international community
all the support we can for this approach.
As I say with my colleagues in the Press Release in the
visits that I arnd Gareth and Graham Richardson will be
undertaking in the near future, we will use those visits as
an opportunity to press the Australian Government position.
So let me sum it up by saying the Australian Government is
opposed to mining in the Antarctic and because of that firm
position that we have we do not intend to sign the
Convention and instead will pursue the concepts, as I say,
the comprehensive Antarctic Environmental Convention and
within that context the hope to establish an Antarctic
Wilderness Park.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, from statements from Senator
Richardson earlier it would seem that the Government wasn't
going to end up on this course. What's swung the Cabinet
and the Government around to this position?
PM: Well, let me go to it. There was a view which in part
of the comment I've made that goes to that. There was a
view, an understandable view, that the Moratorium which
exists down there is a Moratorium which is expressed as
being in place until such time as a local minerals
Convention was signed and an attitude that the Convention
would be necessary and desirable to have a regime within
which you would be able to control, regulate and possibly
prevent mining. Now in our consideration of this matter, we
have come to the view that we want to have Australia in a
position where, not only are we opposed to mining, but in a
sustainable international position, can be said to be
opposed to mining and acting in that way. Now there is no
way, as we studied the matter in terms of international law,
that you could sign the Convention but with a reservation
which said you were opposed to mining because as a matter of
international legal convention and interpretation such an
unqualified reservation would, in fact, be not acceptable
from a signatory. And as that became clear and as we were
firm in our position that we were opposed to mining that
course of action was not possible.
JOURNALIST: How strong was the vote in Cabinet?
PM: As in nearly all positions in my Cabinet there was no
vote and we don't only have consensus in the community we
have it in the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Well, was it overwhelming view of Cabinet
members that this should be
PM: Let me say that there was no vote, because we don't
have votes in the Cabinet, and in the end, there was no
expression of opposition to the course of action.
JOURNALIST: [ inaudible]
PM: Well I have addressed that point and we've indicated
that it could be in that sense some improvement, but what we
are saying is that as we discussed this matter and wanted to
sustain a position of the Australian Government being
opposed to and being able to be opposed to mining, the
advice clearly was that you couldn't sign the Convention and
at the same time enter a reservation which said that you
were opposed to mining and would stop mining. Now you can't
have that position sustainably with our opposition to
mining. And so we've also taken the view in that context
that there is a possibility of a changing attitude amongst
nations who have hitherto expressed views on this question.
We think there is a changing world climate of opinion, if I
can put it that way, which is a function both of the general
increase and awareness of the responsibility of governments
in this generation to protect the planet generally and most
particularly in regard to the Antarctic, because of the
experience of the recent oil spill in Alaska, an increasing
understanding of the absolute fragility of that environment.
So while we quite frankly acknowledge that there will be
difficulties in attempting to change views of government
towards the position that we are adopting we nevertheless
believe that Australia has a responsibility to take a lead
in this matter.
JOURNALIST: Well Mr Hawke, what if the worst comes to the
worst and you aren't able to get the support you want for an
Antarctic Wilderness Park? Where does that leave you
PM: We are not going to be consumed at this point by what,
in the sense that you put it, is a worst case scenario.
What we are committed to now is to exercise as much
influence as we can both at officials levels and at the
level of Ministers with Gareth, myself, Senator Richardson,
to try and get the sort of outcome that we think is
appropriate, and we think the appropriate outcome is a
commitment to no mining. We are not satisfied that the
alternative course of action that had been intelligently
analysed, looked at, we are not satisfied that pursuing that
course is consistent with that unqualified opposition that
we have to mining so we are going to use all the resources
that we have at the official and governmental level to try
and change attitudes on this point.
JOURNALIST: What sort of reaction do you expect from
international do you expect any adverse
PM: Let's be quite straightforward about it, there will be
many significant players who, on the basis of their known
positions on this point, will be opposed to the Australian
position. But Australia, under this Government, has not
been a country which just wets its finger to the aura of
international opinion and says well that's what determines
Australia's position, if we believe that something is right
then we have been prepared to pursue it. That's been true
whether you look at questions of nuclear testing, South
Pacific nuclear free zones, some quite critical questions in
PM ( cont): the disarmament area where this Government has
believed that a course of action is what is necessary in the
best interests of the world then we have been prepared to
pursue it. Now we are quite aware of the fact that in
pursuing this course of action there will be opposition but
I go back to the point that we don't live in a static world
and if the attitudes of governments today, in regard to
environmental issues is markedly different, to what it was
even 12 months ago. Gareth has attended, I think it was in
March, the 11th of March in the Hague, the Conference there
that was called by three nations, the French and the
Norwegians and the Netherlands, and the range of attendance
that you got there is something that I think perhaps 12
months ago before that you wouldn't have been regarded as
possible. So we don't believe that we are acting, as I say,
in a static environment which is incapable of change of
attitude and opinion and we think we have got a
responsibility to try and change attitudes.
JOURNALIST: attached to this strategy that we could end
up with no Minerals Convention, a Moratorium which doesn't
hold up if, as some people fear, there are nations out there
who are determined to go ahead and explore?
PM: There are risks in all strategies that one adopts,
whether it is in domestic affairs or international affairs.
What you've got to do is to say ' well what is the basic
objective that you want to achieve?'. Now the basic
objective that we want to achieve is no mining in Antarctic.
We think we have got time to pursue that course of action,
we think there is a chance of persuasion although, as I have
said at the outset of this Press conference, we don't
underestimate the very considerable difficulties through
that course and we will conduct ourselves in a way which is
directed towards achieving that goal. If you have got to
consider a position at the end of those processes as to
where you think the world's best interests and our best
interests are served, well that will be the time to do it.
But we are going to wholeheartedly and without qualification
pursue this course of action now.
JOURNALIST: [ inaudible]
PM: Well one can't be certain of the French position.
Certainly there have been expressions of opinion from
authoritative quarters within France which have expressed
points of view which are similar to the one that we are
expressing. The obvious point to make therefore in response
to your question is that when I meet Prime Minister Rocard
in Paris next month I will obviously be discussing this
matter in very considerable detail with him and hoping to
get French support for our position.
JOURNALIST: Senator Richardson, you've made it clear in the
past that you're pro-convention and so is Senator Evans.
Has it been a case today that you've been converted to the
cause or is it going with the Cabinet flow?
RICHARDSON: Well I've been saying for some months actually
that it was a pretty marginal decision but I favoured
signing. But having said that, there's a good case that we
ought to try to do better as we tried last time, so the
Australian Government's going to try it. That's the
appropriate course of action.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke will World Heritage Listing be a
considerable
PM: No I made the point in an earlier comment that there is
in existence an international Antarctic Treaty system and
that provides the framework within which we are convinced
that the concept of an Antarctic Wilderness Park can not
only as a concept work, but there is a structure there an
international structure which can give effect to it. See
what you've got to understand that is under the World
Heritage concept that the management of an area listed for
World Heritage devolves upon the country in which that area
listed exists. Now you haven't got that situation in the
Antarctic. There's no country which has sovereignty,
exclusive sovereignty or any sovereignty in a sense. You
claims to sovereignty in the Antarctic. So the concept of
World Heritage Listing in that sense doesn't lend itself to
what we are about, but you don't therefore have a vacuum,
you have a situation of the Antarctic Treaty system which
lends itself to both the concept and the supervision and
working of the concept.
JOURNALIST: [ inaudible]
PM: We couldn't do it unilaterally because no-one's got
sovereignty there and so by definition the World Heritage
concept can't apply.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, nobody's going to South
America, or no-one's scheduled to go to South America
PM: Not that I know of. I haven't signed up for anyone to
go to South America.
JOURNALIST: We could expect a lot of this significant
opposition to listing those areas of
PM: Yes, but there's the meeting in Paris in October of the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting there. These
countries will be represented there and we're not confined
in terms of communication with these countries simply to
sending Ministers off there. So at both officials level and
in a day to day sense but then in the meeting in Paris in
October there'll be the opportunity to put our views to
these countries.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke is there any possibility ever of being
forced to resurrect the Minerals Convention or do you regard
it now as dead and buried?
PM: Well, you can't say it's dead and buried. It's out
there, it exists and it's part of the international
discussion. So it's not within Australia's province to kill
and then bury something which is the property of a whole
range of people. But as far as Australia is concerned we
are not going down that line. we are saying, ' here is the
decision that we've made, this is what we're going to pursue
and going to concentrate all our resources on trying to
achieve that objective'. Australia will be taking the lead
to try and get a more comprehensive Convention and as part
of that a Convention which involves no mining that's what we
are about.
JOURNALIST: internationally on this. Do you think it
is going to damage our credibility in international
quarters? SENATOR EVANS: I don't think so. We have always made it
clear that we have got an intense and overriding concern for
the protection of the environment. We haven't committed
ourselves to support for this particular Convention, we have
committed ourselves to support for an effective
environmental regime. We are acting consistently with that
and in a way in which I think will not in any way undermine
our credibility.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you aware-
SENATOR EVANS: Can I just add to that that we did float the
idea last week in the Paris preparatory meeting of a
comprehensive environmental convention as perhaps an
alternative way through this and it was a proposal which
while meeting with opposition from two or three countries of
a predictable kind US and UK particularly also one a
measure of support including from some South American
countries, conspicuously Chile, and so the item is accepted
as a legitimate one for international discussion and that is
the base on which we will be building as we carry the
initiative forward.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you or Senator Evans concerned
about the escalating level of violence in Bougainville and
is the Government looking at any
PM: Yes, of course we are concerned with the evidence of
escalating violence there which tragically is involved with
shooting of an Australian citizen and as I understand from
some information just before I came in here, some gunshots
at workers travelling by bus to the mine. of course we are
concerned about that we are concerned for two fundamental
reasons and they are both of importance the safety
of Australian citizens there are some three to 4,000
Australian citizens who are in the region and whose welfare,
of course, is a matter of considerable concern to us and
secondly, of course, the welfare of Papua New Guinea because
this is a dispute, an issue which goes not merely to the
question of land and so on, the question of shares of
PM ( cont): royalties as distributed between local people,
the provincial government and the central government, but it
goes also to the very fundamental questions of the stability
of the country and the capacity of the central government to
conduct its affairs peacably in the way it wishes to. So
obviously we are concerned. We are monitoring the situation
very closely. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea is due
to arrive here on Wednesday and obviously this will be a
matter which will be very much at the top of the agenda of
matters that I'll be discussing with him.
JOURNALIST: So are we looking at contingency plan to
protect Australians in Bougainville, Mr Hawke?
PM: In what I said before about monitoring the situation
closely and that I referred to the welfare of Australian
citizens, obviously without being alarmist about it, and I
don't intend to be, but obviously our people in watching
these issues will have in their mind what, in a worst case
scenario, could be necessary to protect those interests.
JOURNALIST: Senator Richardson earlier in the debate on the
Antarctic area you said that you thought mining there was
inevitable. Do you
RICHARDSON: Well I have always believed that the chances of
mining in the Antarctic depend largely upon what's found and
what breakthroughs there are in technology. Having said
that that doesn't prevent any nation, in particular ours,
from doing its best to prevent it. Because while you said
I've always said it is inevitable, I've always said that I
was against it and would do anything I could to prevent it,
and what we are doing today, hopefully, is going down that
path. JOURNALIST: Were you worried about the recent having no
protection, no regime set for mining that go ahead as a
0 result of
RICHARDSON: What we are trying to do is to get in place a
better protection for the Antarctic environment than
exists now, or would exist if the Convention was signed.
That being the case I'm hardly in a position to object.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke do you support Senator Richardson's
suggestion that there could be a referendum on the question
of the Commonwealth overriding the States powers concerning
certain environmental controls?
PM: I haven't yet had the opportunity of discussing this
matter with the Senator because I understand from what he
said it wasn't something he was talking about tomorrow or
the next day but as something like 10 years down the track.
I just make this point that obviously we have worked as hard
as any government possibly could within the existing
constitutional division of power, to protect the
environment. It is a matter of record that that's been very
difficult in getting the support of Tasmania, matters
PM ( cont): concerning them and in Queensland concerning that
Government and so it would be the case that if you didn't
have that sort of constitutional division power, if there
was a clear head of power our task in the past would have
been easier than it has been. But I believe that we have
demonstrated the capacity and the commitment and the
tenacity, if you like, of working under the existing
arrangements we'll continue to do that. Let me say that I
would hope that with, what I believe, is an increasing
awareness within this country of the importance of
environmental issues, that States have hitherto wanted us to
bow at the shrine of States rights. Something which I have
always regarded as rather difficult to comprehend that a
citizen has some interest and rights because he lives within
a State border which is different from his rights and
concerns as a citizen of this country and of the world. I
have never been quite able to understand that. Now I think
that those who want to worship at the altar of State rights
are going to find a diminishing congregation witnessing
their worship.
JOURNALIST: Is it a referendum that you could win not in
ten years but in a much shorter time frame
PM: Let me say this. I've said just in some brief
conversations I've had with different people this morning in
my office when there was a reference to Graham's idea of
perhaps something down the track, that I would have thought
that this is an issue in which the way things are going you
would have a much better environment for acceptance than you
would on many other issues.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are still confident
PM: Although one would have thought that on some other
issues that we put to them last year that a consideration of
their own interests would have led to that conclusion too.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you still confident of
achieving significant reform of the waterfront in time for a
statement in Parliament next week?
PM: Yes I wasn't and I suggest neither should you be
carried away by headlines of a newspaper. I know that we
saw the message of doom on the front page of the Australian
Financial Review but as predictors of events they have got
something less than an entirely impeccable record over the
recent 12 months or two years. I wasn't led to believe from
reading this morning that they were improving their record.
JOURNALIST: Senator Evans could you tell us the main factor
in your change of heart on the
EVANS: No The matters that really have been detailed
by the Prime Minister and my concern all along, has been to
get an effective environmental protection regime. I
certainly was pursuaded as we say in the joint statement
that the present Minerals Convention is better than no
EVANS ( cant): protective regime at all. But if there is a
chance of doing much better than the existing Convention I'm
very happy and keen to support it. There is evidence not
minister of an international environment growing in which
there might be more fertile ground to pursue and more far
reaching approach than that which I'd previously thought was
possible. JOURNALIST: So was the French thing the main factor in your
change in the position?
EVANS: That's a relevant factor. Another factor was that
identified by the Prime Minister when he said that to make
clear our position if we were to sign the Minerals
Convention we really would have to accompany it by a
statement which made clear that we would exercise the veto
right which is effectively given to parties to the
S Convention in a way that we'd stop mining. But if we were
to make a reservation in those terms it would as a matter of
international law be so much at odds with the underlying
concept of the Convention that we wouldn't get away with it.
So we were caught in that bind, a bind which frankly I have
to acknowledge the logical difficulty with. And combined
with the other factor I mentioned I think that did create a
situation where it's worth going down this track.
JOURNALIST: If you were really not interested in Party
politics on the issue of immigration, wouldn't you have
moved exactly the same motion on immigration in the
Parliament this week that you moved last year
PM: There is a very simple answer to that question. It's a
matter of Standing Orders that you are precluded from moving
a motion in exactly the same terms as one that's previously
been passed. So there is nothing sinister, mischievous,
or JOURNALIST: The only reason is
PM: It's not a question of getting around. It's not a
question of getting around. The simple fact is this. That
as far as Australia's interests are concerned in the region,
the region very much wants and understandably wants a
resumption and a stated resumption of the bipartisanship
on this issue which has characterised Australia's approach
for the last twenty years. And Australia's interests are
served by achieving that position. There is nothing
involved, there is no attempt here to take advantage of the
Opposition or the change of leadership. Indeed in the blood
and gore and chaos that's characterised the change of
leadership there is one thing in all that which has stood
out like a beacon and hopelessly you might say for this
country and that is a clear and unequivocal statement of
Mr Peacock which I've welcomed and which is consistent
with what I've said in the Parliament and that is that
no-one would be happier than the Prime minister, no-one
would be happier than the Prime Minister, if we could get a
PM ( cont): return to that bipartisan position. I've said
that at the time, I meant it at the time, that's what I
wanted to see as soon as the opportunity for achieving that
has arisen then you're going to get it. It's not for the
interests of the Government, it is very much for the
interests of this country and of the region.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke isn't there a danger though that by
re-opening this debate that you..
PM: I would think not. I would think that so many people
in the community who will welcome what Mr Peacock has said
and people within the Liberal Party and the community
generally, they want to see a return and a known return to a
bipartisan position and certainly I can assure you from my
visits in the region and I know that the Foreign minister
can tell you the same thing that the region profoundly
wants to have a position where it is known that as far as
this country is concerned we will have a return to
bipartisanship on this issue.
EVANS: Can I just say on that that straight after Peacock's
statement I went around to the PM's Office and said that
this is an ideal opportunity to start to run that particular
motion again and I found that the idea had already taken
hold there, entirely for reasosns in my case of Foreign
Affairs and getting on the record bipartisan support for
that resolution which is a tremendously important part of
our regional credibility. I can assure you that the
motivation within the Government is wholly as the PM has
described it.
JOURNALIST: while on the region Senator Evans, how will the
Government be viewing the Democrats proposed motion in the
Senate supporting the latest protests in China support
of democracy
EVANS: well I think our present position on the Chinese
situation is best explained in the statement I put out today
which makes the point that it's very much the Australian
Government's strong hope that the situation in China can be
resolved without violence and with respect for fundamental
human rights. I think beyond that it would be premature for
us to make any further comment. I'll deal with the
Democrats motion when I see the terms in which it's
expressed. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke on a seperate issue, the Australian
dollar has fallen by over 1.5 cents today.
PM: Against the United States dollar.
JOURNALIST: Yes and the
PM: But very, very slight fall against the pounds sterling,
the deutschmark and the yen.
11.
JOURNALIST: Well financial markets are indicating that
they're not happy with the outlook for the Australian
economy. They're considerably concerned about the fact that
Mr Keating yesterday said commodity prices had peaked
providing a balance of payments over the next six to
twelve months. Do you think that provides any scope for an
easing of policy or tightening of policy?
PM: I've nothing to say other than what Paul Keating and
Bob Hawke have been saying for some time now that we will
keep the instruments of policy this tight for as long as is
necessary to deal with Australia's economic situation. Now
Paul has said that, I have said it and there is no reason in
the light of anything that's happened today or the last 48
hours, or the last 72 hours to change that clear statement
of our position.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke Nauru has taken Australia to the
International Court of Justice over the issue of
rehabilitation phosphate. But what's your response? Is
Australia going to strongly defend this case?
PM: Yes we've made that clear. I've made that clear to the
Chief, Hammer Deroburt. I made it quite clear when he'd
been here that that is our position. We have got nothing
that we have to apologise for or to explain in terms of the
action we've taken. If they regard it as in their interests
to pursue this course of action we will vigorously defend
Australia's interests.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke on the waterfront is this
consensus the correct way way to approach these issues and
with the Cabinet being seen to impose overall plans for the
waterfront if their..
PM: Well there are some greater degrees of difficulties
which have emerged in respect of some matters that had not
been anticipated in the first place. The Minister is
engaged in discussions with the parties on that. I
indicated my response to an earlier question, don't get
carried away by your journal having got it wrong yet again
there will be a statement and a meaningful one. If part
of your question, ' is it better to go by-consensus or some
other way', obviously it's best if you can negotiate by
consensus. The worst thing to do is to go by way of
confrontation which not only doesn't improve the situation
it's likely to make it worse. I mean we've had let's look
at this nonsense. This sudden embrace by the opposition
about micro-economic reform in general and the waterfront
and the maritime industry in particular. it is a load of
nonsense. They had their time and their time in Office was
characterised by total inaction in regard to these areas in
particular and in regard to industrial relationships and
management generally, you the confrontation which made
things worse. You know what the overall position is in
regard to their period and our period? And in our period in
Office if you look at industrial disputes generally, 58%
12.
PM ( cont): reduction in time lost under the processes that
we've followed. Now if you want a certain recipe for
exacerbating the situation on the waterfront and the martime
industry and in the economy generally, let's pick up this
concept of what we'll do is get out the great big stick and
start belting employers and belting trade unions around the
ears. It doesn't work. So what you've got to do is to try
and make them understand that their own interest and
certainly the interests of the nation will be served by
change and change there will be.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke back on the Antarctic, the working
party that you established recently to advise you on Can
I ask you what they were
PM: Well you can but there's not much point in the question
because all we were wanting to do was to say, ' well now give
us the issues that are involved, the sort of processes that
we'd need to think about following'. Now that's an
exploratory sort of piece of work and as a result of what
we've done and today we'll take that further. We'll now
have further work done on what needs to be done and part of
that has been reflected in an answer I've already given in
the we won't be talking about a world park as such. We'll
be talking about an Antarctic wilderness park and that
essentially reflects the sort of considerations I gave in
answer to an earlier question that you've got to have a
process which is capable of being given effect to. Now if
you talked about a world park which may carry with it
concepts of world heritage listing and so on and United
Nations, involvement by definition it's a path that can't
work. So what we will want our people to do now is to as
quickly as possible to firm up now that we've made this
decision as a Cabinet the sort of framework with which we'll
be going to other countries.
JOURNALIST: At this stage it would seem encompassing
all mainland Antarctic surrounding oceans?
PM: Yes that would be the concept, yes.
ends