PRIME MINISTER
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UN~ TIL DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
OPENING OF
AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION'S
NEW HEADQUARTERS
MELBOURNE 11 DECEMBER 1989
There is a healthy, vigorous debate in this country about
our economy. Attention is rightly focussed on Australia's
international debt. The country is said to be living beyond
its means yet much of Australia's external deficit is
financing the means to lift our productive capacity in the
future; to earn export income and to replace imports.
That we have so much investment coming through is viewed as
bad news by some participants in the debate. True, if there
were less investment, Australia's external deficit would be
smaller, but so would our prospects for improved living
standards in the future.
I am not saying Australia's international indebtedness is
not a problem, but it has to be kept in perspective. Just
like going into debt to set up a business can be worthwhile,
much of Au~ stralia's debt is good debt.
Some of you may be thinking I've brought along the wrong
speech and that this one was meant for a business seminar.
I can assure you that what I have to say today is totally
appropriate for the opening of the ACF's new headquarters
and I'm delighted to have been asked to be here.
My friends, Australia's international indebtedness has
everything to do with the ACF and the interests you
represent. You, like all Australians, want to see improved
living standards in the future, a better quality of life.
And we must have investment to achieve that. But what sort
of investment?
Today I want to talk about a broader concept of investment.
Investment has conventionally been thought of solely in
terms of the opening of mines and oilfields, the setting up
of factories and offices. But the central point I want to
make today is that a very good investment, especially for
Australia, can be to leave some places and things alone, to
protect them rather than spoil them. Other good investments
will involve developing our natural resources, but in a
careful, environmentally sensitive way, and not exploiting
them indiscriminately for short-term gain at the expense of
long-term damage.
Around the world there have been countless investments that
were expected to and did produce a large financial
return. The factories that polluted the atmosphere and the
rivers, causing Europe's acid rain and killing Canadian and
American waterways most of these no doubt were regarded as
good investments by the relevant decision makers at the
time. The Exxon Valdez was carrying a valuable cargo when
it ran aground in Alaska.
All good investments at the time. The trouble is, somebody
forgot to count all the risks and all the costs. Who
counted the environmental risks, the environmental costs?
I'm not saying that none of these investments should have
occurred. What I am saying is that many of them wouldn't
have, or would have proceeded in a more environmentally
friendly manner, if governments had been aware of all the
costs and risks and had insisted on those costs being
taken into account and stronger measures being taken to
reduce the environmental risks.
The consequence of these decisions is that present and
future generations have to pay the costs that weren't
properly taken into account in the first place.
A great environmental debt has been accumulated by past and
present generations and bequeathed to our children, and
theirs, to pay.
That debt is called acid rain. It is called the greenhouse
effect. It is called thousands of extinct species. It is
called salinity, soil degradation, beach pollution. It is
called Bhopal, Chernobyl.
Just a few years ago the level of broad community awareness
of and concern about this burgeoning environmental debt was
not high. Before the breakthroughs on arms control between
the United States and the Soviet Union, many people thought
there wouldn't be a world around too much longer for them to
worry about. The threat of nuclear obliteration dominated
most thinking about the earth's future.
But over the past few years, with nuclear tensions easing
and with greater information coming to light about the
global threats posed by greenhouse gases and CFCs, concern
for the environment has spread from the preserve of a
relatively few, seeking to protect a local river, beach or
forest, to occupy the minds of people all around the world
who would never have considered themselves to be greenies.
It is this internationalisation of environmental problems
that has stirred environmental concern around the globe and
made people aware not only of these global problems but of
how their local environment is being managed, or mismanaged.
I know from personal experience that when I visited schools
around Australia three years ago the kids spoke of the
threat of nuclear war. Now they ask about trees, ozone and
Kakadu. It is to their future, our children's future, that we in
Government must look and assess the relevance of our
economic and environmental policies.
My Government welcomes and has encouraged investment. Some
billion worth of investment in the pipeline has recently
been documented by Access Economics, a measure of our
success, a proud achievement. And we will continue to
encourage investment including in mining and forestry. But
we are not a Government that supports investment at any
price. Yet there are, in our community, strong advocates of just
that investment at any price. They argued for the
Franklin Dam. They argued for the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill to
proceed, pumping 13 tonnes of organochlorines into Bass
Strait every day. They argue for mineral surveying in
Kakadu National Park. They argue for logging the Queensland
rainforests. They argue for sand mining at Shelburne Bay.
They condemned my Government for World Heritage Listing the
Lemonthyme and Southern Forests of Tasmania. They called my
Environment Statement which announced a $ 320m landcare
program, an endangered species program, a massive tree
planting program and a dozen other important initiatives a
political stunt.
I refer, of course, to the Liberal and National Parties of
Australia. Their leadership at one time or another has
pledged to reverse just about every major decision my
Government has made on the environment. They would not use
the external affairs power which gave us the capacity to
stop the Franklin Dam, protect the Tasmanian and Queensland
forests, and Kakadu and they will not support a referendum
on increased constitutional powers for the Commonwealth
Government.
Their profound misunderstanding of the whole issue was
vividly revealed in Parliament last month by Charles Blunt,
the Leader of the National Party. He was giving the
Government stick over Kakadu when he made the outstanding
claim that Coronation Hill included palladium and platinum,
but no gold. One of our members interjected to suggest gold
was present but Blunt said " No gold, the Honourable Member
is totally ignorant. He knows nothing about the issue at
all". It's disturbing to have confirmed one's deepest suspicions
that the Opposition's environmental views are based on
ignorance and prejudice rather than on an informed,
open-minded assessment of the issues.
The Coalition and their backers have learned nothing about
the environment. They have pledged economy before ecology.
My Government's philosophy is one of ecologically
sustainable development. It's not a matter of one or the
other economy or ecology. They go hand in hand. That is
why the Labor Government in Australia has created jobs at a
rate twice as fast as the rest of the Western world, at the
same time as advancing as the World Heritage Bureau has
said World Heritage values more than any other country.
In others words, Australia, under my Government, is a world
pace setter both in encouraging development and protecting
the environment. We in Government have proved that we can
have both; we must have both.
We will continue to assess the environmental risks of
development projects. And we will encourage such projects
where those risks are acceptable. But I will not compromise
the quality of life of our children by playing Russian
roulette with the environment. As Prime Minister I have a
responsibility not only for present generations but for
their children, and theirs.
I am not prepared to take the easy course and convert
Australia's economic debt into an environmental debt to be
borne by our children.
The sort of Australia I want to see in 20 or 30 years time
is a country which is the envy of the rest of the world. In
large measure it already is. But as the countries of
Europe, America and our own region continue to have great
difficulty in reversing the damage already done to their
environments, I want their people to look to Australia and
say " Look at the beautiful places down there, look at their
wonderful coastline, their forests, their great National
Parks. How did they manage to keep them unspoiled when we
wrecked ours?" And I want those people to visit Australia,
to see our great natural places, and tell others back home
what a magnificent place Australia is.
Now that's an investment in Australia's future. Australia
will, I believe, become one of the prime tourist
destinations in the world. Did you know that in the seven
years since this Government came to power, annual tourist
arrivals have risen from less than a million to 2k million?
And did you know that the Australian Tourist Commission is
projecting an increase in overseas tourist arrivals from
about 2 million in 1989 to 6.5 million by the year 2000, and
an increase in tourist expenditure from $ 3.7 billion to
$ 27.7 billion over the same period?
Australia now has eight World Heritage sites. This month,
we expect a further 600,000 ha of Tasmania's wilderness and
scenic places will be accepted for World Heritage Listing.
And I can announce here today Australia will be hosting next
year's General Assembly of the World Heritage body, the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This is
a great honour for Australia and we are delighted to be able
to host this very important meeting.
Our common concern for the environment does not mean that we
should go to the other extreme and adopt a no-growth
strategy, other than tourist development. There is a place
for environmentally-responsible development of Australia's
natural resources; there is a real and legitimate place for
those developments.
Many areas do lend themselves to multiple land use but
this must not, and will not under my Government, be a
euphemism for pot-holing National Parks with mine pits or
cutting down magnificent, pristine, native forests to have
them replaced with re-growth forests that provide neither
the habitat nor the integrity of virgin forests.
I believe there is cause for optimism about the capacity of
developmental interests to be reconciled with environmental
interests in this country. Certainly the remarkable
alliance between the ACF and the NFF, whose proposals to the
Government on soil degradation were taken on board in my
Environment Statement, demonstrates that traditional
adversaries can become allies when economic and
environmental imperatives coincide.
So, too, is the Salamanca Agreement in Tasmania testimony to
the capacity of traditional rivals in the forestry debate to
become partners in both protection of the environment and
the maintenance of jobs.
The Salamanca Agreement is a model for forest agreements in
the rest of Australia. More immediately, it is a model for
the South-East Forests of New South Wales. My colleague,
Peter Cook, has worked tirelessly in seeking a sensible
resolution of this issue.
My Government is concerned to protect the National Estate
forests of South-East New South Wales but of course we
also have a responsibility to maintain employment.
We are undertaking the most comprehensive study ever of the
biological values of the National Estate as the basis of a
long term conservation and industry plan in the region. We
also have under way a number of important industry studies
on the establishment of a flitchmill, on value-adding in the
sawmilling industry and on better utilisation of smallwood,
and on how best to get plantations under way in the region
as soon as possible.
Through these efficiency improvements and the identification
of alternative forest areas outside the National Estate, I
hope we can get to a position where the industry will not
have to return to logging the existing National Estate
forest areas in the South-East.
Our chances of realising that hope are maximised if we can
all work together on the problem. I am pleased that the
South East Forest Alliance has agreed to be on the regional
consultative committee that Peter Cook is establishing. We
hope its inaugural meeting will be before Christmas.
We want a co-operative resolution of this issue; that is
always our preferred way. But I say again that should the
New South Wales Government not abide by the agreement
reached with them or not co-operate in a full examination of
alternatives to logging the South East National Estate
forests, my Government will bring down the full weight of
its constitutional powers including the corporations power
to achieve a solution.
If we can have alliances between the ACF and the NFF on soil
conservation and if we can have Salamanca style agreements,
there must be scope for greater understanding and agreement
on the future management of all our natural resources.
That is why I convened a meeting last Thursday on
ecologically sustainable development involving Phillip,
representing the ACF, and representatives of the forest,
agricultural and mining industries, and the Wilderness
Society, together with my four Ministers most directly
concerned with these issues, my Chief Scientist and
Australia's Ambassador for the Environment.
As a result of that meeting the Government will be
circulating a paper on sustainable development, for comment.
Then we will all consider the establishment of working
groups to give practical application to the concept of
sustainable development in agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
mining, energy, manufacturing and tourism.
Last Thursday's meeting was a first step, but an important
one. Just to have representatives of such a diverse group
of organisations traditionally the antagonists in the
environmental debate is a good achievement. It is one on
which I am confident we can all build.
Ecologically sustainable development will involve the
environmentally sensitive development of our natural
resources.' But it must also involve the reservation of
particular areas where no commercial development is allowed.
That has and will continue to be my Government's approach.
And one great exclusion area that my Government has been
working to secure is the entire continent of Antarctica.
When my Government set out on the road in May this year to
seek an international ban on mining in Antarctica we were
given no chance of succeeding. Yet at the Paris meeting of
Antarctic Treaty Parties in October, Australia and France
achieved agreement to a special meeting to consider
proposals for a Comprehensive Environment Protection
Convention for Antarctica, establishing Antarctica as an
International Nature Reserve.
My Government has been criticised for taking our campaign to
the people. I make no apology for appealing to public
opinion for ultimately it will be the weight of
international public opinion, not bureaucrats or
politicians, which will decide this issue.
We may not succeed within a year, but succeed ultimately we
will with your help. As we in Government continue to
press our case with other Governments, you must continue to
mobilise international public opinion against mining in
Antarctica. Apart from its value as the world's last great wilderness,
Antarctica is a vitally important laboratory for measuring
both the depletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse
effect. My Government has acted decisively to phase out the use of
ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. At the end of this
month, the production and importation of aerosols and
polystyrene foams containing CFCs will be banned. And
within five years, we will have phased out nearly all CFC
use. Just as we are acting on CFCs, so too are we working on
limiting greenhouse gas emissions. We have devoted
$ 7.8 million to greenhouse research; we are supporting the
work of the International Panel on Climate Change; and we
are taking an active role in the development of a Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
I believe there is enormous scope for energy conservation in
Australia, and there is ample capacity for limiting
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Late last month some of my Ministers had the opportunity of
talking to Amory Lovins, a leading energy expert from the
United States.
I will be inviting Dr Lovins to return to Australia in early
1990 so that he can meet with both environment and energy
ministers from the Commonwealth, States and Territories, to
discuss his strategies for abating global warming, with
particular reference to our situation in Australia.
I said in my Environment Statement that we will commission
scientific investigations into the extent of reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions that can be achieved; and that I
will be inviting industry and conservation representatives
to consider this work and make submissions in preparation
for a meeting on this issue.
Some important early work was discussed at the first meeting
of my Science Council and I have just sent out a discussion
paper to the ACF, other conservation groups and industry
groups on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.
Commonwealth Departments have already been asked to commence
discussions with State and local governments with a view to
implementing options available immediately for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
I turn now to a matter that has been causing consternation
among many of your members and the wider community the
future of Jervis Bay. Already the EIS processes have thrown
up a number of serious environmental impacts that would be
associated with a move of the Sydney based naval fleet to
Jervis Bay. Moreover, the costs of moving the Sydney fleet
base to Jervis Bay would be very high indeed. We will be
putting alternative sites to environmental and economic
analysis. But I can inform you that the Government is no
longer disposed to move the Sydney naval fleet to Jervis
Bay.
Ladies and gentlemen
Yours is a non-partisan organisation, its members united by
issues rather than party political affiliation. That is
exactly as it should be. Moreover your are, in my
judgement, right to believe that the ACF needs to go on
encouraging a wide ranging public concern about the
environment so that any political party attuned to the views
of the electorate will give weight to the environment in its
policies. That is a sensible recognition by you of
political reality.
But another political reality is that in this country there
are only two organisations which can form the Government,
Labor and the Coalition and that on any objective reading
of the evidence it is Labor, not the Coalition, which is
committed to the preservation of our splendid natural
environment. So you must not expect me, as a political
leader, to be non-partisan; my role is to assert to you
clearly that Labor is the right choice and is demonstrably
the right choice.
Finally, I want to say a couple of words about the
relationship between the ACF and the Government something
which attracted considerable media interest following one
long phone call in the lead-up to the Kakadu decision. In
my view, the ACF is a constructive, sophisticated
organisation. We do not agree on every issue. But the
manner in which you make practical representations to my
Government, and your willingness to give credit where credit
is due, gives you both relevance and effectiveness.
This close working relationship between the ACF and my
Government has led to criticism by some environmentalists
that the ACF is too close to the Government. Well if the
charter of an environmental organisation is to protect and
improve the environment, and through working with the
Government the organisation advances that cause as the ACF
has done then a true environmentalist can have no cause
for grievance but instead must applaud your actions.
I pay tribute to the ACF and its leaders, Phillip Toyne and
Peter Garrett, I encourage you to continue your allimportant
work in the professional and responsible manner in
which you have conducted yourselves and I have pleasure in
declaring open the new ACF headquarters.