KJ
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH PREMIER NICK
GREINER, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA, 8 OCTOBER 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and gentlemen. I will make a few remarks then
Nick will follow me and then we'll be available for
questions and I think there's some experts available here to
go into any particular details that you might want to
address. Today the Commonwealth and NSW Governments reached agreement
on the South East forest issue. That agreement was reached
on the basis of a thorough scientific study of the
biological values of the South East forests.
However, we didn't just rest alone on that. There was
further consultation between my Ministers and Nick Greiner's
Ministers and there was a drawing upon the advice of
relevant Commonwealth and NSW agencies. In our case the
Australian Heritage Commission and in the case of NSW the
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Out of all that we have agreed to reserve a somewhat larger
area than came out of the joint scientific study. Nearly
of each of the main National Estate areas will be
protected. Those areas are Tantawangalo, Coolangubra and
Yowaka. With the remaining area, one of them, that's
Tantawangali to be determined after a five year hydrological
study. In total the amount of additional resources that
have been withdrawn will be about ll That gives you the
emphasis within the agreement of our concern, our mutual
concern for environmental conservation issues.
It's important to understand that as a result of the
agreement it: will ensure that the region will continue to
have a viable sawmilling industry. I want to point out that
through the industry restructuring proposals that
Alan Griffiths will be pursuing with his NSW counterpart,
Mr West, and with the industry itself will be encouraging
the use of the forest residue in value-added processing
rather than its export as woodchips.
In summary, I believe it's fair to say that the agreement
that we've reached between us means much greater protection
for the South East forests than existed before. It means a
viable sawlog industry and it means an encouragement of
value-adding.
I am glad that through a long and somewhat tortuous and
complex process, Nick, that we've been able to reach this
position. GREINER: Thank you. Could I just add the NSW Government
believes that: this is an important agreement. These things
tend to be seen as wins and losses and no doubt some of you
will be succumbing to the temptation to try and ascribe wins
and losses to people and positions. The truth is this is
about as close as you can get to a win-win resolution of a
land use conflict.
All of the ma~ jor natural heritage values of the area are
being, on any reasonable assessment, satisfactorily
preserved. There will-be, as the Prime Minister said,
guarantees of a continuing viable sawmilling industry in the
area. It's my Government's concern to ensure that the job security
and the industry security is maintained and indeed the
declaration, the dedication of the National Parks won't be
taking place until such time as we're satisfied that the
details of that are in place.
So the essence of what we have tried to do in co-operation
with the Commonwealth is to reach a win-win situation. We
think that has happened. I think any fairminded assessment
of the outcome would suggest that the preservation of the
main environmental values, not only for this generation but
future generations has been achieved. And equally that for
the first time, for the first time ever the industry in
South Eastern NSW will have a longterm future which will
enable people to make investment decisions, enable jobs to
be secure and families and towns to have some sort of
certainty rather than the sort of uncertainty that they've
been bedevilled with for the last decade or more.
I think that's really as much as I would like to say other
than that I -think it has been a good model of cooperation.
It is important that these sorts of decisions don't become
party political footballs because they're not susceptible to
being very effectively handled if they become party
political footballs. I think this has been a good exercise
in cooperation between, if you like, the environmental
departments and the resource departments and indeed between
the two Governments that happen to be of opposite political
persuasion. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister the Conservation Foundation says
that this won't resolve the conflict in the forests, that
the situation, well the decision's unacceptable. What do
you think it's going to take for the conservation societies
to be made happy?
PM: I think when you're talking about the conservation
movement in this country, Peter, that you've got to
understand that it's a very varied movement. I believe that
there is much the conservation movement, if they study the
decisions that have been taken, and the fact that we've
extended even beyond the scientific study the degree of
protection something like, as I say, 60% of each of the
main National Estate areas any objective judgement would
say that both my Government and the Government of NSW have
been conscious, as we ought to be, of our environmental
obligations to this and future generations. It's also the
case, Peter, that I think there are some parts of the
environmental movement who will never be satisfied unless
they get 100% of their ambit claims. Now in one sense it
would be very satisfying to feel, I guess, it would feel the
same to be able to sit back with a warm glow and say well
yes nothing's going to be touched. But the glow wouldn't
last for too long because this country has got to have
growth, economic growth, if it's going to satisfy the
aspirations of its population. We've also got external
account problems and the dimensions of those are pretty
large including in our nett import position of forest
products. So in these days no government has the luxury
whether it's the level of the federal government or the
level of the state government, no government has the luxury
of Just being able to have one criterion in the decisions
you make about these sorts of issues. You'll never be able
to persuade everyone that you've got the balance absolutely
right. But in the case of my Government, and Nick of course
can speak for his own, but in the case of my Government I'm
proud to look back over the 7h years on our environmental
record of the rainforests in Daintree, in Tasmania, our
decisions in. regard to Kakadu and so on. We've got an
environmental record, I think, second to none around the
world but on. this issue it was a tough one but all I can say
to the environmental movement, we have tried to go as far as
we can in discharging the obligation we feel we have in
regard to the environment.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister the statement mentions a
contribution. to the total annual trade deficit of the timber
products area. What do you think is an acceptable level for
that figure? And are you aiming for the elimination of that
deficit in that area?
PM: I don't know about the elimination of it, Glen. I
haven't got and I don't think anyone has got a specific
percentage figure. But I think the real answer to your
question is just a brief elaboration of what I said in
answer to Peter. That is that what we'Ire trying to do, and
we'll try and do it in cooperation with the states, to get
acceptable guidelines within which we will see an increase
in the value-added process of our forestry industries in
this country,. I think we are going to be able to reach that
position where we will be able to make significant in-roads
on to those figures. But I haven't got a percentage figure
in my mind.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister there's the perception in the
environmentaLl movement that had Graham Richardson retained
the portfolio then the outcome from their point of view
would have been much better.
PM: That's very unfair. I had cause in an interview I did
on the weekend to address a similar sort of point. There is
no doubt that: Graham Richardson was an outstanding Minister
for the environment and he was able to get very significant
runs on the board not just for Graham Richardson and not
just for the Government but I think for the future of this
country. He is to be congratulated for what he did there.
It was inevitable that whoever followed in Graham's
footsteps is going to have a very difficult job. For two
reasons, one, he was by his whole background a very high
profile personality and Minister from his whole experience
and background. Secondly, because there were decisions with
which he was associated. Now I think it's totally unfair to
Ros Kelly to say that Graham Richardson or anyone else would
have done better from the environmental point of view. I
don't think there is any evidence for that. She was
assiduous both in our Cabinet, and as you can attest Nick,
in the discussions with the NSW Ministers, she was assiduous
in pursuing hier concerns. I think the comparison is unfair,
invidious and quite unjust to Ros Kelly.
GREINER: Could I just add something relevant to that point.
The option of a significantly more green outcome is simply
not an option. It's nonsense to suggest it was. My
Government cl. early would not have been part of it. We have
for 5 or 6 years believed that this was a case where in a
sense you could have your environmental cake and your
economic cake at the same time. We had clear cut
commitments that we weren't about to dishonour to the
maintenance or indeed the creation of a viable industry. So
there were only two options available in this. There was
the sort of outcome which has been reached or a continuing
brawl almost coop by coop. Anything else simply wasn't
available as an outcome. So it was either a matter of
reaching a resolution, which as I say a fairminded person
would say was a very fair dinkum attempt to reach a longterm
outcome or settle down for another X years of having fights
in each little bit of forest as it went. So it ought to be
clear that the notion of a " win" in the sense of
preservation of all the old-growth forest was never on. I
think without being unfair to Mr Toyne and other leaders
who've spoken to me as they have to the Prime Minister about
this, the responsible leadership of the conservation
movement never imagined that it was going to get 100%
preservation of old-growth in the South East forests. Nor
to be fair to) the South East Forest Alliance who perhaps are
less responsible. So it just ought to be in context of the
previous question to the Prime Minister. The notion of a
much greener outcome simply wasn't available as a finite or
a permanent resolution.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Bob Carr the State Labor leader
do you think you'll be able to persuade them to support your
position?
PM: There comes times, as Nick will be able to say from his
point of view, where you can't always get an identity of
view between the Federal Party and the State Party. You've
experienced that, Nick, on some issues. I don't want to go
to them. But they'll be clear in people's minds. It's
unfair to go back to them. There are occasions when from
the perspective of the Federal Party you've got to say well
this is what we believe is the right outcome. If your State
counterparts don't share that view well that's unfortunate.
Of course I haven't gone in this with a view to try and
create a problem for Mr Carr. I would simply make the same
point there that I did in regard to Peter's question. I
think any fair analysis of what's been done should lead to
the conclusion that both Governments have attempted
responsibly to take into account their obligations both in
regard to economic development and environmental
responsibility. JOURNALIST: Will you be holding talks with him on that
subject PM: I'm sure he'll want to talk with me and I'm more than
happy to talk with him.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, how are you going to handle the East
Gippsland dispute and does today's agreement provide some
model for settlement down there?
PM: Well the discussions are now to go on in regard to East
Gippsland and I don't want to pre-empt those discussions. I
guess they'll be difficult. It may be that there are some
elements of what we've been able to do here that will
provide guidance, if not a model there. There is a sense in
which, as I think you appreciate from the question, that if
you're looking at the whole resource and environmental
responsibilities, there is a connection between the South
East forests and East Gippsland.
JOURNALIST: How much will the industry restructuring
package cost and how will the cost be split between the two
Governments? PM: Well the first question is to be answered by saying we
don't know. The decision that we made today authorises our
Minister, Mr Griffiths, to continue discussions with NSW and
I think in the spirit that's been shown in the discussions
so far between the two Governments that we'll be able to
resolve this in a way which is mutually acceptable.
GREINER: If I can just add to that, Paul. One of the
outcomes of this decision if it's followed through to its
finality as I imagine it will be is that the private
sector will for the first time in living memory feel free to
invest in, as the Prime Minister said at the end of his
introductory remarks, in value-added in that South East
area. In terms of the question that was asked before, I
mean I would see NSW and Victorian forests as part of a
South East Australian regional forest area. I mean it's
6.
part of the matter the Prime Minister and I are going to
discuss privately after this conference. I mean it is a
nonsense to have a NSW forest industry and a Victorian
forest industry that happens to be on the other side of a
line on the map. It is clearly part of a which doesn't
mean that the outcomes have got to be identical in resolving
the conflict: but of course it's one region. I think the
point in terms of restructuring is that there is not a huge
Government expense appropriate because what the decision
means in terms of resource availability and security means
that the private sector will be in a position and I'm sure
will in fact invest in the industry itself. So it's not a
matter of trying to sort of save the industry, it in fact
gives it the opportunity to develop in a value-added way,
which to be fair to the conservationists is what many of
them argue which is that we ought to get more bang for our
buck in termis of our natural resources.
JOURNALIST: But have you got a compensation figure? The
industry were talking about compensation Is there
anything that comes out of this decision
GREINER: I think the Prime Minister's answered that. There
will be further discussions between the Resource Ministers.
I would not expect the Government compensation to be
significant. I think it's in fact an opportunity for the
industry. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Wilderness Society has already
condemned this as irresponsible and short sighted. How
concerned are you about both a threatened withdrawal of
their political support and their threatened withdrawal from
the sustainable development process?
PM: Well two separate questions there. On the question of
political support, I will be prepared whenever we go to the
next election I'm talking federal here, Nick, not state
but at the next federal election I will be more than happy
to have my record tested against the record of my federal
political opponents as well as the policy positions of my
Government compared to those of my federal political
opponents. The people in Australia and in the electorate
who have environmental considerations as their major
criterion as to how there determinative vote should fall
will have a clear choice, I believe. And I repeat on that
point that the record of my Government in 7h years, I think,
is second to none. Now in regard to the second part of your
question, I very much hope that the relevant environmental
and conservation organisations will continue to play a role
in the sustainable development program and the Resource
Assessment Commission programs because for two reasons I say
that. Firstly, that the processes will be the better if
there is an input to them from all points of view. And
secondly, fro0m their point of view they are going to
maximise their chance to have an impact on subsequent
decision making processes if they have been part of what
leads up to the decision.
JOURNALIST: But just on that point, Mr Hawke, you've both
expressed today in the extent of the cooperation of cross-
Governments and also between parties, do you think therefore
that the environment debate is changing in a way where the
differences between the major parties are in fact
diminishing? PM: Well it's impossible from this particular episode if
I can describe our processes I think it's impossible to
translate that into a federal level. I don't know what
position the federal parties, Federal Liberal Party and
National Part~ y will take. I mean I've been dealing with a
State Liberal Premier and that's for the future to tell. I
would say this point more generally, Paul, make this point
more generally, however, that I think it is the case that
the relatively easy decisions none of them have been easy
but the reJlatively easy decisions have been already taken
and now that we've got the Daintree, going back we've got
the Franklin,. the Daintree, Tasmanian forests, Kakadu, those
decisions behind us. It's going to become more difficult I
think to get the balance between environmental and economic
considerations right now. That's why precisely I've
attempted over the last couple of years to get in place
processes like the Resource Assessment Commission, like the
sustainable development groups, so that we can by attempting
to attract a range of interests the developers, if I can
put that broadly, environmentalists and the States if we
can get these processes going with input from all concerned
then conceptually while the decisions are going to be
somewhat harder, we will have got processes in place which
should mean a minimisation of political differences because
I would hope that if the processes that I've established
with my colleagues work then at the end of them people are
going to be able to say, well look, there's a very, very
fair process, a very fair opportunity for people to have
their input and then the recommendations for decisions that
come out of -that, it seems to me should be more broadly
acceptable. I hope that's true.
JOURNALIST: Well just on that point though, if in fact it's
going to be more of a process of dialogue, compromise
would you expect the conservation movement to reassess then
and stop seeking the product of 100% solutions, which it's
been interested in to this stage?
PM: To be fair I don't know, I think there was something
that Nick said would also support this. To be fair to the
environment it's not inhabited by total 100% zealots, if I
can say that, who are all of them against development. I
mean it's a varied movement.
JOURNALIST: Well would you want to see some reassessment on
the part of the conservation movement then towards this sort
of process you're talking about?
PM: Well I would want to I would hope, Paul, that they
will fully involve themselves in the processes. To this
point they are in the RAC processes, they are, I think,
going to commit themselves although not all of them but
I think a significant part of them are going to commit
themselves to the sustainable development processes. I
would hope they all would for the reason I said before.
They're not going to help their own case, it seems to me, if
they refuse to participate in those processes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you've stressed the importance of
value added exports, do you foresee the phasing down of
exports of raw woodchips and what implications, if any,
would that have for the operations of Harris Daishowa?
PM: There's nothing new about what I say here. We have
made it clear and in fact it's part of the lease
arrangements with Harris Daishowa that we require them to
put forward proposals for further value-added operations in
this country. What you've got to remember about this area
that we're talking about is that we're not making these
decisions for the woodchippers. Woodchipping is a residual
of the sawlogging industry. There will be some attempt by
those who are not too interested in facts to say that what
Hawke and Greiner have done is to just open up the forest to
be cut down for woodchips to be sent away to Japan.
Woodchipping is a residual to the sawlogging industry and in
regard to woodchipping in general and Harris Daishowa in
particular, we will, as I've said in my opening statement,
be pressing for further value-adding by those who are in
that industry.
JOURNALIST: Does that include the new pulp and paper
mill that's been this decision?
PM: Well the question about the large new pulp and paper
mill is something that is for the future. Obviously it's
not going to be unrelated to the discussions in regard to
East Gippsland. Because as I've said and as Nick has
agreed, if you're going to be looking at this whole issue
and this whole industry, the line on the map is very
artificial. JOURNALIST: Would you support..
PM: I support the processes of investigating projects which
will take account of our economic requirements and our
environmental responsibilities. We have established the
processes for trying to get guidelines for such mills, which
is indicative of the fact that we conceptually see that
there's a pl. ace for them.
JOURNALIST: structures in place to resolve these sorts
of conflicts Was it not possible to wait until RAC
reported on forests
PM: We made it quite clear at the establishment of RAC and
may I say a] lso of the establishment of the sustainable
development processes that that would not involve a
moratorium on decisions that had to be taken. That was
understood I believe by everyone at the time that these
processes wer: e established.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just on another matter. Did
you on September 13 either deliberately or inadvertently
mislead the House in regard to the monies going to the
Victorian Sporting
PM: I've never attempted deliberately, I've never in my
life attempted deliberately to mislead anyone, whether it's
the House or elsewhere. However, as a result of the
statement I dlid make there was certainly some confusion. I
acknowledge that and I will take the first opportunity,
which will be tomorrow in the House, to clarify that
position. JOURNALIST: Can we get your reaction to the ANZ job
statistics today Prime Minister?
PM: I'll just briefly say that they are further evidence of
the fact that our intention of slowing down the economy,
which was necessary, is occurring. We will continue to
monitor what's happening with a view to ensuring that we
have an outcome which is going to be consistent with our
requirements for growth and meeting the challenges of the
external account and inflation.
JOURNALIST: Would you support an inquiry into the newspaper
industry?
PM: I didn't get terribly carried away about that before.
It seems to be getting people are attempting to get some
more legs on that because there has been a collapsing of
four publications into two. I don't think the collapsing of
four publications into two has made any intrinsic difference
to the situation that's been in existence for some time now.
I don't see that of itself as creating any new reason for
such an inquiLry.
JOURNALIST: On the previous question Mr Hawke, do you
accept that you inadvertently misled the House over those
PM: There was some inadvertent, on my part there was an
inadvertent mnis-stating of the position. But I stated the
correct position and an incorrect position. I of course
would never iLntend to do that. I think you know now
Michelle, from 7h years I haven't got a reputation, and
deservedly haven't got a reputation for misleading the
House. It is something I would never
JOURNALIST: Can you just clarify how
PM: I will clarify it to the House tomorrow. It will be
the first opportunity I will have had because I went off to
Japan in the next week and I wasn't in the House. But I'll
take the first
JOURNALIST: Can you sort it out now for us.
PM: I think it's appropriate that as it occurred in the
House I will do it then.
JOURNALIST: Will you apologise to Senator Walsh?
PM: Will I what?
JOURNALIST: Do you feel you have anything to apologise to
Senator Walsh for?
PM: I have -very little to apologise to Senator Walsh for.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the part of the rural sector, if I
can, both wool growers and wheat growers are desperate to
get a reduction in interest rates for their survival. Are
they likely -to get that?
PM: I think I can answer that in this way. I said to the
Australian people, as did Paul, during last year when we had
to tighten monetary policy, I said that we would, as
circumstances permitted, lower interest rates. We have at
the official level done that on several occasions already
this year by four percentage points. So clearly our
commitment i~ s to have a lowered interest rate regime but
only at a time where in the interests of the people that you
are talking about as well as the interests of the people as
a whole such a lowering will be consistent with overall
community objectives. I mean you just can't say in running
an economy like this, oh, interest rates are causing a
problem therefore we'll chop them in the belief that in
doing that you wouldn't create another series of problems
which could ' be even more overwhelming. We will reduce
interest rates as to do so is consistent with our overall
economic responsibilities.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you have said that there won't be an
inquiry into newspapers in Australia but do you see any need
to fine tune your media policies, especially in relation to
foreign ownership of TV and newspapers?
PM: No, I would've made decisions about that recently. I
don't feel any compulsion about that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the present political crisis in the
United States, could you tell us what sort of impact you
expect that to have on the Australian economy. Is it likely
to PM: We hope it's a very short-term one. I would believe
from afar that the Administration and the Congress will sort
this one out. It's going to be a bit messy for a while by
the look of it. It's going to cause some pain. I'd be very
surprised if it's not sorted out in the short-term.
JOURNALIST: So no impact on the Australian economy?
* L 11.
PM: The fact that there's some unhappiness caused for a
range of people within the United States, visitors going to
places which are now closed and public servants having to
wait perhaps for a little while for their pay. I mean
that's a problem for those that are involved. But it
doesn't have any impact at all internationally if it is
resolved in the short term, as I believe it will.
JOURNALIST: It appears there's some chance that the
Opposition will attempt to block at least parts of your
pharmaceutical benefits legislation coming up. What
repercussions would that have?
PM: That's a hypothetical. You've got no chance on that
one. JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner has made a statement outside the
Royal Commission into the building industries. He's
prepared to go to gaol unless the Government allows legal
aid. Is the Government's position unchanged
GREINER: Yes of course. John's an old mate of mine. He's
just posturing. The Royal Commission will look after
itself. The unions would be well-advised to take a
pro-active approach rather than a negative one. But that's
highly unlikely to influence my judgement.
ends