Subjects: Action on salinity and water quality; Minister Reith; defence; Internet gambling;
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
Well ladies and gentlemen I’ve called this news conference along with Senator Hill and Mr Truss to announce that the Federal Government will propose to the states, with a proposal to be discussed at the COAG meeting on the 3rd of November a major action plan to address the longstanding problem of salinity and water quality in Australia.
Most Australians will accept that this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant environmental challenge and natural resource management challenge that this country has. And what is needed is a national plan, flowing from Commonwealth leadership but working closely with the states and with local communities to first of all identify in more detail the dimension of the problem in the most affected areas of Australia and then over a period of years implement an action plan that is going to do something at long last about remedying the deterioration in the quality of both our water and the deteriorating effects of salinity on the land within our precious continent.
Dry land salinity currently affects about 2.5 million hectares, that’s 5% of the cultivated land in our nation and without remedial action this is going to expand to about 12 million hectares. One third of all Australian rivers are in a poor condition and land and water degradation is estimated to cost up to $3.5 billion a year. The Commonwealth is going to put in place, or propose to the states a seven year, $700 million salinity and water quality action plan. We’ll be asking the states to match this funding, making the package over the seven-year period in the order of $1.5 billion. We’re going to start by targeting the twenty highest priority areas around Australia and working with the states and communities will develop plans to restore the natural environment in each area and then communities will be funded to do the work.
The Commonwealth money and indeed the state money can be used for a variety of practical measures, including protecting and rehabilitating waterways, improving the coverage of native vegetation, engineering works to address salt intrusion, removing redundant structures that inhibit river health and land and water use changes where they become necessary. I stress that the action plan, a copy of which is being made available to all of you today so that you can have an idea of the detail of the Commonwealth’s proposal, the action plan is being sent to the states. There’ll be a meeting of state officials later this week and it will be the principal item for discussion at the COAG meeting on the 3rd of November.
This is a plan that will take a number of years to implement. It’s something that will take a number of years to implement. It’s something that will require the co-operation of everybody in the community. It will require people to change their habits and I want to say at the outset that there’ll be a requirement on everybody over a period of time to alter their habits. The paper does address the issue of compensation. It indicates that the states have, because of their responsibilities in relation to land management, have responsibilities in the area of compensation. But because of the national dimension of the problem the Commonwealth is willing to consider making a contribution in the area of compensation if that becomes necessary.
This is one of these longstanding environmental challenges that has really been left unattended for far too long. You’ll see from the action plan that what we propose is the establishment of a single, national ministerial council involving both the Commonwealth and the states that will have to sign off on all of the individual, on all the criteria on which the individual plans will be built.
The action plan was put together with the assistance not only of the Government’s bureaucratic advisers, public service advisers in the relevant areas but also with the assistance of outside experts. It follows a great deal of attention given to this issue at the Prime Minister’s Science Council over the last couple of years. And I am particularly indebted to the work of Professor Cullen and others who’ve played a very significant role in the compilation of this action plan.
It won’t be easy enlisting the co-operation of everybody. There’ll no doubt be people suggesting that it may be done in a different fashion. We are asking the states to respond to and to comment upon the proposal and sensible suggestions for change and amendment will of course be considered and, if appropriate, adopted by the Commonwealth. But can I stress again that this is something that has needed to be done for a very long time. And for the first time I believe we have got a plan which is practical, it is understandable, it’s got some clear goals and it’s got some workable mechanisms. And importantly it seeks to marshal everybody in the community. It doesn’t seek to blame people for the problem, it recognises that there’s a problem and focuses on a future solution rather than a rather pointless debate about who caused what.
We all know there’s a problem, it varies around the country. It’s chronic in some parts of Australia and it is a matter of very real concern that something like a third of our rivers are in very, very poor condition. And as you read the action plan you will realise that within twenty years Adelaide’s drinking water will fail World Health Organisation’s salinity standards in two out of five days. Now it is plainly unacceptable that that situation be allowed to continue and that is why the Commonwealth has accepted the leadership role it has. But we can’t do it alone, either financially or systemically. We need the help and understanding of the states, but they need to accept that this is a national issue and it’s not just a question of the Commonwealth writing a cheque and giving it to the states and saying you go away and fix it. It won’t work that way because it will never be fixed because there are competing and colliding state interests that only the facilitating, co-ordinating leadership role of the Federal Government can overcome.
I would like to believe that this is an issue where there can be co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments across the political divide. I accept at this stage, I do accept the bona fides of governments of both political persuasions around Australia who claim an interest in doing something about this problem and we are pitching it in a way that I think is fair and reasonable. It will take a long time, but we are giving people a blueprint at long last for some measurable action and some achievable outcomes. And I want to thank Senator Hill, his responsibilities as the Minister to the Environment and Warren Truss, the Minister for Agriculture.
I don’t underestimate that there will an adjustment process and it will be necessary for us to take communities with us and there’s got to be a recognition that where there’s a serious disturbance of property rights, compensation has to be paid, that is only fair and reasonable. But I think there is a willingness in the Australian community to address this issue and address it in a fair and open way. I welcome the spirit of many of the things that have been said, although I may not endorse all of the detail by both the National Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation. I think we all want to do something about our fragile country.
I think we all want to recognise that this is a long-term national challenge. If you’re really talking about leaving a better Australia for our children you do have to do something about the salinity problem. Now I feel quite strongly about, it’s something I’ve been very personally interested in and I was, I’ve been I suppose greatly inducted into the understanding of this through the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister’s Science Council and the advice I’ve received from the members of that has brought home to me what a serious long-term threat this is not only to our environment, but also to our economic sustainability.
I don’t want to see, can I just finish on this Louise, I don’t want to see this as being a replacement for things like the National Heritage Trust and perhaps I’m anticipating a question by saying this, but the National Heritage Trust still has a year and a half to run, it deals with things as Robert will know which are separate from the salinity issue and we’ll be making decisions about what happens in relation to further programmes in that area when the, at the appropriate time but I don’t want this to be seen as some kind of clever rebadging of something else and it’s something above and beyond the Murray Darling Basin issue that is important, but this is something that goes far beyond that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard some of Australia’s most successful industries, big agriculture industries are big water users like rice and wine, is there a message to them that they’ve got to use less water? Or use what . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look my message to everybody is that everybody has a role to play in this and I’m not going to start targeting particular industries. I’m putting forward a plan. The first thing you’ve got to do is get acceptance of the plan. The next thing is to implement it and the mapping of the salinity threat, and we’ve now got some more modern and technologically sophisticated ways of doing that. It can be done quite cheaply and quite efficiently, I think we’ve got to do that. And then we’ve got to devise ways of attacking the salinity problem in the twenty areas that are identified in the action plan that you will have in a few moments. There are twenty catchment areas around Australia and if you look at this map, you will see in national outline and we are providing to you in the kit, we’re providing state maps for the benefit of people who want to write state-based stories as well as national stories showing the affected areas in different parts of the country. But a quick look at this map and the red indicating the rivers that are under water quality threat gives you an idea of the dimension of the programme. Within those areas we’ve identified twenty catchment areas that are most at risk and the idea is to, the idea is to develop within the guidelines laid down in the action plan, develop a way in co-operation with the state governments and the local community, ways of fixing each of the catchment areas over a period of seven years.
Now, it’s going to take time. And I certainly don’t regard this as the be all and end all of governments tackling the salinity problem in Australia. But I do see this is the most practical, realistic, serious start on the problem this country’s ever seen. We’ve never had a serious attempt at a national level before. This is the first time a national government has shown any real leadership on this issue and it’s a serious long-term problem and I don’t think for a moment that when this plan has been exhausted that that’s going to solve every thing. But we will have begun to have arrested the deterioration and I hope in some areas to have seen a reversal and I think that will be very welcome particularly by future generations of Australians.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard is any of the Commonwealth funding dependent on things like the sale of Telstra or . . . .?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard several US states have already outlawed full-flow showerheads. Is that kind of thing coming in here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am not going to at this stage because the whole basis of this approach in the action paper is to get agreement in discussion with communities and state governments on detailed plans to cure problems in each catchment area. And what is needed in one area might be different from what is needed in another. And I think for me to start talking about banning this or that ahead of those discussions is counter-productive and I’m not going to do it.
JOURNALIST:
Could you give us an idea of the sorts of habits that we’re going to have to change though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well obviously water usage is very important. Obviously tree planting’s important. Obviously rehabilitating the waterways. Obviously doing away with weirs that are no longer needed. Well there’s five. And I mean they’re the sorts of things you’ve got to address. Now some of those will be more important in some areas than in others and it will depend on where you are. And my colleagues may want to add to what I’m saying because they are more you know, more deeply versed in the detail of it than I.
JOURNALIST:
The cost of remediating the Basin area’s been put at about $50 billion over a long period. How much of a dent will this put in that whole process?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t, I mean different people put different figures. I mean what I’m asserting about this is that, this will give us a serious, practicable, realisable start on tackling a very big problem. And at the end of the period if this is broadly accepted and implemented and carried successfully through to fruition, at the end of the seven-year period you will see a difference. That doesn’t mean that you won’t have to spend more, I am not saying that for a moment. And obviously issues of compensation are going to arise along the way. But the other thing you’ve got to remember is that it’s not much good putting down a plan and committing yourself to an amount of money that can’t in practical terms be efficiently spent in the defined period of time. And the advice we have is that over the seven year period if you’re going to do it in a methodical, practical way you can only achieve a certain amount in that period of time and that this amount of money, providing it’s matched by the states will achieve that.
TRUSS:
And in addition to that can I just add that there is a capacity to leverage up investment by other sectors of the community including the private sector through potentially carbon credits trading and the likes, salinity credits those sorts of things. But also individual community investment and local action plans will significantly add to what we’re able to deliver with these incentives.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister the Queensland government’s already expressed scepticism about this action plan this morning. What happens if one of the States don’t….
PRIME MINISTER:
They must be experts in rapid reading.
JOURNALIST:
What happens if they don’t come aboard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s something for them to explain. But I’m an optimist. I can’t believe that any State government in Australia of either political complexion could possible refuse to be part of a national plan to tackle the problem of salinity. I mean I just can’t believe that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, given the long term nature of this plan, was there any thought given to involving State or federal Oppositions in consultations as well so you could hope, you know, with changes of government….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I mean they can make an input. But I mean realistically, realistically that would be, I’ve got to say, a recipe for slowing the whole thing down. I mean I don’t think it quite works that way. I mean I would like to think the Opposition would broadly support what we’re trying to do. But I mean you either govern and do it in a constructive way or you share government. Now I don’t remember being invited into the Cabinet room when I was Leader of the Opposition and I think you’ve just got to be a bit realistic about that.
JOURNALIST:
.. estimates Mr Howard of $60 billion required over ten years. Can we be confident that this is enough and would you look at perhaps a tie of the sale of Telstra to further funding schemes?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well one thing at a time. We’ve got a plan here that will achieve certain things within the time frame specified and that’s the advice we have. It’s easy to sort of make big estimates. Some of them are sustainable estimates, others of them are not. Some of them include estimates of what might be involved if you have very high levels of compensation. Some of them include what might be involved if you go on from what is laid down in this plan. I think the only way I can intelligibly answer your question is to say what I said a moment ago and that is that this amount of money will achieve some practical real outcomes and real improvements at the end of the seven year period. I don’t for a moment rule out the need to spend more money after that period of time or perhaps on the way towards the end of that seven year period there may be a need and a capacity to commit more. But as you know governments have to be careful before they enter into long term financial commitments. We have some other commitments that are relevant to the national need that we’ll be addressing over the next few months and we have to make judgements and be very careful about it. As far as Telstra is concerned I don’t want anybody to think that this funding is in anyway reliant upon the receipts coming from the further sale of Telstra, although I of course I remain a very firm advocate and I believe that in seven years time Telstra will have been fully privatised irrespective of who is occupying the position that I now occupy. I have no doubt about that at all. You know, if you could be certain of anything in politics you can be certain of that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can I ask you on another matter? Do you have a Telecard and what do you make of the investigation involving Mr Reith’s….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t have anything to say about that beyond what he said. There is a police investigation. He came to see me about the matter when it reached a certain stage in May of this year. I sought legal advice from the Attorney General. I followed that advice. It is in the hands of the police. It is not appropriate for me to say anything further. I haven’t used a Telecard for years and years and years. Do I have one – I may have a defunct, expired one in a drawer at home but I haven’t the faintest idea. I’d have to look.
JOURNALIST:
Quite separately to the issue of the police investigation, is it acceptable ministerial behaviour for a Minister to give his Telecard to a member of his family for personal use at the taxpayers’ expense?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think Mr Reith indicated what happened there and I don’t have anything to add.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, why don’t users have to sign off on their telephone bills when they come in? And I don’t think you quite answered Glenn’s question there. Mr Reith has acknowledged that he did give his Telecard number to his son. Whether it’s a $950 bill or a $50,000 bill, isn’t the principle…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Look you ask me that question – I wouldn’t have done that and it occurred at a time when he was not a Minister in my Government. I don’t regard that of itself particularly as he’s explained the circumstances and has paid that money, I certainly don’t regard that as a hanging offence. I wouldn’t have done it but it happened at a period of time when he was not a Minister. As to the rest of the amount which has been mentioned in the Canberra Times story, that is the subject of a police investigation and I don’t think it is appropriate for me to comment further. Somebody asked me about the signing off…..
JOURNALIST:
Yeah the key to my question is why don’t Ministers have to sign…..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t……I understand that the rules that were in operation at the time this Telecard was improperly, or allegedly improperly used, they were rules that were laid down by the Minister at the time and I don’t precisely know what they were, but I can only be guided by by what Mr Reith has said on that. But all of these things are going to be investigated by the police and the important thing is that when it became an issue he came to see me. I sought the advice of the Attorney General. The Attorney General said give it to the police. It’s gone to the police, and like any other citizen he’ll have to await the outcome of that investigation as will you.
JOURNALIST:
Are there changes needed….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I don’t know the full details of that and I’m not going to commit myself in advance and I don’t really want to get a debate about that tied up with police consideration of this particular issue.
JOURNALIST:
But Mr Howard, if we just go to wider questions of principle, surely there are guidelines about how public figures use these Telecards. If there are not are you going to do something about this? And also you said….
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t think people use Telecards any more. Well they don’t because mobile phones have (made them) become largely redundant….
JOURNALIST:
But nevertheless they used to exist.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t know, do they.?
JOURNALIST:
Were you ever….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well hang on, I don’t know, I mean I don’t get issued with a Telecard, not that I’m aware of. I certainly haven’t used one for years. So I think your question’s a bit out of date Michelle.
JOURNALIST:
The other question is Mr Howard, you said you followed the proper procedures, but surely a matter concerning one of your most senior Ministers which was being referred to the police should have been disclosed publicly.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, why.
JOURNALIST:
Why not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why should it be?
JOURNALIST:
Because it is an investigation about a potential breach…..
PRIME MINISTER:
But the rule normally is that you’re innocent until, you know, there’s a presumption of innocence.
JOURNALIST:
But I would have thought….
PRIME MINISTER:
Whether you would have thought but I don’t. I think if an allegation is made and the Minister denies any impropriety in relation to the subject of the investigation and it goes off to the police I think that is…..I mean I gave thought to this in May and I thought the appropriate thing to do was to get legal advice and I got legal advice from the Attorney General, and that advice was that it should be sent to the police and it is being investigated.
JOURNALIST:
So to use your expression Mr Howard, it is not a hanging offence for a Minister or a member of your Government or your party to use a taxpayer funded facility for the personal use of……
PRIME MINISTER:
No what I said Glenn was that this occurred at time when he was not a member of my Ministry. It occurred at a time when we were in Opposition and I believed that in relation to what has happened and the way he has handled the circumstances of the use of the card, or the PIN number, Telecard number, by his son and the circumstances in which it was given to him were to be used in particular circumstances for contact in emergency. But although I wouldn’t have done it, and probably in retrospect he probably now thinks he shouldn’t have done it, I don’t think that having happened then in those circumstances that that represents a hanging offence in relation to the position he now holds. That’s the point I make. It’s not something that I would encourage people to do and it’s not something I’ve done. But you’re asking me would I regard it as a hanging offence in relation to the position he now holds – the answer is no I don’t. Would I encourage anybody to do it if they had the capacity to do it – no I wouldn’t.
JOURNALIST:
But isn’t it basically defrauding the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t believe it is.
JOURNALIST:
But you have concealed, you did conceal for some months Mr Howard that fact that a matter concerning a senior Minister has been referred to the police.
PRIME MINISTER:
But Michelle allegations are often made against people.
JOURNALIST:
Are there any others?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are often made against people and are referred to the police and it’s only when those things are…..you don’t and it’s my understanding that where allegations…..that on a number of occasions allegations in the past have been made and police investigations have been instituted and it’s not automatic that you make that public because the allegation may be completely baseless.
JOURNALIST:
But you have taken advice from….
PRIME MINISTER:
I’ve taken advice, I took advice from the Attorney General and I followed his advice.
JOURNALIST:
So it was a pretty serious matter?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s why I took the advice of the Attorney General and that’s why I followed his advice.
JOURNALIST:
That you wouldn’t publicly….
PRIME MINISTER:
No no, but I followed his advice. He’s the first law officer of the Commonwealth.
JOURNALIST:
You’re dealing [inaudible]. And we’ve seen that Minister Moore is looking (inaudible) ?
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m sorry, where are you from?
JOURNALIST:
Reuters.
PRIME MINISTER:
Where, where?
JOURNALIST:
Reuters.
PRIME MINISTER:
Reuters, yes. What was the last bit you said? I didn’t quite catch it I’m sorry.
JOURNALIST:
Where is (inaudible) salinity stand on the priority?
PRIME MINISTER:
Where priorities for what? Salinity! Well it’s a very high priority, clearly. Very high priority.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) defence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t sort of get into a priority game. They’re all important. We love them all. They’re all very very important. And you know, some may get a bigger hug than others but we, you know, we’re not a government that is sort of, you know, obsessed with one narrow policy stream. There are a lot of things that governments have responsibilities for. You need a strong well managed economy, but you also need a protected environment. You need to plan for the long term. You need to be able to defend the country. All of these things are very important.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what’s your response to the Senate throwing out your moratorium on Internet gambling last night?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m very disappointed about it. Once again the Labor Party is trying to walk both sides of the street. Mr Beazley, you know, sheds crocodile tears about the social damage done by excessive gambling yet he doesn’t do anything about it. And he had a heaven sent opportunity for the Labor Party to support our proposal. I mean he’s the alternative Prime Minister. The Democrats aren’t. And he runs around saying that it’s a serious social problem. We propose something to stop the spread of gambling and he sort of, you know, seeks a coward’s excuse by saying we should regulate not prohibit. Well I mean has he got any further bright ideas about how you can stop the spread of gambling without having some kind of moratorium on gambling on the Internet?
What we will do is consider our options. I don’t rule out resubmitting the legislation to the Parliament. I’m very disappointed that the Labor Party has refused to adopt a bipartisan attitude despite their expressions of concern. I mean they now mean nothing. They don’t care about the social impact of gambling because it had a heaven sent opportunity to do something about it and they’re just a cheap political, negativism, and opportunism that just said oh no we’re against it presumably because some of the Labor States who want the revenue have heavied them into voting against it.
JOURNALIST:
The Queensland Government is upset over a decision to allow US nuclear submarines in Great Barrier Reef marine park waters next year, next May. What’s your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have a long standing policy on those matters and I note what the Queensland government has said. It won’t alter our approach.
JOURNALIST:
Given the recent accident in the Russian Federation, shouldn’t it be alarming?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there are significant differences in the, how should we put it, the capacity management.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, could I come back to your map.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it’s nice isn’t it.
JOURNALIST:
Why do you want, or particularly (inaudible) action plan (inaudible) and get input from the States first instead of presenting them….
PRIME MINISTER:
Peter, there have been so many reports on this. The thing had been the subject of multiple submissions and in the end I got tired of trying to assimilate all of the material and I suggested that we get four or five people who really understood the issue to draw up an action plan and we’d send it to the States. My experience of Commonwealth State negotiations is that you’ve got to sort of start, you know, you’ve got to press the button to get the time running otherwise nothing ever happens. And we are presenting the States with a plan. If they want to change it and they’ve got some intelligent suggestions we’ll pick them up. I’m not saying that, you know, say to the States take this or leave it. That’s not the attitude I’m adopting. What I am saying is here’s a start. We think this is a good plan. If you’ve got some sensible changes we’ll certainly be ready to talk about them and if they’re good changes and they make it better we’ll incorporate them into the plan. We’re not saying that this is the only way to go. But this is a start and if you have a seminar to write the first draft you never get it finished.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you said before that at the end of the seven years then there maybe a time look at further an increase funding for this. Might that not be too late given what you said about Adelaide’s drinking water before?
PRIME MINISTER:
No because this will have quite an impact on that. Anything else?
Thank you.
[ends]