PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 6 APRIL
1989 E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: I wanted to take this opportunity of announcing the
important decision that the Cabinet made earlier this week
in regard to the Greenhouse effect. We have decided that
there must be acceleration of work in this country on this
very important issue.
Before I just mention briefly the decision that we've taken
it may serve to put the importance of this issue in
perspective. I'll just give you one or two statistics. It
is the case that in the last 10,000 years the variation in
climate temperature has been between the order of one and
two degrees. It is estimated that in the next 50 years with
the estimated 30 percent increase in the further release of
carbon dioxide, that by the year 2030 there could be an
increase in temperature of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. In
other . words, the estimate is that in this period, there
could be, within 50 years, a greater and perhaps a
significantly greater increase in the earth's temperature
than in the whole of recorded human history.
Of course the potential impacts of that are almost
immeasurable at this stage. We are facing the situation
therefore where the whole pattern of life and of industry,
of nations and people, may be totally changed within one
lifetime. It's against that background that we have made the decision
that Australia is going to be at the forefront of action in
this area.
we have decided that an amount of $ 7.8 million will be
provided between now and 30 June 1990 for the first stage of
developing Greenhouse research and policy support in this
country.
We will establish a National Greenhouse Advisory Committee,
six experts will be appointed to that. They will have the
immediate responsibility to provide advice on priority areas
for further Greenhouse research and to set objectives for a
dedicated research grant scheme.
So I want to make it clear that in this area of the
Greenhouse effect and in the associated important area of
the depletion of the ozone layer, Australia intends to be at
the forefront of research. We will work not only in our own
country, as you know, I've also promised support to
countries in the Pacific region. That support will be
provided.
We intend to cooperate at every possible level of
international research, work in consultation on this issue.
It's particularly important that Australia do this because
most of the work to this stage has been concentrated in the
northern hemisphere area, it's important that Australia with
our capacities and resources should see that there is
introduced as much as possible into the international work
that's being done, a consideration of the impact and
implications of these important matters for the southern
hemisphere. So this is a first and significant stage and I give the
commitment to the people of Australia that all necessary
resources will be made available to ensure that the work
that can be done within Australia will be done to the best
possible effect and that we will be fully involved in all
international work in this important area of human affairs
which, as I say, has the capacity clearly to change
dramatically the economies, the lifestyles and indeed the
very viability of certain areas of the world.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what are the preliminary assessments
in how Greenhouse will change the way we live and work? Did
Cabinet PM: Well, associated with the submission was some very
interesting documentation which essentially came from the
United Nations Environmental Program work and what it sets
out is that there is hardly any aspect of life that will not
be effected. Let's look at agriculture for instance, just
for a start. It is suggested that if the developments that
are associated, already identified, with the Greenhouse
effect, go on in the way they are, then you'll have the
possibility of a total change in the pattern of agricultural
production in the world, that the areas available for the
growing of crops will push more towards the Poles. If that
takes place in areas where the soil is poor, then yields
will be down. So you are going to have massive changes
possibly in the patterns of agricultural production. It
will effect, as well as the patterns of agricultural
production, it will effect the natural eco-systems, your
forests, deserts. There will be increased, the word is
increased desertification as a result of the Greenhouse
effect. That will impact upon problems such as soil erosion
and with all that means. It can have a significant effect
on urban infrastructure. It could make some cities
-3-
( PM cont): unbearably hot and obviously a warmer or a dryer
climate can effect basically questions of water use and
longterm planning, perhaps making some large reservoirs or
other projects which are in contemplation, useless before
the normal 50 year timespan that's involved in the planning
and the contemplation of the useful lifestyle. Obviously it
can effect ports and coastal communities. The estimate is
that approximately one third of the world's population lives
within 60 kilometres of the coastline. Now with the rise in
ocean levels that can be associated with the warming of the
earth's climate, you could have a situation where, for a
significant portion of the world's population, you are going
to have the possibility of inundation and the requirement
for change of location therefore. So when you, I mean,
that's just going to some of the things. Some of the basics
and why, for instance just taking that latter point, at the
last meeting of the South Pacific Forum I made the offer
there that we would provide assistance to some of the
smaller states in the South Pacific because if you take a
place like Kiribati, Tuvalu, which are virtually at sea
level, any relatively small rise in the ocean level simply
means that their countries cease to exist. It is, as I say,
almost impossible to, I think, exaggerate the significance
and implications of this issue with which we are dealing.
JOURNALIST:' Would it have, or do you know what significance
it would have in particular to Australian coastal cities?
PM: well, by definition, it's going to, if you take the
worst possible scenarios which could involve in the period
of the next 50 years or so, quite significant rises in ocean
levels it could, for parts of Australia, have manifestly
disastrous impacts. That's why it's important that there be
a public understanding of the signficance of what we're
talking about. May I say as part of the expenditure of this
near $ 8 million that we've set down for this period up until
June 1990, there will be provision for a public awareness
campaign. This is an issue which manifestly goes beyond
Party, Government considerations, it's something which we
want the community as a whole to be aware of so that as a
community we can both plan and make the sort of contribution
that we're able to make to countries in the region. Indeed
one of the features of my recent Asian visit was to indicate
to countries in the region that, in the associated area of
ozone depletion and the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer
that we had developed here in Australia and, as a result of
cooperation between manufacturers, consumers and
Governments, technology which is relevant in the question of
recycling the offensive chemicals and we've undertaken to
cooperate with them in the use of that, and transfer of that
technology. They welcome that. What I'm saying is that
it's something that we, as a nation, have to give increasing
emphasis to. As I say, to cooperate with others not only in
the region but I repeat also it's very important that
( PM cont): Australia plays a large role in the
international work that's being done because to this stage
of course most of that research and planning has a northern
hemisphere bias.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: Just a minute, I'll come to that.
JOURNALIST: From what we know now of the problem, do you
anticipate that if this is to be slowed down and hopefully
ultimately reversed, that Australians and many other
countries are going to have to have massive changes to their
way of life?
PM: Let me put it this way. It is the case that if you
look at the industrialised countries, one can identify in
the period since the industrial revolution, if you take the
period roughly of the last 125 years, the estimate is that
in that period there's been approximately 0.5 percent
increase in the temperature in that period. Now as a
result of that industrial revolution it is the case that
developed societies have developed industries and lifestyles
which have locked us into this increasing generation of the
Greenhouse gases. So it follows, as a matter of logic, that
if we are going to arrest the imminence of disaster
associated with a continuation of those patterns, it follows
as a matter of logic then we have to give serious
consideration to changing those patterns of behaviour.
Otherwise we are guaranteeing for future generations,
universal disaster. That gives some point to the question
that was asked here. It gives, I believe, added emphasis to
the need to try and ensure in the area of power generation
that for those countries that have made the decision to use
nuclear power for peaceful purpose of the generation of
power, that every effort be made to ensure the maximum of
safety of such processes because it is the case that one of
the fundamental elements in the Greenhouse effect has been
the burning of fossil fuels. This is not a matter for
argument, it is a fact. So it's not only a question of
nuclear power, but mankind is going to have to examine the
whole question of power generation to try and ensure that,
as a concerned and intelligent world, global community, we
produce the power that we need in a way which is not going
ultimately to destroy civilisation.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean Australia will have to consider
nuclear power to replace our present fossil fuels?
PM: I don't think it needs to be on our agenda at this
stage. In the total global picture of the generation of
Greenhouse gases the estimate is that Australia generates
less than one per cent of that. But I don't think we should
be approaching as members of the international community
the global community we ought to be approaching these
issues with prejudices or assumptions as to what we can or
cannot do. I mean what we've got to do is first of all to
look at the evidence which is increasingly compelling and
then I believe to cooperate fully with all the international
programs and that includes most particularly the United
Nations Environmental Program. Within Australia what I want
to see happen and what I've insisted in the Cabinet will
happen and which I have the support of my colleagues, is
that we're not going to be looking at this question in terms
of financial restraint. We've done a survey of the areas
within the Australian community where research is being done
but most research has been done within the CSIRO and in the
Bureau of Meteorology. So what I'm insisting is that they
be provided with the resources that they've indicated they
need to further their work, that's involved in the $ 8M that
we're making available. What I want to see happen then is
that the Greenhouse Advisory Committee will, from an expert
point of view, then tell us what the further areas of
research are, how we will best acquire the predictive
capacity which is necessary for us to be able to make
sensible planning decisions. Now I think that we've got to
approach these things with an open mind and on the evidence
of all the research available to me and which I've taken a
fair bit of time now to try and assimilate I think that
the approach on these issues has got to just over-ride
political partisan boudaries and any areas of prejudice.
We're in the fortunate position environmentally that because
of the size of our country and the dispersion opportunities
that that involves, that we don't face so many of the
environmental problems of others. But we are in a position
I think to make a very significant contribution to world
research in this and will do so.
JOURNALIST: On the basis of the research and evidence so
far, which parts of Australia will be first effected?
PM: You would have to say if you look at the I mean the
answer is obvious in this sense that to the extent that we
contemplate the possibility of the rising ocean level there
are those parts of Australia which are the most low lying,
the ones that would be most likely to be adversely effected.
But I make the point that I made at the beginning in
answering your question, " what's the range of
implications?". If we have a situation where the whole
pattern of agricultural production is going to be changed
and adversely effected then that effects all Australians and
obviously it has a potentially adverse effect in regard to
certain of our minerals industry. I mean if the world were
-6-
( PM cont) as a result of the work that's done here and
internationally, to accellerate a move away from the burning
of fossil fuels that has implications for our coal mining
industry and it's a point I mean I could stand up here and
try and dodge that and say well I don't want to talk about
the possible deleterious effect on our mining industry. I'm
not going to do that. I think that as I said earlier we've
just got to face these issues squarely and honestly and
understand that it has implications for everyone in
Australia, everyone. That's why I've insisted that we
approach this matter dramatically now and effectively.
JOURNALIST: Just on that question Mr Hawke about the fossil
fuels. If it does have an adverse effect say on steaming
coal exports, the of that is that it would be a
yellow cake exports. You mentioned earlier about overcoming
prejudices. Do you think this is a justification for the
Labor Party re-examining its attitude to uranium?
PM: Well let me say this. Firstly as you know the Party
has a committee which is examining the whole attitude on
uranium policy. Let me secondly make this point, that I've
had discussions not calculated ones but in the
course of meeting people it's been interesting to me not
only in this country but overseas that people in the
environmental movement have had an attitude in regard to
uranium and the use of uranium for the generation of power
have been saying well they need to look at that to some
extent again in the light of the developing evidence of
deleterious impact of the Greenhouse effect which has the
large single contributor, the burning of fossil fuel. But I
don't say that with any sense of saying, well now you've got
to therefore change your position. What I'm simply saying
is that given the magnitude, the dimension of the issues
that we're talking about, I think it anyone to go
walking into that discussion and that analysis and carry
into it any prejudices of the past. I think you've got to
say, well the evidence here is overwhelming, it's near
universal in its acceptance in the scientific community, I
mean obviously there are degrees of emphasis, we haven't got
a position where people are universal in their measurements
and timetable in regard to the problem. But there is
virtually universal scientific acceptance that the world has
a very significant problem on its hands. Now when you've
got problems of that dimension I mean it's silly to be
trying to score political points or you know to carry
prejudices, I mean it just is too big for that.
JOURNALIST: Apart from the fact that we might be able to
make money out of uranium exports, we are in fact the
highest per capita user of energy, we rank quite highly in
the world, and although the country is large and therefore
we should not the problem as perceived by people living
in Australia we contribute per capita more than most or as
much as anybody to the Greenhouse effect. we could be
considering switching to nuclear power generation?
-7-
PM: You could be, I'm not. I made the aggregate point a
while ago that in terms of the global release of Greenhouse
gases it's estimated that we're less than 1% in that area.
JOURNALIST: Just a year ago Cabinet knocked back a
submission from Senator Richardson for just $ 1M for research
into the Greenhouse effect. What's happened in the meantime
to cause you to change your mind and why couldn't this
research already be underway?
PM: There is research underway already. I mean there is
significant research being done by the CSIRO and the Bureau
of Mineral Resources. They have diverted some resources
from other areas of activity towards this area. But I think
the simple fact is that there is a dramatic explosion of
awareness which is evidenced in a number of ways. We've had
S just recently two large international conferences that
which was called by Mrs Thatcher in March in London and the
conference in the Hague. I think it is the case that as a
result of the very good work that's been done by the United
Nations and by people in particular countries that there has
in the last twelve months or so been as I say an explosion
of awareness. As far as I'm concerned I have become totally
convinced of the urgency of this matter and I give the
Australian people my unqualified assurance that financial
considerations are not going to stand in the way of any
decisions that we can take as a Government both in terms of
what we can do to accelerate research and create the
appropriate predictive capacity in this country and also to
participate in all relevant areas of international work on
the issue.
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Just a minute I think Geoff asked a question, what
does the Finance Minister think about that? Let me say in
fairness to a man who is too often maligned as only having a
calculus for a mind, that Senator Walsh shares our concerns
on this issue.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke there are also implications for the
preservation of our forests.
PM: I beg your pardon.
JOURNALIST: There are implications
PM: There are indeed.
JOURNALIST: For the preservation of our forests and I
believe that related to this the negotiations on Wesley Vale
are resuming again. What's the situation there?
-8-
PM: Well I'm not aware of negotiations resuming on Wesley
Vale. I've heard some indications that there may be some
residual interest at least on the part of the local partner
here. So if there is an attempt to resume negotiations
either with the existing local enterprise or with others I
simply make the point that my Government will insist on the
strictest of guidelines as distinct from the Leader of the
opposition who wanted to race in and endorse Wesley Vale
despite the clear warnings and strict injunctions, if I can
put it that way, from the CSIRO. Well Mr Howard and the
Liberals can be developers at any cost beggar future
generations. We're not going to do that.
JOURNALIST: guidelines by May 2..
PM: I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Mr Howard's proposing that you..
PM: Mr?
JOURNALIST: Mr Howard, the Leader of the opposition, is
proposing that you set out your timetable
PM: I mean I wasn't trying to be smart about I just
didn't catch the word, I'm sorry.
JOURNALIST: By May 2, set out national guidelines for the
environmental requirements for these pulp mills. Will you
go along with that? would you try and set
PM: The day when I make decisions about the future welfare
of this country according to the opportunism of the Leader
of the opposition will be the day this country starts going
backwards. He can embrace his opportunism in his desperate
attempt to retain the leadership of the Liberal Party and
0 he's very much under seige there. Principles mean nothing
to him. The ecological safety of this country, the
preservation of this environment for future generations
don't figure on his agenda. They do on mine. I won't be
bullied into any artificial timetable by this Leader under
seige of the conservatives. As far as I'm concerned it's
almost a contradiction in terms to have a strictly national
set of guidelines because what may be appropriate in one
physical environment is not necessarily appropriate in
another. And let me make the point in regard to Wesley
Vale. There is no way in which I or this Government is
going to tolerate a situation where 13 tonnes per day of
chlorides are pumped into the ocean. So Mr Howard can
abandon his principles, will not have any, the deregulator
can be seen in this extraordinarily unbecoming exercise he's
having with the National Party in regard to issues of the
deregulation of the wheat industry, he can go on and have
all his problems and deadlines that he wants to impose upon
others or upon himself. They will have absolutely no impact
upon me or on the Government because if you're looking for
principles and if you're looking for concerns about the
-9-
( PM cont) welfare of this country in terms of present and
future generations don't waste your time looking in the
direction of John Howard.
JOURNALIST: I take it that you also have the same view of
the merit of the Leader of the Opposition's proposal of a
joint Federal/ Victorian Royal Commission into the NSC, do
you see any merit in the idea at all?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: I was asking, $ 8 million, will it be enough to
get the CSIRO back to where it was five or six years ago
before the cuts started?
PM: As far as the CSIRO is concerned on this issue we
believe that this will be sufficient. It will involve a
very significant addition in staff for them and resources
for them to enable them to do the work which they believe
they can do in this period. I want to emphasise that this
is a first and preliminary stage for them to be determining
what are the substantial priority areas of research to
develop in that period from the middle of the 1990s. So we
want them to be working further on the areas that they've
already initiated but under the recommendations that we get
from the Greenhouse Advisory Committee and the work will be
done, the further work will be done by the CSIRO and with
the Bureau of Meteorology. We expect then to have an
indication to us of what further funding requirements
there'll be. I repeat that as far as I'm concerned and this
Government is concerned, no reasonable requests will be
refused. Anything that we can do will be done.
JOURNALIST: Mr Howard today revealed that senior
businessmen have expressed concern to him about the
politicisation of the Treasury in the Reserve Bank. Have
those concerns been expressed to you by businessmen as well?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the NSCA, should the very
important business of search and rescue with the
implications for public safety be in the hands of groups
such as the NSCA or specifically the preserve of the Defence
forces?
PM: It's hard to say it should be specifically the reserve
of the Defence forces although historically and currently
they've had and have a significant role to play. I think
that we want to try and put these things in perspective.
Obviously there has been a disastrous misuse of funds in the
operations of the NSC. Now that needs to be examined, it
needs to be cleared up. But it seems to me that if you look
at the history of this country we've had a history where
there's been co-operation between organisations of that type
and between the Defence forces. We're going to have to get
PM ( cant): the right balance but we're certainly going to
have to see a situation where as a result of the enquiries
by the appropriate authorities, which are essentially State
ones, that the mess of the NSC be cleared up. But I don't
think you'll reach a situation in this country where
exclusively these sorts of functions will be in the hands of
the Defence forces.
JOURNALIST: What's your view of the action of the air
traffic controllers in Sydney and do you see any threat to
the wage/ tax trade off from the current industrial activity
on their front and the threat from the Telecom employees?
PM: No, if you look back over the last six years Geoff
you'll find that wherever we've had these negotiations
there've been one or two unions who've made noises and said
' well we're not going to cop it' and right through those
periods we've had questions like the one you raise will
the action of this union break the system down? I've given
the answer consistently, no it won't. I was right then and
I believe I'll be proved right again in saying no, the
action of one or two particular unions is not going to break
down what I believe will be the emergence of an appropriate
outcome on this occasion.
JOURNALIST: Can I put a question on Kampuchea?
PM: Yes, then I think we better get going.
JOURNALIST: Vietnam has announced it will unconditionally
pull out by September. Are you hopeful for some internal
resolution in Kampuchea between the factions? Do you see
Australia having any role, any control or peacekeeping force
and will we resume aid to Vietnam?
PM: Let me say, first of all, I welcome the statements that
have been made that unequivocally the Vietnamese forces are
going to be withdrawn from Kampuchea by September of this
year. That's consistent with indications that I'd been
given on my recent visit to Asia and certainly, in
particular, when I've been talking with the Prime Minister
of Thailand he was confident that this would be the case.
So I believe that the fact that this announcement has been
made would suggest that there have been some understandings
at other levels and I would think particularly in
discussions between the Soviet Union and China. Now, as you
rightly say, what needs to occur is a resolution of the
other externalities and of the internal problem. When I
refer to the other externalities of course I specifically
mean the provision of assistance from outside to factions
within Kampuchea and particularly provision of assistance by
China to the Khmer Rouge. I would assume that Vietnam
wouldn't have made the decision that it has announced, in a
sense reannounced, if it were not satisfied that there were
going to be appropriate responses from China in that regard.
Now, the other element that we must note is that Prince
-11-
PM ( cont): Sihanouk has resumed his Chairmanship of the
coalition and is agreeing to meet Hun Sen and I would hope
and expect that the unequivocal nature of the decision that
his been announced by the Vietnamese now will act as an
impetus to the resolution of these internal problems. I
mean, they are complex. One shouldn't underestimate the
complexity of the issues that are involved. Without being
exhaustive about them, let me refer to them. The issues
that have bogged down the negotiations to the JIM meeting so
far and in other discussions that have taken place, there is
the question of what will be the nature of the internal
regime in the period up to the time of the election. What
place can there be for the coalition factions together with
the Hun Sen regime in that lead-up period which will be such
as they will have confidence in the preparations for the
election. That is a critically important issue. Without
being exhaustive, there are others. Now I think that the
time that's available, it means we're now in relatively
early April, they announced they're going to withdraw by
September. I think, given the environment that's been
created by that decision, given the assumption I make that
there are basic understandings between the Soviet Union and
China, given the resumption of the leadership of the
coalition by Sihanouk, I think we have grounds for a
considerable degree of optimism that these issues can be
resolved in the time available.
JOURNALIST: Unemployment Mr Hawke, could we have a quick
comment on the big drop in the unemployment
PM: Well, I was wondering whether you'd ever get there.
We're very pleased with the fact that the unemployment rate
is now down to 6.2 per cent and that has been associated
with some fall in employment, but a fall in the
participation rate and an increase in employment over the
period since, twelve months ago of over 3 per cent, 3.2 per
cent in fact. So it's a very substantial increase in
employment. I'm very pleased with the result.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just the end of my question
about the peacekeeping force, you didn't respond to that.
Whether Australia would
PM: Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, I just repeat on that what I've
said overseas and here. We have an historical involvement
and interest in this issue. I've made it clear in my
discussions with the Prime Minister of Thailand, as has my
Foreign Minister, Senator Evans, that Australia stands ready
if requested by the parties principle and those associated
with this. By that I mean particularly the ASEAN countries.
If they want an Australian involvement, we are prepared to
be involved. We have expressed the view that we would hope
that there is no need for an armed peacekeeping force, but
more of a monitoring role. But if that more extensive
peacekeeping type arrangement were contemplated, then we
would be prepared to look at that. It is a matter of some
-12-
PM ( cont): satisfaction to me that the countries directly
involved, countries like Thailand, seem to take the view
that it is appropriate that Australia should be involved.
ends