' a TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH PETER THOMPSON, ABC AM, 21 JULY
1989 E 0 E PROOF ONLY
THOMPSON: What's been the key factor in the greening of Bob
Hawke? PM: well, the first thing to say about the greening of Bob
Hawke is it's not a recent phenomenon. In the election
campaign which brought us to Government in the beginning of
' 83 1 then led I might say against some opposition within
my own Party and certainly against the total opposition of
the Liberal and National Party I led the fight to save the
Franklin because I was convinced then that to dam the
Franklin would be both environmentally obscene as well as
being economically unnecessary. So I've been there before
it became fashionable. I suppose in these things too, the
more you're in office, the more information you get across
your desk, Peter, and I've come increasingly to understand
two things. Firstly, that environmental issues are of
increasing importance, not just in an aesthetic sense, if
you want to put it that way, but truly in a survival sense.
Secondly, to understand that environmental concern is
compatible with a commitment to economic growth.
THOMPSON: The green vote in Tasmania, less than two months
ago, is that significant in the Government's estimation?
PM: No, there's a lot of cynicism about that. It is a
matter of recorded, provable, indisputable fact that our
work on the preparation of this statement commenced well
before the Tasmanian election. Some people are saying it's
a reaction to that. of course, as in a lot of the cynicism
around this country, that simply is not true and is provably
not true. But let me say this, the Tasmanian election was
not an isolated event.-If you look around the world,
including at the European elections, that is for the
European Parliament, just a few weeks ago which took place
while I was in Europe, it is the case that people everywhere
are demonstrating their concern about environmental issues
and in many ways they are doing this in many ways and
that they're including, by a larger vote for parties
particularly identified with environmental issues.
A -2-
THOMPSON: Well turning now to soil conservation, the $ 320
million which has been earmarked for the decade. How will
that money be spent?
PM: Well, there'll be a number of ways in which that will
be done. Particularly there'll be work in the Murray
Darling Basin, there'll be the provision of money to groups
which will in fact be formed around the country to cooperate
in protecting the soil. Very largely we will be making sure
that what we do is done in a way which is cooperative with
people in the areas particularly affected because you can't,
you know, do these things simply from Canberra. That's why
we are saying there will be a decade of Landcare and under
that, through that decade, you will have a number of things
being done to take up that $ 320 million. There'll be a
Landcare liaison group which will be established and it'll
comprise representatives of not just of Commonwealth
Departments, but they will then be working with other groups
to ensure that the National Soil Conservation Program will
be given effect to. Let me point out that over the next two
years in particular $ 49 million will be provided to that
National Soil Conservation Program.
THOMPSON: Not direct money to farmers?
PM: No, there'll be assistance to those who are prepared
themselves and with groups to undertake particular
developments and protective devices on their own programs.
For instance, we'll be providing about $ 6 million to fund
projects, actual projects of Landcare groups and
coordinators and, with the preparation of farm and regional
plans, the idea is to seed the money into groups which are
going to be working with farmers and those who are going to
be themselves undertaking these programs.
THOMPSON: Is there a fundamental contradiction of some sort
between the Government's economic mission, the more widely
perceived economic mission of Australia, to increase exports
and also land care and conservation. For example, if
Australia is to process more raw materials that will
undoubtedly increase greenhouse gases. If we're going to
have tourist development on the coast, that will have an
impact there.
PM: No, it's a question of the way in which these things
are done. Now just let me take the second part first, the
coastal development. No-one is arguing that there won't be
any development, any further development of tourist resorts.
The point is that what we must do now, in our judgement, is
to ensure that in the use of our coastal zone there is not
just the one criterion which is employed that is the
tourist dollar. So that is why we are going to be doing
these things. Firstly we have referred the whole question
of coastal zone development to the Resources Assessment
Commission which we have now established and that will
enable representations to be made by all interest in the
community as to the overall principles and concerns and
46 -3-
PM ( cont): issues which ought to be taken into account in
this development. This will be a fairly lengthy process.
We're also establishing a national working group on coastal
management which will provide for input directly from the
tourism industry, from environmentalists, from state and
local governments, so that together we are going to be able
to develop a consideration of what are those sorts of
principles and processes which ought to be involved in
development. As I say, it doesn't mean there won't be any
further development, but it does mean that in the future
there'll be a much greater consideration taken into account
when projects are put forward of what impact on the
environment would the development of that proposal have.
Now, we're doing those things and in the same time while it
is the case that these matters in the end under the
Constitution are the responsibility of the States, we
nevertheless have a reserve power in two respects. We have
the corporations power and we have the power in regard to
foreign investment. If you took an absolutely worst case
scenario where a state, and really we've got two left now.
We've got Queensland which has an awful record. In NSW
we've just got to keep our fingers crossed in regard to the
way they approach coastal development. But were a state to
take a position in regard to some project by a company, and
particularly if it's a foreign company, which was manifestly
against proper environmental considerations then we wouldn't
hesitate in those circumstances to use our powers.
THOMPSON: So you think you have sufficient powers and don't
need a referendum clarifying those powers?
PM: No, I'm not saying that Peter. I'm saying, if you'd
listen carefully to what I was saying, our powers are
indirect in a way. They derive from the corporations power
and they derive from foreign investment powers. obviously
it would be in my judgement best if there was an unqualified
power in the federal constitution in regard to the
environment. Because the simple fact is environmental
problems have no respect for state boundaries. The sorry
history of referenda in this country is that unless you have
bipartisan support your chances of getting them carried are
just about zilch.
THOMPSON: You wouldn't have one without bipartisan support?
PM: What I'm saying is we will try and develop a community
understanding of these issues and we'll just express the
hope that the Opposition, which up to this point has a
hopeless record on environmental issues, that they will see
the light and would become supportive of creating that
attitude in the community so that a referendum could be
passed. But we're certainly not going into a situation of
dividing the community in a situation where the opposition
won't carry their responsibility.
-4-
THOMPSON: Can I get back to growth. The second part of the
question I asked about processing raw materials and
increasing Greenhouse gases. The Australian Conservation
Foundation feels that your lack of direct commitment on
reducing Greenhouse gases is the number one weakness of your
statement. PM: No. You're right in saying Peter that some of them
have expressed concern by the absence of an actual target.
But let me say this. That what we accept as a government is
that we have a responsibility as part of the total
international community to ensure a reduction of the range
of Greenhouse effects which include carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxide. What we have said is that we intend
within Australia to do everything we can to pursue a greater
efficiency in energy use. What we also intend to do is to
discuss internationally whether in fact in regard to some
areas of production it may not be better to do those in
Australia where we are significantly more efficient energy
producers and consumers. So that in net terms if that were
to happen Australia would be making its contribution. In
other words certain enterprises and functions undertaken in
Australia as compared with overseas would in global net
terms involve a reduction. Now we also intend, as I say, to
look at the areas of methane gas reduction where we may be
able to do even more than others. So that we accept the
obligation as part of the international community to reduce
the Greenhouse gases and we will do that.
THOMPSON: Just before we go. Yesterday was your
comprehensive statement on the environment. Next month
gives you a chance for a comprehensive statement on the
economy in the Budget. Is there light at the end of the
tunnel?
PM: There has always been light at the end of this tunnel
that people are talking about. The Australian economy
you've got to understand is going through a problem of
strength and not of weakness. The problems that we have got
and that we're dealing with are characterised by too strong
a growth. That has meant that we have had to impose
restraints, particularly in regard to interest rates. As
I've said before. I'm an intelligent politican. I don't
have interest rates high just for the fun of it. I'm not a
masochist or a sadist. They are there deliberately to try
and reduce the level of activity. Activity which has seen
the creation of one and a half million new jobs, an economy
which is growing strongly. We've got to bring that back so
that we can sustain the level of imports by our own level of
export activity. So the light has always been there of a
strongly growing economy. What we've got to do is to bring
that back to sustainable levels. On that point let me say
Peter there is evidence, not yet overwhelming and conclusive
evidence, but there is evidence I believe of the beginning
of that slowdown of activity to acceptable levels.
i J
THOMPSON: Just a final one. Earlier this year you said
living standards would rise in the forseeable future. Is
that still possible?
PM: In 1988-89, the financial year just finished, that has
obviously happened. You've had a significant increase in
employment, significant increase in company incomes,
significant increase in farm income and wages moving in line
with inflation. So it's happened in the financial year that
I was talking about and in this year ahead the exact outcome
of course will depend upon the ability of the economy to
achieve just what I was talking about. That is reigning in
the excess levels of demand. But you will have in this
situation a continuing high level of farm income because
commodity prices are going to stay up, company income looks
reasonably good and you will have wage increases in line,
approximately, with what's going to be happening with
inflation. But the exact outcome of course will depend upon
how we as a community handle the degree of restraint that is
still necessary.
THOMPSON: Prime Minister, thanks for the taking the time to
join us this morning on AM.
PM: It's been my pleasure Peter. Thank you.
ends