In the week that Labor is struggling to pass its environmental legislation, the death of Graham Richardson is a reminder that, as Labor environment minister, he oversaw the passage of the biggest suite of environmental legislation put forward by any minister or government before or since.

Others are better placed to evaluate Richardson’s overall contribution to public life, but I was the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Canberra representative when the environment movement first began talking to Richardson in 1985. He had entered Parliament in 1983. At the age of 33, he was the youngest Senator ever elected at that time, but already with a reputation as the leader of the powerful NSW Right faction.

The fledgling environment movement had done well at the 1983 election, with Hawke promising to stop the construction of the Franklin Dam. However, the years following were lean for the movement, as Labor saw the environment as a peripheral, sectional issue. On the advice of Jonathan West, in the office of environment minister, Barry Cohen, I began talking to Richardson in late 1985. He was still a backbencher but had become known as “Hawke’s numbers man”. A big environmental issue was the renewal of Tasmanian woodchip licences due by the end of the year. To support my lobbying efforts, the Wilderness Society sent David Heatley, a young Tasmanian psephologist, who knew the electoral returns for every booth and for every recent election in Tasmania. We were able to demonstrate the electoral potential of the environment vote in Tasmania and Richardson loved it. He and Dave enjoyed many analytical conversations involving voting returns!

During a key meeting at which I had hoped Richardson would agree to intervene on woodchip quotas on our behalf, he said, “I’ll tell you what I will do. I will go to Tasmania and have a look.” He turned to his secretary and began arranging a time in the following April. My heart fell. He was clearly not going to intervene on the woodchip licences. However, taking a broader perspective, it was obviously an opportunity. Within an hour of the meeting, as I talked to Bob Brown, the plan was already under way to hire a helicopter and make the most of the meeting. That trip to the Tasmanian South West has been described by others, including Richardson, as a watershed, which saw him come on board as an environmental advocate. The groundwork to that change was talking his language about votes.

Toyne and Balderstone who were closely involved at the time, list 11 major iconic achievements of the Hawke Government on the environment. Almost all of them were in the three years Richardson was environment minister, from 1987 to 1990. Proactive decisions include the finalisation of Kakadu National Park boundaries and its listing as World Heritage, the stopping of logging in Queensland’s Wet Tropical Rainforests with its World Heritage nomination, the protection of hundreds of thousands of hectares of Tasmanian forests in Tasmania including the Lemonthyme and southern forests, and numerous listings of places such as Shark Bay, Uluru and the NSW rainforests as World Heritage. Reactive decisions include the international blocking of mining in Antarctica and stopping the Wesley Vale pulp mill. A long-term positive outcome of Richardson’s period in office was the creation of Landcare, which continues its work today.

These decisions were not easily won. The Wet Tropical Rainforests required negotiating with hundreds of landholders owning many discreet parcels of land. One of his staff involved in this process claimed to me that only Richardson with his negotiating skills could have done this. Feelings ran high at one Ravenshoe event in northern Queensland, where Richardson and his staff were physically accosted by a large group of forestry workers and had to be quickly evacuated by police.

The Helsham Inquiry into the Tasmanian Lemonthyme and southern forests was rejected by environmentalists because it recommended logging about 90% of the area, but Richardson agreed to support a dissenting report by Commissioner Hitchcock recommending almost the opposite. This resulted in a gruelling Cabinet debate totalling 14 hours – reported to be the longest Cabinet debate of the Hawke Government.

Toyne and Balderstone do not mention one significant initiative of Richardson – possibly because it was not initially successful. Towards the end of his time as minister, Richardson took the first climate change proposal to Cabinet. The submission proposed that Australia should limit carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by 2005. These were the Toronto Targets proposed in 1988 by international scientists. Later, a similar Cabinet submission proposed by Ros Kelly as environment minister, was accepted by Cabinet, but was given no financial or administrative backup under Keating. It has been erased from Labor Party memory. When I interviewed Hawke and Richardson separately in 2008 for some academic research, both were keen to take credit for the initiative, despite its demise.

Working with Richardson was a breath of fresh air compared to my previous lobbying experience. He always told it like it was and never gave a vague reply or offered a half-hearted attempt to sound agreeable without taking action. I remember him on Kakadu saying, “I will do this for you, but I won’t do anything for you on uranium or nuclear issues.” It was a refreshing change to know the exact parameter of any negotiation. During the brief time I was lobbying him, he never crossed me and always delivered once an agreement had been made. It seems remarkable to me now to realise that he was only in his 30s during this period and as environment minister. I leave it to others such as Marion Wilkinson, to describe his other less attractive behaviour in different environments. History will undoubtedly judge him as a complex character considering the totality of his public life. However, his period as environment minister was the most productive of any government before or since and stands today as an important contribution to Australian society.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.