PM: Today the heads of Government from around the world met as major economies on the great global and environmental and economic challenge of our age, climate change.
These 16 economies represent 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions and my message as the Prime Minister of Australia was very simple. The buck stops with us. It doesn't stop with anyone else it stops with us.
We represent 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions and when it comes to the negotiations which are underway at the present, political momentum, political direction is necessary if we are to negotiate to achieve an outcome for the planet. Both for our long term economic future and our long term environmental future.
I argued in the context of the meeting for the need for developed and developing countries to work towards a grand bargain. A grand consensus, a new consensus on action. Requiring us to commit to targets, requiring us to commit to actions, requiring us to commit to the proper exchange of technology capable of delivering those targets and commitments. We can arrive at the Copenhagen conference at the end of next year no better off than we are now. With positions left unresolved without movement having occurred. Whereas my argument and the belief of the Australian Government is that we need to see all governments, developed and developing countries begin to fashion a grand consensus, a grand bargain on climate change between now and Copenhagen.
The challenge will be great and there has been no huge breakthrough at this particular meeting. It is one step along the road, but I think I can speak in relation to all heads of Government who attended this meeting. There is a clear focus on the need for a substantive outcome at Copenhagen.
We also discussed the global financial situation and the challenge which it represents to the global economy. On this question and our engagement with international monetary funds it's quite clear that the global financial crisis is far from over.
It's a requirement for increased global governance when it comes to global financial markets. A requirement also for within that governance for greater global transparency. By no means is the world out of the woods yet when it comes the financial crisis, which began to unfold in August last year.
Therefore it's important that the efforts through the IMF, the financial stability forum and through other international actions, pointing towards an enhanced global governance regime for global financial markets. The cornerstone of which must be greater transparency.
On the challenges facing global oil and global oil prices it is quite clear that we face challenges in global supply and that's why we need to see greater foreign investment access to global oil supplies. Greater investment also in greater refining capacity.
On the demand side it's quite plain that we need to see action in terms of greater energy efficiency within those new and emerging economies which represent such a large slice of global demand when it comes to oil markets (inaudible).
Also transparency in markets to ensure that there is clear accurate market information concerning the operation of oil markets today and the concerns raised by many of my colleagues and myself about the continued manipulation of markets possibly by speculators. One part of an overall equation.
I also indicated my appreciation for the actions of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in convening a conference recently on these questions and look forward to the Government of the United Kingdom holding a further such conference later this year.
It's important that this agenda on the supply side, the demand side and the market transparency side be taken further and not be allowed to drop.
On global food its quite plain from our discussions with the President of the World Bank, Bob Zoellick today that we have a major emerging problem across many developing countries today.
This has required specific action both by the world food program and by the World Bank to meet contingency requirements for various developing countries suffering from immediate food crisis, leading to social instability and also practical areas of support when it comes to the provision of food technology, seed supplies and fertilisers.
There is an immediate crisis to which we we're alerted by the World Bank which requires further contribution by us Australia and other governments to international efforts by the World Bank now. And I confirm today that Australia will be contributing a further $50 million to the fund operated by the bank to deal with emergency food requirements.
Also in relation to food the argument that I put as did many others was on the question of the current Doha round and the need to secure a positive outcome for world trade.
Long term this is critical in terms of freeing up global food markets and to ensure that agricultural producers across the world receive proper market prices for their food production.
There is a ministerial meeting scheduled for later this month, the 21st July, and my argument and the argument of many heads of Government is that we need to provide every level of political support necessary to ensure that we get a positive outcome from the Doha round.
This will very much be one of the last opportunities to yield a positive outcome and there is the ingredients as we are advised by some today of a possible deal being struck, it will still be hard, it will still be tough, but political momentum is necessary and it is directly relevant for the long term interests of agricultural producers and consumers around the world.
Finally I'd say there was consensus around the room today about the global nature of the challenges we face. The great global challenge that is climate change, the great global challenge which lies in the turbulence we see one year on in global financial markets, global oil prices, global food prices. All challenges to the stability of our own national economies as well.
Where that lead us all is a requirement for greater coherent global action in responding to these challenges and I believe with the common resolve on the part of all heads of Governments attending this conference today, to work in that direction.
I would congratulate the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Fukuda for convening this conference. It has represented a positive stepping stone towards further acts of co-operation which are necessary across these agenda's over the next 6,12 and 18 months.
I congratulate Prime Minister Fukuda in particular (inaudible) achieved with the G8 in moving the (inaudible) of G8 in the direction of a greenhouse gas reduction target of at least 50% by 2050. Which is reflected in the G8 communiqué.
I'm happy to take your questions
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd to you say that there is a global (inaudible). The five outreach countries yesterday set out a 2020 target for climate change of up to 40%, now is that 40% target something you're willing to respect if that's the bargain that has to be struck?
PM: What I said accurately was that there is a need for a global bargain, there is a need for a global consensus on this question which requires targets on the part of developing economies and commitments which are measurable and verifiable on the part of developing countries.
This occurs within the framework of common but differentiating responsibilities between those two groups of countries. (inaudible) the G5 that articulated the position in terms of interim trajectories or interim targets on the part of the developed world, that is part of the continuing negotiations between us. The argument that I put today is that what is the legitimate interest on the part of developing countries, that is what targets will the developed world put on the table.
What is the legitimate interests of developing economies, what commitments, specific commitments of national action will the developing world undertake. And what I argued today is its necessary for us all to engage in a open and transparent exchange on these questions well in advance of the Copenhagen conference.
If you simply fail to be transparent with one another on that prior to Copenhagen there's a great danger that we reach Copenhagen with no substantial advance being achieved and with many of these fundamental questions left unaddressed. And on the question of interim targets on the way through, that will be part of the negotiations on the way through.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: I believe G8 in its commitment to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050 represents a step forward. Of course there is a long, long way to go and part of that distance refers to the previous question, which is the gap between developed and developing countries on targets and on national commitments by developing countries and on the technology that is necessary to give effect to those targets and commitments.
These are the three elements which I described in my remarks as forming the ingredients of a long term grand bargain across the developed and developing countries of the world, if we are to achieve an outcome at Copenhagen.
The great danger is that no work occurs on this of substance between now and Copenhagen in which case our negotiators are left with no where to go.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd you said there was no great breakthrough on climate change and you've indicated that there could be danger for Copenhagen. Given that there was no great breakthrough either on oil prices and food prices, do you feel that the G8 is the right place to discuss these issues and shouldn't there be somewhere else where such issues can be discussed separately and more precisely?
PM: I think if I could make a comment as a first time participant in these gatherings. You have for the first time a heads of Government meeting of the major economies on the question of climate change. And as a participant in that discussion there was frankness and candour around the table from developed and developing countries about possible ways forward.
What I found remarkable was there was no fundamental dispute about the science. That there was no fundamental dispute about the need for global action, what there is a disagreement about is the level of action required across the developing world and across the developed world. We've known that for some time, the key answer to your question Dennis lies in what happens at head of Government level between now and Copenhagen.
At the end of the meeting today, and Prime Minister Fukuda may have already indicated this in his public remarks, there is a commitment for the major economies meeting to convene again at heads of Government level in order to provide guidance to negotiators between now and Copenhagen.
That is likely to occur off the back of the G8 Summit next year.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd did the issue of the Indian-US nuclear co-operation agreement come up in your bi-lateral with the Indian Prime Minister (inaudible) and what is the Australian Governments attitude with the (inaudible)
PM: I had a very long and good conversation with the Indian Prime Minister, both prior to today's meeting, during today's meeting as we were sitting next to one another and in a subsequent bi-lateral.
I would thank the Indian Prime Minister for extending to me an official invitation to visit India at the end of the year, I look forward to taking that up.
We also discussed the importance on the part of both our Governments in broadening and deepening the Australia-India relationship and we are both committed to doing that. And that occurs across the economy, our political dialogue and also our broader security defence cooperation as well.
The recent decision by the Indian Government in terms of its nuclear arrangements with the United States was raised. This matter is still to be progressed in terms of India's separate negotiations with the IAEA in terms of the safeguards agreement and then that matter proceeds as I would understand it through the normal processes of the nuclear supplies group.
What I've indicated is that we in Australia would of course examine the content of that IAEA safeguards agreement with the Indians once it's concluded.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: I've indicated that Australia will examine that document and of course we would do so given the interest which the United States and India attach to it. We would examine it constructively, but we need to see the document first.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: We had no discussion on that particular question and the position of the Australian Government as they say in the classics is well known.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister it can be difficult for people at home to expect that after all this heavyweight artillery being gathered here, nothing happened on oil. Nothing no matter what you might say incremental as it is happened on climate change. Aren't you going to go back with disappointing news?
PM: I think before I came Malcolm I indicated that I did not expect breakthroughs in this meeting in Hokkaido. I think it is important however to put what occurred here into its context.
Prior to the G8 meeting there was less clear cut resolve on the part of the G8 in terms of a commitment to reduce by at least 50% by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions as a global target. As I said that represents an advance on where the position was before.
Secondly and in response to Dennis's question I indicated that the Japanese Prime Minister has concluded there should be a further MEM meeting on the back of the G8 Summit in order to provide specific guidance to negotiators in the lead up to the Copenhagen conference at the end of next year.
That is an advance by way of the process with which we are engaged. Far too often Ministerial negotiators are left out there, let me use an Australianism “swinging in the breeze” in the absence of sufficient political direction from heads of Government on concrete proposals and I believe that proposal from the Japanese Prime Minister, supported by the Chancellor of Germany and others, and the Italians is a good way forward.
On the question of global oil, the initiative by the United Kingdom through the Jeddah conference to bring together global oil producers and consumers within a single forum to examine three propositions. Constraints to supply, efficiency when it comes to the demand side and transparency in markets does represent an advance and the fact that the British Prime Minister has indicated a further meeting on that I believe is useful.
The truth is what emerged from today's discussion and it is a difficult reality for the peoples of the world who are experiencing great challenges at present from escalating oil prices, escalating food prices as well as instability in global financial markets, is that these problems are all inherently global.
Every head of Government around the world who attended this meeting spoke of their own domestic experience of these three sets of global challenges and as the Prime Minister of the UK indicated and I don't think I would be speaking out of turn reflecting his comments in terms of the meeting. We are the first generation of world leaders to have to deal with each of these matters as genuinely global challenges requiring global responses.
Climate change, oil, food, financial markets. Individual national action does not solve each of those problems.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I please ask your impressions of Hokkaido?
PM: I've got to say having only arrived yesterday I can give you limited impressions but having stayed in the Sapporo last night it's an extraordinary city. I didn't realise it was so large and so cosmopolitan; as I flew out in a helicopter today I could see the dimensions of the city.
Secondly the landscape is extraordinary, it's beautiful and flying across the mountain ranges here today gave us a great insight into the natural beauty of this northern island of Japan. And could I also say this as someone who grew up on a farm in rural Australia, it was good to see large broad acre farms on the drive here today and it reminded us of the extent to which this part of Japan is a key agricultural region as I understand it also having grown up on a dairy farm myself - a key centre for the Japanese dairy industry.
So I thank the local government in Hokkaido for making all of us as heads of Government feel so welcome in this country.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd John Howard said you're more interested in the process of Government than opportunity for leadership. (Inaudible)
PM: Are you quoting particular remarks today from Mr Howard...
JOURNALIST: ...(inaudible)
PM: ..... ok good.
Well can I say that if you are dealing with the global challenge of climate change, you can wish that you can get an outcome from the entire world in a particular meeting, or you can contribute to trying to deliver those outcomes through those meetings over time.
Lets face it, the truth is we are engaged in a global negotiation on climate change. Australia is the hottest and driest continent on earth. We run the risk of therefore being the hardest hit and the earliest hit if climate change remains unabated. Therefore we in Australia have no alternative on climate change alone to be active in the global negotiations and we intend to be. The alternative implemented by the previous government was to absent yourself from the negotiating table effectively all together. I'd much rather be at the negotiating table, shape the long term global solution, maximising Australian interests, but maximising the global interests on the way through.
Regrettably that takes a few meetings on the way through. You could unilaterally hope it was somewhat different to that but reality suggests its not.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister the position of the United States is (inaudible)
PM: What is interesting and important is that this meeting of major economies is in fact an initiative of President Bush's. Therefore if you look at the three elements in what might underpin a long term grand bargain or grand consensus between developed and developing countries. It lies in effective targets on the part of developed economies, measurable and verifiable actions on the part of developing economies. But thirdly and critically what you do in the area of the technologies, assistance and carbon markets to give effect to those targets and commitments. In or the technologies got to be.
The United States through President Bush has been very strong on the need to support technological innovation. That's why the MEM was commissioned in part and that certainly has been reflected in subsequent US policy.
The only thing I'd say about the United States is this, some people in Australia ask about the commitment to a carbon target while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by 60% by 2050. Both the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States in terms of candidates for the US Presidential elections have commitments equal to or more ambitious than that for America at the same time frame.
So I think both in terms of the current administration and whichever administration may replace it. America I believe represents for us a fellow partner for getting good outcome for the globe.
JOURNLAIST:Inaudible
PM: Well the big challenge for Doha lies on 21 July. If I sensed anything around the room today it was a fresh and renewed energy of resolve on the part of global heads of Government to try and make this 21 July Ministerial meeting work.
If we manage to make it work given the softness of the global economy at present. Given the difficulties in global financial markets and given therefore some of the negative projections for the global economies for the year ahead. A real positive shot in the arm would be a positive outcome on Doha as a result of the 21 July ministerial meeting.
The Secretary General of the WTO convened this meeting. Those who I think were involved in the meeting believe the ingredients of a deal are there. It requires political will, this could still fail. But can I say it's worth the push - and that occurs under this administration. What may happen in the future, post the November elections in the United States, and new administration coming in January well let's take all that one step at a time.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: Well remember there are 27 States in Europe who already operate with an emissions trading scheme. There are more than 10 states in the United States who are operating with an emissions trading scheme. The country in which we are at the moment, Japan, is debating an emissions trading scheme - so this has been going on for some time around the world.
Secondly, we intend to prosecute our own debate when it comes to our carbon pollution reduction scheme. Calmly, methodically, in a measured way in the period ahead, our ambition remains.
Our plan remains, our intention remains for 2010 and as I've said consistently we'll be entirely mindful of the response of the Australian business community to our green paper on the implementation arrangements which flow from that.
Anything else?
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: The relationship with Malaysia for Australia is very important. If you look at the trade numbers alone there's a very strong economic relationship and my ambition is to make it stronger. Secondly, both the previous Australian Government under Prime Minister Howard and I believe the Government under my own leadership wants to beef the relationship with Prime Minister Badawi's Government. We think there is great opportunity to do that at the political level and remember our countries have long been linked in a security sense through the five powered defence arrangement.
I believe this is a strong important broad based relationship, remember so many Malaysian leaders have been previously trained in Australia, in Australian higher education institutions under the Colombo plan and other university arrangements since then.
The challenge is to take what is an existing good relationship with Malaysia and if we can across those three critical areas make it even better. So this is one further investment in that and I hope to build on the work of my predecessor in so doing.
Last question then I've got to go.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible (Canadian question)
PM: I had a good conversation just now with Prime Minister Harper about our respective challenges when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and we've had discussions on this in the past and we'll continue to dialogue on this in the future as well.
Australia somewhat like Canada, but I don't profess to be an expert on the provincial arrangements which exist in Canada, ran a risk in recent times of there being state based regimes for emissions trading (inaudible), which were incomplete.
Therefore that was one of the reasons why we indicated prior to the last Australian national elections that we, if we were elected, would introduce an emissions trading or a carbon pollution reduction scheme. We intend to do that.
When we release our green paper very soon we will then engage in a period of comprehensive consultation with the community sector and the business community on implementation arrangements. That will take some time, but our conclusion in Australia is that a carbon market is a market based solution within that overall carbon target in terms of providing aid, the certainty you need in terms of the overall cap of carbon pollution and secondly, providing flexibility within that through the operation of the carbon market for businesses to make their own decisions.
That's the view that we've taken, each countries national circumstances are different.
Thank you very much.