JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, first, how do you reconcile your years of criticism of Mr Costello as Treasurer and his economic management of the time, with his now appointment under this Government?
PM: Well, I have always said that I believe that the national interest demands that when people retire from active political life we should draw on all the nation's talents, whatever political tradition they come from. That is still my view. We have done that already so far with, obviously, Kim Beazley, with Brendan Nelson, and with others. And guess what, we'll do it again in the future as well. Because when people have a whole wealth of experience, my view is we should harness that for the long-term national interest.
JOURNALIST: Mr Keating suggested today that this is a goodie two shows approach from you that shows a lack of respect for the men and women of Labor who've died and fought in the trenches against Mr Costello. What's your thoughts on that?
PM: Well it's true that Mr Costello and I have had many disagreements over the years. That does not mean that once he's retired from active political life we should not draw upon the experience he's that he's had as twelve years as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. That's my view. I think if you've got, you know, Paul Keating in one corner criticising this appointment, and Malcolm Turnbull in the other corner criticising this appointment, maybe we've just got something right here, in terms of the national interest long term.
JOURNALIST: But would it reflect the level of anger on the Labor backbench (inaudible) appointment?
PM: Oh look, my job as Prime Minister is to act in the long term national interest. And sometimes decisions will be a bit on the controversial side. I don't make an apology for that. We harnessed Kim Beazley's talents because he's a person of enormous experience, as previously Defence Minister of Australia, a person who's been routinely attacked by the conservative side of politics. Well, once they leave political life, my job is, look at a person and see what talents they have to apply to the nation's interest, not the political interest, the nation's interest long term. And I think with Kim, Brendan and also in the case of Peter Costello, and others, this is the way we should start to frame our country for the future.
JOURNALIST: Just in relation to Copenhagen, Angela Merkel (inaudible) a $100 billion fund for developing countries (inaudible)
PM: Is that $100 million or $100 billion?
JOURNALIST: $100 billion sorry.
PM: Thought it might have been something else. It's just, there's a few debates going on at the moment about that. Look, I have worked very closely with Chancellor Merkel in recent months on both climate change and a whole range of global financial challenges, and she is a strong and active contributor to trying to forge consensus for Copenhagen. Our negotiators, as of this weekend, and gathered together again at Barcelona in Spain. Penny Wong is there, and her team as well. But negotiations are really tough, that is absolutely right, and I've been completely up-front about that, and they'll continue to be tough.
But secondly, the Prime Minister of Denmark, as I've indicated in recent times, has also sought to open up a political dialogue, a political line of building momentum towards the best possible outcome that we can achieve at Copenhagen at the Heads of Government level.
That's why he's recruited Friends of the Chair, the UN Secretary General, the President of Mexico, myself - I'm sure he'll be recruiting others, to try and push Copenhagen towards as successful a conclusion as possible. My job as Prime Minister of Australia is to work my guts out, try and get a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through the Australian Parliament, try and get the best outcome possible in Copenhagen because we live in one of the world's hottest and driest continents, and will therefore be climate change hardest and first.
JOURNALIST: Would Australia be contributing to a similar fund for the $100 billion (inaudible) how much money will we take from the ETS to put in to that sort of money for developing countries?
PM: What I believe the Climate Change has said in the past is Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share. At this stage there's no global agreement as to what long term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen for emerging and developing economies. Remember, stepping back from it all, the problem of greenhouse gases today is because of the accumulated gases coming off the industrial production primarily of the developed countries over the last 200 years.
Going out to the next hundred years, the bulk of those emissions will now come from those that are now categorised as developing countries, particularly the two big emerging economies of China and India. So often this turns into a brawl between the past and the future. We've got to get past that. That's why there's still an active debate about framing a climate change financing arrangement for the future to underpin the targets and commitments by developed and developing countries in order to bring about a long term deal. It's still hard, it's still tough, but this Government, this Australian Government, does not intend to give up trying.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, is it feasible for you to go on negotiating a CPRS with the Opposition when senior people in the Opposition like Senator Nick Minchin are saying, 'oh look, even if the Government were to accept our amendments holus bolus we still might not pass the legislation'?
PM: The comments from Senator Minchin were really disappointing. We have entered into good faith negotiations with Mr Turnbull and the Opposition because a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is in the national interest long-term. We've had good faith negotiations with his representative, Mr Macfarlane, and through the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong. Senator Minchin's comments are deeply disappointing. We the Government will continue to try and negotiate this deal because it's in the national interest.
And I would appeal to all fair minded Liberals, all fair minded conservatives, that this is a national interest question which literally should transcend politics for the next 20, 30, and 50 years. We've got to get these decisions right. They're not easy, they're hard for everybody. So I'd appeal to those on Mr Turnbull's backbench, and some of his frontbench, to make sure that we have every possibility of delivering an agreement, and we can legislate this thing and be part of the global solution as well.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your response to reports that the Sri Lankan asylum seekers have actually been processed (inaudible) UNHCR in Indonesia?
PM: The UNHCR has got responsibility for processing the individuals on this particular vessel, and I'm unaware of what the outcome of any processing or initial processing or initial discussions may be, concerning their status. This is a matter for the UNHCR.
JOURNALIST: Have Australian officials interviewed those people on the boat?
PM: I'm unaware of where all that is up to. I really am unaware of what stage the detailed discussions have got up to. On the question concerning their status though, properly given the location of the vessel in Indonesia and properly given the role of the IOM and the UNHCR, they will be the agencies which will work through details concerning their status.
The Government's approach more generally on asylum seekers is clear cut. We believe that in the national interest what's required is a responsible policy on immigration, hard-line on people smugglers, humane on asylum seekers. That's our policy. Everyone knows the elements of it, and we are implementing that policy.
JOURNALIST: The UNHCR -
PM: I'll come back to the UNHCR question in a minute. What I found disappointing today was Mr Turnbull's statement that the Liberals do not intend to have a border protection policy until after the next election. So, I find this curious, that you could on the one hand attack the Government's immigration policy and border protection policy, and on the other hand, not have the courage to say what your own border protection policy will be, not just now, but at any time up until the next election.
You know something, if you don't have the courage and the determination to frame a policy on border protection, how could anyone expect you to have the courage and the determination to take the tough decisions on border protection which are expected of a Government on any particular day.
The last thing I'd just say on this before taking another question on the UNHCR- border protection policy involves difficult and hard decisions in the national interest, and I know for a fact that they are not popular. I know for a fact that they are not popular. But we are required to act in the national interest through a responsible policy which is hard-line on people smugglers, and humane with asylum seekers.
JOURNALIST: The UNHCR say they can't get into the Sri Lankan camps so there's no queue forming there because they can't actually get into there, and there's also been concerns raised that there's been children left in Indonesia for a lengthy period of time. Under the laws there, they can't go to school. What's humane about now allowing these kids to have an education?
PM: The UNHCR and the IOM have in place a full range of long-standing procedures for dealing humanely with individual asylum seekers and their families within Indonesia. As far as this particular vessel is concerned, as I said in response to the earlier question, the status of the individuals and their families has yet to be formally determined. The other part of your question went to -
JOURNALIST: Education in Indonesia.
PM: There was another part to your question too. You said schools, you said something else.
JOURNALIST: In relation to (inaudible)
PM: On the accessibility of people into camps, you're talking about Sri Lanka?
JOURNALIST: Yep.
PM: Okay, that's what I thought. On the question of Sri Lanka itself, you are right to point out that there's a problem at the source end of this equation, and that is the huge challenge which has arisen, from a quarter of a million Sri Lankans having been displaced from the Jaffna Peninsula and thereabouts as a result of the civil war. International agencies such as the IOM, and the UNHCR and others, are seeking to have as much access as possible. But it is still very difficult.
That is part of any responsible policy of immigration and border protection for Australia, working at that end with the Sri Lankan Government and with the international authorities. Dealing also with transit countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, in the way in which we've described, and again in partnership with the UNHCR. And three, having an absolutely hard-line approach to people smugglers themselves, for which we have every physical resource available to the Government currently committed.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: Sorry?
JOURNALIST: The children that are left in Indonesia for years and years while they're part of the process (inaudible)
PM: Well the UNHCR as I said has processes and procedures in place, with the Indonesia authorities in relation to those who are either shorter term or longer term while cases are determined, resident within Indonesia. My advice is that those UNHCR processes and procedures, and the IOM processes and procedures, properly cater for the range of human needs of those families and children who are in Indonesia for a period of time. Obviously though, this discussion arises from the circumstances concerning this particular vessel. I go back to what I said before, the UNHCR is yet to determine the status of that vessel.
I've got to go and attend to my guests if that's okay.