PM: Good morning, thank you very much and it was good to be able to give you a wave from the trading floor.
I'm here at the New York Stock Exchange and I've been here this morning meeting with a number of leading business figures to talk about the Australian economy; the government's reform agenda; our plans to price carbon; and the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
The feedback I've received from these leading business people is they understand the strength of the Australian economy and that it's a great place to do business.
This morning I've met with people including Jac Nasser from BHP Billiton, the CEO of ALCOA, amongst others. Last night I had the opportunity to talk about the Australian economy with the CEO of GE and Dow Chemical, so over last night and this morning I've been able to talk to a broad range of players about the future of the Australian economy.
Our future of course is bright. We've emerged from the Global Financial Crisis with the strongest economy of any nation in the advanced world. That means Australia is a great place to do business.
The government's reform agenda is about boosting productivity, boosting our long term prosperity and growth and in order to do that we need to be investing in the skills and capacities of Australians, which is something I'm passionate about doing as part of our education reform agenda - making a real difference to the life prospects of Australians.
Lifting our productivity is also about having the infrastructure for the future - ports, road, rail and the National Broadband Network. It's about making sure we manage the challenges of the future, like pricing carbon.
So it's been good to have those discussions today. I very much thank the New York Stock Exchange for welcoming me here, for enabling me to meet with so many leading business people and for enabling me to have a look at the Trading Floor; it's a very interesting place.
I'm very happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your understanding of the general response to your climate reforms?
PM: People have been interested to hear about our plans to price carbon. Many of the leading business figures that I have met with are people who have said to me that they believe in pricing carbon.
The CEO of GE, the CEO of Dow Chemical have not only said to me, but have said publicly, that they believe in pricing carbon, that we have to tackle climate change, and that pricing carbon is the most effective way to do it.
JOURNALIST: PM, one of the desks that you actually visited today on the trading floor actually trades in aluminium. Given that you spoke to the ALCOA Chief, what sort of encouragement have you given them, or the company, or the aluminium industry, with regards to the way that that product will be treated in Australia?
PM: I certainly did see the CEO of ALCOA today and I was asked this question, as you would recall, in the Australian Parliament. Being from Victoria I'm acutely aware of the contribution that ALCOA has made to employment in regional Victoria and during the period of generating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the last Parliament, there were a broad range of discussions between the Government and industry, including ALCOA, on their position with the carbon pricing scheme and how we would work with our trade-exposed industries that also generate emissions, to make sure that they could continue to compete in the world.
We will have those discussions as we work through pricing carbon. We've announced the mechanism to price carbon; we have a Business Roundtable where businesses are invited to come and put their view about competitiveness as we price carbon.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I just ask you a question on Libya? Foreign Minister Rudd said yesterday that on the question of the no fly zone, we don't come with some naïve attitude to this; “it is, however, very much the lesser of two evils in our judgment and the greater evil is simply to stand back and allow the innocent people of Libya to be strafed and bombed”. Is that your view?
PM: Well of course the greatest evil is the violence that we're seeing perpetrated against the people of Libya. I spoke about this matter in the Parliament on the 2nd of March and when I spoke about it in the Parliament I said then that I wanted the United Nations Security Council to consider a no fly zone; that we'd want to see further action to protect the people of Libya.
On this trip, being here in Washington and New York, I've been in a fantastic position to be able to talk to figures in the Obama Administration, and more broadly, about what next in Libya.
Having said on the 2nd of March that the UN Security Council had to consider this matter, I'm pleased that they are considering this matter, I'm pleased that NATO is engaged in contingency planning on a no fly zone.
What I want to see emerge from the United Nations Security Council - what the government wants to see - indeed I think what the world wants to see, is an effective package of measures to address the violence - the ugly violence - that is being perpetrated against the Libyan people.
JOURNALIST: So straight up Prime Minister, is there a rift between you and Kevin Rudd on what to do?
PM: Kevin Rudd and I are talking about exactly the same thing. On the 2nd of March in Parliament, on behalf of the government, I said we wanted the United Nations Security Council to consider a no fly zone. That consideration is happening. NATO is doing the contingency planning.
Both the Foreign Minister and I have been very clear about what we view as absolutely revolting and repugnant, the violence that we're seeing against the people of Libya. It's truly disgusting. We are calling on Colonel Qaddafi to cease this violence and to go.
I said in the Australian Parliament, and I've said consistently, it's time for him to go and we want the Security Council to consider an effective package of measures including, as I identified on the 2nd of March, a no fly zone.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did you have an opportunity to talk to Mr Leibowitz about issues of our ownership and control of securities exchanges can be separated and effective control can be maintained from a national regulatory scheme, and did it inform or change your view on the Singapore bid for the Australian Stock Exchange?
PM: We did not have a detailed discussion about the Singapore Stock Exchange and the Australian Stock Exchange matter. We didn't have a detailed discussion on that. Certainly we talked broadly about matters involving the New York Stock Exchange and its future.
The question of the Singapore Stock Exchange and its potential merger with the Australian Stock Exchange is one that needs to be properly dealt with at the appropriate time, by the Foreign Investment Review Board.
As you would be aware, there is very clear legislation in this area and the decision is one for the Treasurer to make. So I am not going to speculate broadly about this matter; it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did any of the business leaders you spoke to this morning raise any concerns about the carbon tax or the resource tax and can you give us a flavour of what you're likely to say to Mr Murdoch?
PM: We talked about carbon pricing - people are obviously keen for information about how our economy is performing and I'm always very happy to spruik the Australian economy.
We do have a strong economy, we're a great place to invest, we're a great place to do business and so I've been here spruiking the Australian economy. I've also been here talking about the Government's policies and plans - certainly carbon pricing, and the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
I affirmed that I intend to legislate the agreement that I struck with Australia's biggest mining companies in the middle of last year, and that I intend to see carbon pricing start in our country from the 1st of July 2012.
Oh sorry, and on Mr Murdoch, Mr Murdoch, of course, is a leading global business person. He's from my home town, from Adelaide. I'll be looking forward to talking to him about circumstances in Australia; the strength of the Australian economy; and the government's reform plans for the future.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, I only spoke (inaudible) yesterday I think it was... I get confused with time.
PM: It's the only paper you can buy in New York, I'm sure that's true.
JOURNALIST: Absolutely. It was confirmed to us by the Treasurer that the carbon tax would not be in the Budget. If the carbon tax is going to offer business certainty shouldn't you - ought you - include the carbon tax projections inside the four year period?
PM: As I've said I think to you and others, we will be announcing the further details of carbon pricing as decisions are made by the government, working with a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. We have to work through and announce what the price will be, what the household assistance will be, and I've been very clear the household assistance will be generous, and the single biggest item that the revenue raised from carbon pricing will be spent on is household assistance.
We will assist industries and we will fund programs to tackle climate change. Every cent raised from pricing carbon will go to those purposes. The budget accounting will be done, well and truly in time for the start of the scheme on the 1st of July 2012. The budget accounting will flow from making those decisions about the price and about the use of the money to generously assist households; to help Australian industries transition; and for other climate programs.
Sorry, we'll go to Michelle at the back.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have you spoken to Kevin Rudd about the government's policy on Libya over the last 24 hours and (inaudible)?
PM: No I haven't personally, but as you can be aware I'm travelling with the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I'm also travelling with my Foreign Affairs Adviser.
Our offices have been continuously in contact and we've been in contact through the Department. We are in different parts of the world and different time zones - time zones causing sufficient confusion that people don't know what day it is, over here from Andrew Probyn, so we're staying in contact through those mechanisms.
JOURNALIST: But he's having [inaudible] obviously with a number of very relevant figures at the moment on the matter. Do you want to talk to him over the next 24 hours?
PM: Look, we're both having discussions with important figures on the matter. I discussed the matter with President Obama, with Secretary Clinton. Kevin is travelling in the region and also engaged in discussions and they are very important discussions too.
So the most efficient way for us to share information is through our Departments and our offices as we pursue our commitments in different time zones and different parts of the world.
JOURNALIST: We've seen attacks now on two oil installations in Libya. Do you believe there is a danger that Colonel Qaddafi might turn his focus on the oil industry in the way that it affects the world oil situation?
PM: I'm not going to try and predict what Colonel Qaddafi might do next but obviously I fear, I believe we all fear, further damaging action against the people of Libya, potentially against oil infrastructure - hard to predict what Colonel Qaddafi might do next.
But you know, the principal message here - whatever may be going through Colonel Qaddafi's mind - the principal message here has to be, it's time for Colonel Qaddafi to go. It is time to stop the violence against the people of Libya.
JOURNALIST: Ms Gillard, given there is a need for precision in foreign policy, what is the Australian government's position? Is it your position as stated yesterday, that you don't want to see any narrowing of options, or is it Kevin Rudd's position that the next logical step is a no fly zone?
PM: These things are completely in accord with each other. What I want to see, what the Foreign Minister wants to see, what Australia wants to see is the UN Security Council come forward with a package of measures that has the greatest chance of being effective.
I don't want to narrow any options
JOURNALIST: He does.
PM: I don't want to narrow any options, I don't accept your characterisation. The Foreign Minister would not want to see any options off the table that might assist. We want an effective package of measures to come from the UN Security Council. We would obviously want the Security Council to consider measures that will be effective, any measure that will be effective.
Clearly there is detailed consideration of a no fly zone. On the 2nd of March in the Australian Parliament I called for that detailed consideration of a no fly zone, I'm very pleased that it's occurring at the Security Council and that contingency planning by NATO is occurring as well.
So no fly zone, called for it to be considered and it is, but if there are other measures, in addition to a no fly zone, other measures that could have an effect then of course you'd want them to be considered.
You've got to make sure there's not a confusion here between ends and means. The end that we are seeking is the stopping of violence against the people of Libya. A no fly zone is a potential means to that end. If there are other potential means to that end then of course they should be considered, because the thing we want here is we want the violence to stop.
JOURNALIST: So just (inaudible), you're for the no fly zone completely as well as other measures if they can be -
PM: I'm for ending violence in Libya. I'm for the United Nations Security Council considering the most effective package of measures it can put together. I identified on the 2nd of March that one of those measures that should be considered is a no fly zone.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it's appropriate that senior ministers tweet in the middle of a very sort of dire diplomatic situation.
PM: Look, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd has been frantically tweeting about how well it's going in the negotiations.
PM: Right, well I think if we look at the situation in the Middle East, one of the things that history will record is this is, I think we saw this circumstance in Iran too with the demonstrations at the time of the elections which were met with such violence, then we've seen it in Egypt and now we are seeing it more broadly.
We're seeing a natural human urge for freedom and for the ability to chart your own course in life and to live in a democracy, that natural human urge meet new technology. So tweeting, the internet has been a big part of what's enabled people to come together to express their urge for freedom.
It would seem to me that if people are valuing that communication source in those circumstances then it's entirely appropriate for the Foreign Minister indeed for anyone else to be using that communication source.
Look, let me be frank about this, when tweeting first burst on the scene, I assumed I must admit that it was probably going to be the modern way of asking people to meet you for coffee. I've been proved entirely wrong, this has actually ended up being a powerful tool for transmitting information in some of the most desperate and dire circumstances.
We're seeing it in the Middle East but we also saw it in natural disaster circumstances. Text messages, tweeting, proved to be a way of getting information out in some of the most grievous situations that human beings can face.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr Rudd tweeted less than 24 hours ago, “working with other countries on no fly zone to stop Gaddafi's war mates”. Now, that's a significant difference in emphasis from your formula of considering options including a no fly zone.
Now Mr Rudd is a member of your Cabinet, he's not a freedom fighter or a citizen in a demonstration. Surely he should not be going out making these comments to the world at large, on policy issues?
PM: Let's be a bit fair here, I've just explained the merits of tweeting, one of the great limitations of tweeting is the limit to those number of characters. So in terms of assessing Mr Rudd's position, I think it would be fair to look at all of his statements and fair to look at all of his statements involving consideration by the UN Security Council.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your pitch to the African nations for inclusion on the Security Council?
PM: I will be speaking to the African Union later today; of course there are more than 50 nations in the United Nations who are in the African Union. I will be talking to them about the contacts and increasing partnership between Australia and Africa.
Very significant to that are the investments being made by mining companies in Africa. This is now a growing economic feature in Africa and a growing feature of what the great resource companies in our country are doing.
I will be talking to them about diplomatic matters, about aid matters, and yes I will be seeking to persuade them that Australia is the appropriate nation to be on the UN Security Council and deserves their support and consideration for that position.
I'm very proud of Australia and I'm very proud of our track record of diplomacy as a creative middle power. I'm very proud of our values and I believe we would bring all of those to the Security Council table and the fact that over the last few days one of the things that I've most talked about with figures on this trip, that we've most talked about in terms of these press conferences, is what the United Nations Security Council will do in relation to Libya, proves I think the importance of that body, it's an important body, it's where the world looks to in times of trouble and I do believe Australia could make a contribution there.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you're having lunch with Mr Murdoch. Have you bought him an 80th birthday present?
PM: Having lunch with Mr Murdoch and?
JOURNALIST: Have you bought him an 80th birthday present?
PM: No I haven't. I've had a few things to do, I'm sure I will be forgiven for that. Thank you.
JOURNALIST: What sorts of messages have the business leaders that you've spoken to this morning and last night given you about the direction of the US economy and (inaudible)
PM: We'll take that as the last question and the consistent view I've had in my discussions over the last few days with business leaders, with figures from the Administration and indeed in some of the discussions in Congress, in and around giving the address to Congress was a sense of some optimism about the progress of the American economy.
When I've had discussions on earlier occasions a while back, many people were speculating about a ‘double dip' recession, all of that speculation is gone now. People are seeing signs of growth and change. Indeed the amount of growth I think has pleased people, it was ‘on the upside', to use the language of economists.
I think the reduction in unemployment also pleased people and was more than was expected, so these are good signs for the future.
Well yes, these are good signs for the future, there's a long road ahead when you've just got your unemployment rate under nine per cent, there's a long road ahead but there is a sense that things are going in the right direction. Thank you.