PRIME MINISTER: Hi, I'm Malcolm Turnbull and I'm here with Greg Hunt and we are here in Paris in a spirit of realistic optimism and commitment to ensuring that we have a global agreement.
Something that – in real terms – has eluded the global community for many years but we believe that here in Paris we will achieve that global agreement that will see us reduce, as a global community, greenhouse gas emissions, over time, in a manner that will result in global warming not exceeding two degrees.
So that guard rail, that is the goal and of course there are more ambitious goals to bring that down to 1.5 degrees, but we believe this will set the global community on a concerted path towards that objective.
I said we come here in an optimistic frame of mind. It's not simply that we're optimistic about an agreement.
We're optimistic because we believe that we have, as a global community, as humanity, the ability to innovate and imagine the technologies that will enable us to make these big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, continue to deliver the energy, particularly in countries that have little or no energy resources available to them, enable us to continue to do that.
So this is a time for technology. This is a time for innovation. And that's why we were so pleased to discuss that with Bill Gates, one of the handful of people that we could truly say has created the modern era. It was great to talk to him today and hear his passion for the role of technology and innovation in meeting this global challenge.
JOURNALIST: Mr Turnbull, Lisa Millar from the ABC. Is it a slap in the face for the New Zealanders that you're not going to sign off on the fossil fuel subsidy?
PRIME MINISTER: No. Can I say that Australia has been – we have signed up on many occasions to commitments and resolutions calling for the elimination of inefficient fuel subsidies.
The document that our very good friend John Key has prepared contains a reference in it to an IMF report which frankly would be better that it were not there. It's a rather gratuitous reference to an IMF report which goes much, much further than inefficient fuel subsidies.
So our position is just as it was at the G20. We call on the elimination of inefficient fuel subsidies. We don't have any in Australia as it happens so it's not something that we have to address ourselves. But that sentence relating to the IMF would have been better if it were not there. But it is and so, with great respect to the authors of the document, it's not one that we can conscientiously sign up to. But our position is very, very clear on inefficient fuel subsidies.
JOURNALIST: Lenore Taylor from The Guardian. You're going to say in your three minutes of remarks that we're going to ratify Kyoto 2. Can you explain what practical difference that makes to what we actually do? And since we've inscribed five to 25 per cent under that protocol and we've already met the five per cent target as Greg Hunt announced last week, won't we come under pressure to actually do more than five per cent by 2020?
PRIME MINISTER: Ratifying Kyoto 2 is an important part of our commitment to global action. It also has important advantages for Australia too. There is a very practical side to that as well.
It is something that we considered carefully in the Cabinet and the Party Room, and I think it's a very important statement. As far as the future is concerned, as you know we are taking a commitment to cuts of 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. Greg, why don't you address Kyoto 2 in more detail?
MINISTER HUNT: Three things very briefly. Firstly it is an important symbol from Australia to the world. I would say this - that the Prime Minister and Australia have been received exceptionally well over recent weeks on the international stage with regards to the Montreal Protocol, the Green Climate Fund and our cooperation, particularly this Kyoto 2 announcement.
Secondly, it positions us well in Australia. It allows us to make use of any additional or surplus outcomes from the first Kyoto period.
And thirdly it prepares us for the next phase which the world is now primarily focused on - the 20 to 30 period. So as the Prime Minister says, something which has been worked through very carefully with a great deal of support from within the Cabinet and Party Room and we're really delighted. This is a major moment in Australian climate diplomacy.
JOURNALIST: So is that the only practical difference - that we can use the overshoot from the first period in the second period? Or does it do anything else to actually reduce emissions?
MINISTER HUNT: Firstly it is a very, very powerful symbol to the world and of course this has historically been a topic of some issue and internally it's been – and all credit to the Prime Minister – it has been carried through the Cabinet and the Party Room with just tremendous support.
And the second thing is – in technical terms, the change that comes about is that it does allow us to access carry-over from the first commitment period as we have always intended.
JOURNALIST: Laura Jays from Sky News. Can I just ask about the 2017 review process and what this means after signing on to Kyoto 2 - does this mean that in 2017 Prime Minister and Minister, you're open to upping the five per cent target and making that official and stating it before 2020?
PRIME MINISTER: No. Can I just say the 2017 – and Greg can elaborate on this – but the 2017 review is in relation to our domestic policy and with a view to seeing how the Emissions Reduction Fund and the other mechanisms, the domestic mechanisms, that we have in place are going.
Now so far they're tracking very well. And full credit to the Environment Minister in that regard. But there is no - the targets we have to 2020 - the targets that we're committed to for 2030 are there and we're not proposing to review those in two years' time.
MINISTER HUNT: So our 2020 targets are set. Our 2030 targets are set. What 2017 does is just as the Prime Minister says, it allows us to review the progress of our domestic initiatives.
In particular, one question that will come on the table then - and this is two years' away - will be the issue of international units and that will - if that goes through - that will be something that will give us greater flexibility if the world comes back in five years.
But our targets are set and if there's an agreement on reassessment every five years then we'll deal with that in the lead up to 2020.
JOURNALIST: Tom Arup from The Age. How will the doubling of innovation money be delivered and will that mean a stay of execution or a removal of the repeal bills for the institutions such as Arena and the Green Energy Finance Corporation?
PRIME MINISTER: Well thank you. We have not made a decision to change our policy on the GEFC and Arena. But as you know, the Senators are not minded to support our policy in regards to those two organisations.
In terms of where the money will come from – this additional $100 million by 2020 – there are many sources for that. And you know we have a big innovation statement coming out very shortly and innovation is an absolutely key priority of my government - absolutely key.
It's the key to our, it's the key to the effort here in Paris - the global community. Innovation is also the key to ensuring our prosperity as a first world nation in Australia. The $100 million that is currently being spent comes from a variety of sources and what we'll be doing is doubling that - at least doubling that - by 2020.
JOURNALIST: Andrew Tillett from The West Australian. The Climate Change Authority has released a draft report in Australia today where they have reiterated the importance of an emissions trading scheme saying it's the most cost effective way to reduce emissions. Does an ETS under you, is there any ever prospect of maybe an ETS in the future or is it off [inaudible] forever?
PRIME MINISTER: There's no - our policies are working well and we don't have any plans to change them. But Greg...
MINISTER HUNT: I'll just speak to the Authority's report. The Authority's report with respect is actually an options paper. It runs around a series of options including auctions. It doesn't draw conclusions other than a statement was made for the first time by the Climate Change Authority that they are now convinced that we are on track to meet and beat our 2020 targets.
So we've now had the independent authority reaffirm the findings of the government that we will meet and beat our 2020 targets. And, beyond that, their paper today was actually a non-judgemental options paper which did a full coverage of all of the field of possibilities.
JOURNALIST: Daniel Sutton from Channel Ten. What feedback have you had from other world leaders and those you've been meeting here about your presence here compared to how it may have been if Tony Abbott had been Prime Minister when this summit was on?
PRIME MINISTER: I can assure you that the discussions I've had with other leaders here have been focused very much on the business at hand and here in Paris at the COP and also in a number of cases we've had some very intense discussions about our mutual efforts and committed efforts to battle the terrorism of Daesh.
JOURNALIST: But any comments in relation to the change in leadership and perhaps a different approach?
PRIME MINISTER: I know Australian domestic politics is of intense interest to Australians, but it's of remarkably little interest to leaders of other countries.
JOURNALIST: Melissa from ABC. Is your government under your leadership more inclined to want to engage in international trading markets than perhaps the Coalition may have been under your predecessor?
PRIME MINISTER: Look Melissa, I can't really - that's a commentary for you. Greg mentioned that international units or international credits is something that we will consider at the time of the 2017 review if that's what you're referring to, that's certainly something that we'll be looking at with a very open mind.
The critical thing about this is to achieve the cut in emissions that we need, that we agree to effect in the most cost effective fashion. So you've got to look at whatever mechanisms including international units may be available to do that.
JOURNALIST: You mention this IMF clause that you couldn't make work on the fossil fuels. Why can the US and the UK make it work but Australia can't?
PRIME MINISTER: Let me just say this - if you read that IMF report you'll see it goes much, much further than what would normally be described as inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
JOURNALIST: But why can those countries still make it work?
PRIME MINISTER: That's something you'd have to address with them, I think.
MINISTER HUNT: Can I just say something that each country makes its own choices. Some of the countries you mentioned - the United States and we know that Canada and Japan have not signed on to Kyoto 2 which of course is the paramount international agreement for the period out to 2020.
So today we are signing the paramount, the fundamental, the central international agreement out to 2020. We're joining, all up, about 54 other countries that are ratifying it but perhaps some of those that you've mentioned for their own reasons wouldn't do it. So each country chooses.
Since the Prime Minister has come into office there has been tremendous feedback about our position, in particular with regards to the chairing of the Green Climate Fund, the co-chairing of the Montreal Protocol negotiations and at the Paris pre-COP where Australia was singled out for leadership.
PRIME MINISTER: Can I just come back to Tom just on this point about the IMF. The New Zealand document could be read as incorporating by reference this IMF report. Some of the conclusions of which I would think very few of the signatories to the communiqué would agree to - certainly we wouldn't agree with. And it goes way beyond inefficient fuel subsidies.
It is always better not to incorporate other pieces of work into a document like that and better to let your own communiqué speak for itself. If that sentence were not there we would look at it in a very different way and it would look very similar to the communiqué about inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that we agreed to at the G20.
So there's no question about where we stand on this. We don't have any inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in Australia so it's not an issue for us domestically. We agree that they're something that should be phased out and most people agree with that I might add. But the IMF document - if you read it - I suspect not enough people have - actually goes quite a lot further.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it's inevitable, or at least very likely, that Australia's 2030 target is going to have to be tougher than your 26 to 28 per cent after the review process that this conference is going to [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER: Well it depends on global action, Lenore.
JOURNALIST: But you're optimistic you said.
PRIME MINISTER: I am optimistic about today but it depends on what develops over the next five years. When we meet again in five years' time, it depends on what the mood of the global community is.
I mean, Australia's position is - we are happy to bear a proportionate, a commensurate share of the load. I think it is - the focus should be less on the 26 to 28 per cent.
That's important, of course, that's the absolute measure. But when you think we are reducing our per-capita emissions by half. And that is, by my reckoning and recollection, second only to Brazil in the G20, that is a very significant economic change. And it's a very material one.
Now perhaps we might just have one more question and then we've got to run.
JOURNALIST: To what extent is it really about some of your policies and some members of your Coalition not willing to give up the diesel fuel subsidy as to why you won't sign up to the fossil fuel agreement?
PRIME MINISTER: Well the diesel fuel subsidy - it's not a subsidy. The diesel fuel rebate is not a subsidy. It is a very standard treatment of an input tax and it is not a subsidy.
If you are, for example, if fuel taxes are designed to fund roads, and you are running a diesel generator on a mine site or a truck on a mine site, it's not fair to ask you to contribute to the building of roads you don't use.
JOURNALIST: If you signed up to this fossil fuel agreement would you have to give up that diesel fuel...?
PRIME MINISTER: You could make a case. This is a communiqué, right - it is not an agreement. But we try to be, endeavour to be, precise in the way we approach these things. And, as I said, it has got one sentence there incorporating a report from the IMF.
The IMF - that report argues that not having a carbon tax is a fossil fuel subsidy. Well, that's clearly - you can argue pro upon a carbon tax. I'm used to that in Australia, let's face it. But to say that not having a carbon tax amounts to a fossil fuel subsidy is a big stretch. And we all know what we're talking about in inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and that is what we've signed up, we've said we're against, and most people are, at the G20.
And I think this New Zealand document, with great respect to our friends and others, they've incorporated another report from the IMF, the conclusions of which go well beyond what is normally regarded as inefficient fuel subsidies. So maybe this is what happens when you read these reports carefully - you take more attention to what you sign.
Look anyway, thank you all very much. Greg and I better get on about the rest of our business, but I want to thank you all for being here and the very keen interest you're showing in this important agenda both for Australia and the global community.
Thanks a lot.