26 June 1997
E&OE.....................................................................................................................................
JOURNALIST:
Will you be discussing greenhouse gas targets?
NEWT GINGRICH:
Well, I think we'll be discussing a number of issues, but let me say first of all just how honored I am to have a chance to be with your Prime Minister again. We were last together in Shanghai celebrating Easter together at a church, a very moving experience. We are very proud of the work that he has done in representing the issue of human rights with Beijing and talking in a very practical and commonsense way about helping China make the transition towards freedom and democracy.
Obviously as allies of very very deep commitment with many many years of background, it is always good for America when the Prime Minister of Australia comes here. So we are looking forward to many topics : national security issues, trade issues, and the environment.
I would say from my side and then you'll hear the Prime Minister, I think it is very important that we not allow bureaucrats to use the environment as an excuse to try to seize control over economies, and that we not allow some parts of the world - the Europeans frankly - to play games in which they rig the rules so that they create non-competitive situations but trying to apply to other countries - Australia and the United States being two examples - conditions that they don't want to live up to. So I think we've got to approach this very carefully. If the Kyoto conference is mismanaged, the damage it will do to the world economy and the damage it will do to Australia and the United States and countries that are aggressive exporting countries will be incalculable. And I think this is not an issue for bureaucrats and politicians in hiding. This is something every citizen should pay attention to and look at particularly because frankly the science is not very good.
JOURNALIST:
So Mr Howard has an ally?
NEWT GINGRICH:
I think it is fair to say that we have a very common interest in having scientifically based, factually oriented, economically rational policies and not being stampeded into hysteria that has no scientific basis, we're adopting policies that are economically disastrous and wouldn't achieve much in an environmental sense.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say to you - before I answer your questions - can I say that it is a great privilege for me to be here in Washington for the first time as Prime Minister of Australia. I just had the privilege of being welcomed onto the floor of the American Senate.
JOURNALIST:
... inaudible... than yours?
PRIME MINISTER:
Indeed Laurie, yes, I got unanimous support - and I should have slipped in a few bills! But it is a great pleasure to see the Speaker again and the opportunity to share our views on things like climate control. We do have concerns because we think the proposals being championed particularly by the Europeans are unfair and unreasonable and worse still, unworkable, because if implemented they won't really draw into the reach of controls of the developing countries. And unless you have the developing countries in, you don't really have a serious ball game in this area.
There are Australian jobs at stake and I suspect there are American jobs at stake as well, and I think as there is a greater understanding within business and amongst employees in potentially affected areas there will be a view developed that what the Australian government is saying is reasonable and it ought to be listened to.
Now, I'll be putting my views on it naturally to all of the people I see in Washington - the Speaker and I will no doubt talk about it; I'll be discussing it with the President when I see him tomorrow; I had already raised it with the President in October of last year. I've put my views on it to the Prime Ministers of Japan and to the German Chancellor when each of those gentlemen visited Australia, and I had a lengthy discussion about it with the new British Government.
Now, the fact is that different countries will be affected quite differently by these proposals and what we are asking for is the fair go of differentiation. We don't want a free ride. We support the overall goals but we have to be satisfied that it is done in a fashion that doesn't damage Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have some sympathy for that Mr Gingrich?
NEWT GINGRICH:
Yes, I think that we have to have a level of practicality. What worries me is that is some people in government offices can come up with fancy plans that in the real world for real people have disastrous consequences and that some very clever people want to use this opportunity to manipulate the economic competition, particularly on behalf of the Europeans where I think they are playing frankly a double game here. I think they talk environment but they mean crowd out the US and Australia and other countries in favour of European jobs.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Speaker, will this be the message that the President delivers this afternoon at the Earth Summit?
NEWT GINGRICH:
I don't know. You'll have to watch and see what the President says.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe that it is feasible for developed nations to be subject to different targets for reductions?
NEWT GINGRICH:
Well, I think we ought to look realistically. First of all you've got to look at what the science really says, and whether or not in fact we are trying to solve the problem that is not the kind of problem people describe. Second, we ought to look realistically if you have different targets and what that means is that for example China gets to do three times as much damage as the good that Australia and America will do. What have you gained? I mean it does seem you have to have a very practical global approach to this and you've got to try to design a set of incentives for everybody to move in the same direction.
PRIME MINISTER:
Could I say on behalf of the Australian government that we are very pleased that the group of eight meeting in Denver did not irreversibly commit the American administration and the European governments and the other attendees at that conference to a course of action that really would have pre-empted what's going to be discussed at Kyoto. I think that was a very good development and we are really asking for Australia in a sense what the Europeans are allowing within their own membership. The European Union has an overall bubble or overall framework of targets and within that they are allowing differentiation. Now, we are saying well if it is all right to allow differentiation within the European Union, why isn't it all right to allow differentiation for countries whose starting point is manifestly different and therefore manifestly potentially more disadvantaged than Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that Australia has struck the right note in the way that it approaches human rights in China and Indonesia?
NEWT GINGRICH:
I don't have enough knowledge of how you've approached Indonesia. I would say that Australia has - certainly in the part that I've seen in China - has been a constructive force in continuing to remind the Chinese over and over again that human rights matters, that democracy matters, that the rule of law matters and I think each country has to have a unique setting. Australia is a country physically much closer to China than we are, and with a different approach to the Chinese government I think that frankly as we indicated this week when I supported most favoured nationed status. I think economic engagement with at the same time a willingness to be stern and direct about human rights is the correct model and I think in that sense we are probably fairly close together.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the Australian government could be doing more though?
NEWT GINGRICH:
I don't want to comment in any way critically. I have the greatest respect for the efforts they have made and I think the Prime Minister made a very positive contribution when he and I were both in China.
ends.