HOST: I will now open the floor for questions, the rule of the house is that we normally collect two or three questions (Inaudible) who would like to start
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible). I'd also like to thank the Prime Minster for the time that he actually took when I met him when I worked with (inaudible) in Australia. I'm and Australian and a proud one.
I'm very interested and hope to see continuing steps towards the (inaudible) of Australia's moral and foreign policy (inaudible) if you like with our new administration. There are actually three aspects that were not covered, I know you cant cover everything but I would like to hear comments from you on and what is the current direction that Australia in driving these two aspects which are looking at gender in the 1990's Australia (inaudible) and now we see a lot of work on gender and security, particularly with Afghanistan as you mentioned.
What steps is Australia taking to work with partners including Europe on this (Inaudible).
JOURNALIST: Thank you Prime Minister welcome to Brussels, the only thing that disappointed me a little bit in your speech was the fact that (inaudible). China (Inaudible)
JOURNALIST: Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister (Inaudible). Before coming here I was reading the transcript of your presentation to our colleagues in terms of (inaudible) and you spoke extensively and eloquently about another subject that you didn't stress here, that I think is important. About a new Asian security dimension and (inaudible). You rightly pointed out there is no Asian NATO, there is no Asian (Inaudible).
I wish you would perhaps spend a little time sharing with our audience here some of your thoughts on that, because if they do touch on China very specifically and very strongly.
I also wonder what role you might see in this new Asian securities system for what you call medium power in Europe. Thank you
PM: I'll reverse engineer and start at the third and move back to the first. On the question of security in the Asia Pacific region, I think it's quite clear that if you look at the post 45 history of east Asia that you seen an absence of multilateral security mechanisms. What you saw even prior to the end of the cold war here of course was the evolution a series of confidence and security building measures coming of the back of CSCE, OSCE and the Helsinki accords. This in my judgement helped to take some of the sharper edges off some of the harder security policy relationships which existed in this continent at that time.
In our hemisphere East Asia that has not been the case. The strategic stability of East Asia has been underpinned by US core (inaudible), US strategic presence and military alliances with Japan, the Republic of Korea and ourselves.
What I have argued for some time is the need to supplement that by a range of softer security policy cooperation mechanisms. One began some time ago by one of my distinguished pre-decessors Gareth Evans who was then Australian Foreign Minister now resident of this fair town of Brussels. His very important work in international crisis. Foreign Minister Evans innovation in partnership with various regional colleagues led to the formation of the ASEAN regional forum, which provided for the first time a trans-regional mechanism to have a security dialogue.
That has continued but it hasn't yet assumed any institutional status in terms of the actual management of challenges as opposed to the discussion of those challenges. The discussions in Washington and I spoke about this in part at Brookings is that whatever final landing point the six party talks on North Korea may have and let us hope it's a good landing point and Pyongyang has not been helpful at present, it provides a basis for taking that into a broader security cooperation mechanism around confidence and security building measures across North East Asia and perhaps across wider East Asia. We indicated to our friends in the United States that we would support that in which ourselves become party to such arrangements should they unfold. I think that's a good way to soften again some of the sharper edges of these security policy arrangements which currently exist in our part of the world.
And finally on that point I think in going back to the ASEAN regional forum I've argued recently also that, that should provide a mechanism for the various security agencies concerned with counter disaster operations in East Asia to work together effectively, operationally and institutionally. A quick example if you have a major typhoon or cyclone hit in a remote island state with tens of thousands of people living on it. At present you don't have effective and regional cooperation to quickly identify where the problem is and to deploy assets in order to deal with that crisis. And this became acutely real to all of us at the time of the tsunami but also in other events as well.
That again provides I think an opportunity for security policy cooperation at the softer end. If you bring together Chinese, American, Japanese, ourselves and the Koreans, Indonesians, A common institutional structure to deal with counter disaster management in the region.
And my friend from Stockholm I'm glad to hear the restaurants have improved on the Chinese food front, they were always good on the other front.
On the question of China and this upcoming visit of the Swedish Prime Minister as I understand it and my own and this is a part of the discussion I had with the President of the Commission (inaudible) in fact an extensive discussion on these questions. Our overall approach to China has long been and I believe it's an approach shared with the Europeans and others is one of constructive engagement of China with the object of encouraging our friends in Beijing to become full participants and stakeholders in a global (inaudible) based order. Whether that applies to liberations on the future of the global trading system through the WTO or whether it comes to the discussions we also have to go here in Brussels on climate change.
There can be no climate change outcome absent effective inclusion of China. Or in other political and security questions which often come before the United Nations Security Council most recently debates concerning Darfur, debates concerning Burma and elsewhere.
That is the overall approach that we take. On the specific human rights concerns on Tibet which have been so much part of the recent debate. I made comments on that subject with the President of the United States recently in Washington about our concerns on that matter.
I missed the first question (Inaudible)
Non proliferation treaty, for us the fraction of the shall we say the robustness of the NPT arrangements worldwide is a real problem. We are committed as a new Government of Australia to engage in a new diplomacy what I've described as creative middle power diplomacy to assist in rebuilding the global consensus and internal robustness of the Non Proliferation Treaty. That is a bold ambition given the stressors and fractures which have occurred in terms the Nuclear Non proliferation over a long period of time now, that I fear what will happen in the absence of concertive diplomatic action to do so.
On the responsibility to protect, RTP, are to key and the excellent work done by the Canadian Commission some time ago on that. In my discussions with the UN secretary general in New York last Saturday we spoke about Australian financial assistance to the United Nations to advance work in that area, At the analytical level and practical work also in the peace building area and conflict prevention area.
And on the role of gender and foreign policy and what we can do by way of specific economic assistance programs. I've visited some of our own projects and those funded by multiple agencies which we fund in Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly concerning the education of girls in these societies and elsewhere in the Islamic world. This will be a priority in terms of Australian development assistance cooperation to a range of such countries as we have in the past. But to be expanded in the future through an increase in our ODA.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) ABC, Prime Minister you rightly said that Climate Change is the biggest moral and economic challenge for the community. Two specific points one targets for developed countries, do you know that the European Union has said (inaudible) commit ourselves to reduce emission by at least 20% by 2020. And we have said also that we are prepared to go to minus 30% provided other countries like Australia, Canada and the US will go along. Could you ensure Mr Barosso today that Australia will be one of the countries that would at least be willing to make a 30% reduction considering the fact that you average per capita emissions are twice as high as Europe and that tiny Australia emits as much as bigger France and therefore in considering also that your one of the most sensible and most effected or you will be one of the most effected countries in the globe through climate change. (Inaudible). So where do you stand and my second question
PM: The first one is pretty big
JOURNALIST: The second point. What makes you sure that 16 months or 18 months in Copenhagen the world community will come to an effective outcome and not just another Kyoto as such?
HOST: two more questions on this side and then if we could go back to the Prime Minister
JOURNALIST: Clean Coal (inaudible)
JOURNALIST: I just happen to be a former Labor MP from the United Kingdom (inaudible)
Do you or your Government have any plans to open up the issue of Australia becoming a republic?
PM: I think I'll take those now in the first order. On the important questions raised over here about (inaudible) and the likely nature of the Copenhagen outcomes substantive or not. I was in Bali in fact we ratified, I signed the instrument of ratification within the first hour of being sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia. I thought that was an important thing to do and to do it first up and in unusual move the secretary general said he had never had this done to him before, presented him personally with an instrument of ratification outside of New York.
I don't know what great convention that contravened but apparently it did and so we got on with the business within about 10 days of taking over. I was there also for the debate about Europe's position on targets 20 by 20 and the option of going to 30. Our position as you know is a long term target of a reduction of 60% by 2050 against 2000 levels. We've always said that we would in the period ahead develop our interim targets but were doing so because in Australia we've not done under the previous Government any parallel domestic work for that which Stearn has done for the United Kingdom and more broadly for the global economy.
And even when we were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition anticipation your other question. Last year we commissioned the Stern equivalent report in Australia by Professor Garnaut which has still some ways to run. But, once that is with us, together with other inputs of advice including from our own Treasury, we'll be making determinations on interim targets.
We understand that in order to have a fully effective and operating emissions trading scheme you've got to have interim targets. That's clear. We have to dovetail that work domestically with what we're going to do diplomatically vis-à-vis the Bali road map ready for Copenhagen.
The second point on Copenhagen itself. It's a bit like Doha really, it's a statement of the self evident, but in way it is not. All things depend on political will. And I think as we get closer to Copenhagen, it will get tougher and tougher as many Governments around the world confront harder and harder decisions. Not just in the developed world, but in the developing world as well.
And I know for a fact that it will be very difficult to obtain support for example from the United States unless we have commitments for concrete action also from China-having just spent the last four or five days in Washington, including on Capitol Hill.
But this will hinge, at the end of the day, on political will. And hence, the importance of the overarching acceptance on the part of political leaders of the world that this is truly the great moral and economic challenge of our age. Moral, economic and environmental challenge of our age.
In terms of our friends from WWF, I think, is that right? I think there is a great danger when people look at action on climate change to assume, as far as the economy is concerned, that this spells all downside. There's some great work been done recently by (inaudible) and others in the general media, writing for the New York Times, about the need to get the international community's head around the concept that action on global climate change, which is necessary for the survival of the planet long term and the living species within it.
That its presents a whole raft of new economic opportunities as well in terms of births and rebirths of the renewable energy sector and clean green energy. There are already funds out there investing, not just by way of venture capital, but in all sorts of other investments as well in terms of where this renewable energy revolution will take us.
And, it's transformational capacity in terms of the future global economy is of itself significant. So we need to be conscious of that.
You asked specifically about coal, I'm acutely conscious of Australia's status as a coal exporter. I'm acutely conscious of the fact that China's status as the world's largest coal producer and I think importer.
Therefore, the practical question which you then go to is ‘what can we do practically to assist the Chinese in particular on this question?'. We have already committed ourselves to in the first instance to a half billion dollar fund on CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage. In fact, I'm advised that we had a project to begin deploying this technology in Australia today.
We need to accelerate our research cooperation with the Chinese at a pace of knots on this. This was subject of intense conversation between myself and the US Energy Secretary in Washington on this yesterday about their own research effort. And that formed part of my discussion also with the Commission today.
That's around CCS. CCS is not the total answer. At least two other areas need to be worked on as well. And that is, how do we boost the deployment of energy renewable's both in China and elsewhere. And what can be done further by way of technological breakthroughs in terms of greater and more efficient and commercially deliverable use of solar. And finally, on demand side management, frankly, knowing a little bit about the Chinese electricity generation system from an earlier life, I used to live and work there, it is basic things like fixing up the transmission system in China which could do something by way in improving overall efficiency of energy transmission consumption. And, on demand side efficiency measures generally, globally, we calculate that we can make a significant impact within Australia by a much more rigorous nationally driven approach on demand side management.
So the answer to your question is at multiple levels, but we certainly get it in terms of its centrality of the coal equation.
The other question, (inaudible) about the Republic. I've said before in Australia that this is not a first order priority for the incoming Labor Government. We have other challenges on our plate at the moment, including current state of global financial markets, climate change, the future Doha round. But it remains part of our platform as a political party and it's certainly something that we don't walk away from. But we do not regard it, at this stage, as a matter of first priority.
JOURNALIST: Thank you Prime Minister (inaudible) International Trade Union Federation. Firstly, I'd like to assure you of the commitment of the global trade union movement on carbon reduction targets. We're working very actively with (inaudible) on that issue. My question relates to (inaudible) the state of global financial markets. And, I'd like to hear your views on the, we think, evident need of far more effective regulation of financial markets and much greater international cooperation on that question. Thank you.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible). You mentioned China, you've mentioned foreign investment. There's much discussion about investment in the Australian iron ore industry at the moment. There's much discussion about the, for example the current mergers going on. Investment in the Chinese steel industry. What role do you see for the Australian Government in these assessments. I'm not talking about the anti trust regulators, nor about stock exchange regulators about the Australian Government. What role does the Australian Government have in the assessment of these deals (inaudible). And, what message if any will you be taking to China regarding concerns about access to the stock market for Australian iron ore businesses?
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
JOURNALIST: Thank you very much, Prime Minister (inaudible). Traditionally Australian foreign policy has been suited to rest on three pillars. Relationship with the Untied States, commitment to multi lateral way of doing business in the world and a relationship with the rest of Asia. On the very positive speech this afternoon my question is when can we look forward to a statement of Australian foreign policy where there is a fourth pillar namely increasing cooperation with the European Union?
PM: Let me take those questions in order. Firstly, I think the contribution from the International Trade Union Federation. What I find really interesting and encouraging in Australia, and that dovetails with the earlier question on coal is the coalminers union in Australia led Mr Tony Maher is an active and strong supporter of the Government's posture and policy on climate change, Kyoto ratification, Cap and trade system.
We are working actively with all participants in the industry including the union on achieving a good outcome here. So, I thank you for that observation on global financial markets.
This represented probably about a third of my time in Washington with a range of Cabinet Secretaries through to the President on what we do about what is a serious challenge to the global economy.
Without rehearsing what's happened, let's go to possible lines of response.
At minima, we, the Australian Government, both through the G20 and through the financial stability forum where we are also active, in G20 we chair a specific working group on market stabilisation. We believe at minima we need to move for a greater position of transparency, particularly in relation to these new financial instruments. That has been lacking. That needs to happen. It needs to happen into the future.
Secondly, and related to that, you have to look carefully at the whole question and evaluation of assets. How that is done, and how transparently that is done of itself, given so much of the confidence of the system depends on the accuracy of those assessments, which leads to a third point. And that goes to the future of the ratings agencies themselves which should be subject, I believe, to further international scrutiny.
These at minima I think are three lines of reform. I spoke at some length on parts of this in a speech I gave to the United States Chamber of Commerce in Washington two nights ago. And, there is, I believe, a statement also out yesterday or the day before from the financial stability forum, looking at the content of its final report due very soon, mid-April I believe, to the G7.
Someone asked the question about inbound investment in the Australian iron ore industry. We in Australia, of course we're a vast country, we've got 20 million people, the continent of Europe with the population of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it presents a few challenges in terms of how you roll out the infrastructure for a continent like that and at the same time, someone mentioned before, we have somewhat differential circumstances when it comes to the intensity and density of the physicality of transportation which creates further challenges for us in terms of the climate change challenge.
To get around Australia, you've actually got to get around, and it's a big country.
All inbound investments into Australia, because we are a vast country, historically dependent on capital inflows, and part of an open global capital market, we're are, therefore, open to private investment and have been throughout our economic history.
Secondly, any foreign investment proposal beyond a given order of magnitude, around about $800 million a project, is automatically subjected to review by the various review agencies of the Government, including centrally, in the case of the Foreign Investment Review Board, before the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia makes a determination in the national interest about the acceptability or otherwise of that inbound investment.
Recently, to add clarity to national interest criteria, as it relates to foreign Government related entities, be they sovereign wealth funds or be they (inaudible) enterprises, the Government also released a further definition of the national interest criteria about a month ago.
You mentioned also stock markets and the rest. There's a place where Governments have a proper place. And that's in what I described in the regulation of private markets, including capital markets. But when it comes to commercial transactions between firms, including the use and non-use of stock markets, that's where Adam Smith takes over and the invisible hand. So, I don't propose to provide gratuitous advice to buyers and sellers in terms of how they use or not use them.
On climate change, Our German colleague asked the question about concrete actions. The two concrete actions right now are to develop in very rapid time frame for a country which has not done work on this up until now, effectively, effectively a little bit of work has been done before, is to get our cap and trade system running in Australia. That is an intense period of work for this year and next to identify the interim targets which have been referred to design the system with all the complexities associated with that, With the object of having it operational by 2010.
Secondly to implement, for the first time in Australia, a mandatory renewable energy target of 20 per cent. That is a very significant move for us, and that in turn we believe, through the operation of market mechanisms will boost the deploy ability of solar, wind and we hope, on a research and technology front, bring on the earliest possible consideration of geo-thermal projects where we have considerable resources.
You mentioned also uranium. Our policy is to, Australia has 40 per cent of the world's uranium resources. We export uranium to the rest of the world. The conditionality attached is that the receiving state is NPT compliant. And secondly , that we have a separate and additional bilateral nuclear safeguard agreement with that state. For example with the Kingdom of Sweden we've had one for about 25 years. Similarly with Finland and 19 other states around the world.
You mentioned the three pillars. You said it was traditionally a part of Australian foreign policy - it was not. I wrote it myself about three or four years ago. That is why it is used in those terms and incorporated it into the platform of the Australian Labor Party then in Opposition. They are our alliance with the United States, our membership of the United Nations and cooperation in the multilateral order and thirdly our policy of comprehensive engagement in Asia.
In that second one we see the UN and the EU as partners in multilateral engagement and that's in large part why I've been here significantly in Brussels today. To underline again what I said in my remarks before, we want to have a new stage, a new page in Australia's relationship with Europe through the European Union, through the European Commission because we think there are so many areas where we can cooperate more effectively together. Development, the global economy, climate change and the political and security matters as well. And I look forward to that relationship unfolding, so long as the other side chooses to tango. Thank you very much.