PM: We can no longer afford to wait for action on climate change; the time for action is now. Let's never forget the basic fact on climate change. Australia is the hottest and the driest inhabited continent on the planet. Climate change will hit Australia hardest, and will hit Australia earliest.
Therefore, we need national and global action now. That's why we are in New York, that's why we need action in New York, that's why we need action in Pittsburgh, that's why we need action also in Copenhagen- in order to conclude this deal.
Every time a nation delays, every time a nation puts up its hand and say, "it's all too hard," is a further, further excuse to put off the measures we need to take to deal with the challenges for climate change for Australia. Therefore, we cannot simply use those excuses anymore. We must embark upon a considered course of national action and a considered course of global action.
Today, in New York, we have seen fresh developments, positive momentum in the direction of global action on climate change. The new Japanese Prime Minister has indicated here at the United Nations General Assembly that Japan, firstly, will move towards an emissions trading scheme for Japan, and secondly, with a target of 25 percent. Japan is the second-largest economy in the world: this is a significant statement by Japan.
On top of that, we've also had a statement from the Chinese President Hu Jintao, which speaks in terms of there being a shared set of responsibilities between developed and developing economies and countries. He uses the expression, "a win-win solution for the future." That means, of course, that developing economies must act as well.
Of course, that's what happens, that's what's necessary for the world to take action, and as I said, we've had that positive statement in particular from the Japanese Prime Minister today.
We also heard from the President of France. The President of France, President Sarkozy indicated what might be in the mind of certain Europeans to do if action is not taken by other parts of the world. President Sarkozy of France today referred specifically to the possibility of a carbon tax across Europe against parts of the world which were not doing their bit on climate change.
Therefore, we've seen what needs to be done on climate change for Australia's interest, the driest and the hottest continent on the planet; we've seen positive statements, of course, from the Japanese Prime Minister today; we've also seen a warning sign in terms of the statement by the French about the possibility of a European carbon tax in the future as well.
The last thing I'd say is, having just co-chaired a session of some 20 or so Member States of the United Nations - at Head of Government level, at Foreign Minister level, and at Ministerial level - it is clear that there is strong support from developed and developing countries to conclude this deal.
In the session that I have just co-chaired with the Korean President, I used the term that the world needs a "grand bargain" between developed economies and developing economies. It's time to end the blame game between the developed world and the developing world.
We need to get past that and arrive at a conclusion about where our respective responsibilities lie. The accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that exist in the atmosphere now are overwhelmingly the responsibility of the advanced economies. Looking to the future, it is a shared responsibility.
And if there is no change on the part of the developing economies, then in time, they will represent the largest slice of new and additional greenhouse gas emissions into the future. What the world needs is a grand bargain between the developed world and the developing world in order to reach an outcome for the planet as a whole. Those remarks of mine obtained support from all those Governments represented in the room.
Over to you folks.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, I noticed that in the list of the countries you mentioned as progressing the debate today, you didn't mention the United States. Were you disappointed that President Obama didn't have any specifics to put on the table today?
PM: No, because the United States is engaged, of course, in the Pittsburgh process as well, and is engaged at multiple additional levels as well. Remember, the fundamental change occurred with the change in the US Administration: the United States has now said for the first time it's going to move towards an emissions trading scheme, that was not the case before.
The United States has reengaged in the negotiating game, that was not the case before; and there is still some ways yet to go between now and Copenhagen. What I was talking about today were new additions to the global debate. That is, of course, reflected primarily in the statements by Japan, and I congratulate the Japanese Prime Minister for his leadership on this.
Also, some indications, as I said, of shared responsibility in the future, through the statements of President Hu Jintao. But also, as I said, warning signs, warning bells, being rung by President Sarkozy of France.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, President Obama also used the phrase that, "perfection should not be the enemy of progress," reflecting Tony Blair's comments yesterday that "perfection should not be the enemy of the good." Is this-
PM: Affection or perfection?
JOURNALIST: Perfection.
PM: That's what I thought you said, right. Thought there was something I'd missed somewhere.
JOURNALIST: Is this suggesting that at Copenhagen, there should be a result but not necessarily the perfect result?
PM: Look, the position of the Australian Government is that we want to see a deal concluded at Copenhagen, and every fibre of our being is directed in that direction now to get on with other Member States. Can I say that, having sat down to dinner last night with the UN Secretary-General and a dozen or so Heads of Government - primarily European but also from the developing world as well - there is, I believe, a strong sense that action can be achieved, that an outcome can be delivered; to use the UN Secretary-General's term, to "seal the deal."
The obstacles are massive, that's just the truth. But the task of leadership is actually to identify the obstacles and find a way through. That's what we're trying to do, and I that mood by predisposition on the part of other Governments as well.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that a definitive statement of some sort from the United States that targets, real targets, are needed before Copenhagen; if not can it deal with this (inaudible)
PM: The key thing when we get to Copenhagen is consistent with the Bali Road Map, going back two years now: is for developed economies to have defined, ambitious targets, mid-term, long-term. And for developing economies to have verifiable commitments. That's the ingredients of what I referred to before as the "grand bargain," that's needed. And that means all economies which fall into either of those groups.
There is still some time yet to go between now and Copenhagen, and obviously, there are processes to be worked through, both within the Administration here in the United States and, of course, in the Congress. We have some familiarity with these Congressional processes in their Australian equivalents.
JOURNALIST: You would see that then as essential for a deal, for target-specific commitment by the United States?
PM: Well, I'd just go back to the Bali Road Map, which said that we in the developed world need to come forward with commitments. That's what the Government of Japan has done, that's what the Government of Australia has done, that's what Governments around the world have done. But equally, it also goes for our partners among the emerging economies. A grand bargain is necessary for the planet so that developed and developing countries realise that our mission is the same.
There and then over to you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given what you've just said about the need to get to some kind of deal, how to you reconcile that with the sorts of pleas we heard from the President of the Maldives who, naturally, wants the bar to be very high from the beginning? Are those two irreconcilable? Do they need to they need to accept a harsh reality?
PM: No, I listened very carefully to what the Head of Government from the Maldives said, and in the session that I've just co-chaired. We had representatives also from Trinidad and Tobago and from Grenada, and we've also, of course, had representations from the island states of the Pacific Island Forum, which I chair at present.
And the island states of the world, of course, want to see as ambitious an outcome as possible because, for them, challenges like coastal inundation are not theoretical-they are real. And I drew the attention of the colleagues that I just addressed in the session that I co-chaired, the example of Kiribati and Tuvalu, where this is not a distant prospect; it is a current reality of coastal inundation.
The scientists, through the IPCC have told us that two degree centigrade should be the target. Hence, why our position of 450 parts per million is anchored in the science. There's no point being engaged in this business of climate change mitigation, adaptation, unless what you are doing has a scientific basis in fact, and therefore, a prospect of altering sufficiently those conditions over time through real actions which count. That's why we're doing what we're doing. Obviously, the small island countries want as an ambitious an outcome as possible.
JOURNALIST: On the Australian proposal. Last night I asked Indian Minister Ramesh Chaudhary what he thought about it. The Indian Minister said it was too binding. Minister Chaudhary said it had little chance of success. I want to know if you've heard that and what you think of it, and just if you could while you're here at the UN do you envision-
PM: We're permanent optimists in Australia, but anyway, go on.
JOURNALIST: Do you envision raising two issues. One is Fiji and the continuing use of peacekeepers by the UN, and also Sri Lanka, and the impending expulsion of Australian James Alba issue.
PM: Anything else. Can you answer on the first one Penny.
MINISTER WONG: Well, obviously we put forward a proposal in these negotiations, an idea that we think helps to find common ground. I wouldn't anticipate anybody would be signing up for it within days of us putting it up. This is a negotiation, but it seeks to deal with an essential issue, that all countries that are serious about this, and I think the countries of the world are, all countries have to deal with, which is we have to find a way of encouraging action from the broadest group of nations possible.
This is not an issue that can be resolved by one subgroup, or another subgroup, this is an issue that must be resolved by the nations of the world.
PM: On the question of Australian proposal in relation to schedules, we have taken soundings from across the community of nations on that. It's all a work in progress. In fact, I don't dispute the responses that you just referred to. It's what I would describe as part of the negotiating process.
I spoke with a dozen or so Heads of Government last night who were positively disposed in a different direction. It's a process. What the Minister has quite correctly done is seek to find a way through.
On the question of UN Peacekeepers and Fiji. Our position with the United Nations is clear. I've raised this consistently with the UN Secretary General in the past. Our Mission in the United Nations does the same, and we've achieved a high degree of understanding with our friends in the UN about the future on that score.
As for Sri Lanka, we continue to monitor human rights developments closely and we'll take all necessary actions in relation to any individuals.
A couple here and I'll come back to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister you just mentioned President Hu Jintao's presentation about climate change, (inaudible). Have you seen any positive signs since then, and also what do you expect to talk to President Hu Jintao about given the G20 later this week.
PM: I think the Australia China relationship, is like China's relationship with the rest of the world, it's a strong and positive relationship, and from time to time what we say in Australia the "odd bump in the road". That's the first point.
The second is the great thing about the G20 summit is, together with the other Heads of Government, we spend a lot of time with each other, having cups of coffee, having cups of tea and running around the room talking to each other. That's how it's worked in the past, I imagine it will work that way this time as well.
JOURNALIST: You mentioned President Hu's speech, and you know, if I understand the previous [inaudible] correctly, it was the large under developed countries, developing countries, particularly India and China, who were most opposed to regulations, especially high bar regulations, such as you described, that should not apply to them. Do you think that President Hu's statement this morning is sufficient, or where do you think we could go from here in order to get these countries on board?
PM: I have just said in the session I've attended that China's statement today in the UN General Assembly is a positive statement. President Hu was indicating the desirability of reaching a deal, a concluded deal at Copenhagen. His remarks were couched in terms of taking the actions necessary to reach that agreement.
Secondly, his reference on a number of occasions to win-win outcomes between developed and developing countries, I also believe to be a statement in the right direction. All of us have to do more, developed and developing countries, between now and Copenhagen to make a success. But I believe the Chinese negotiators are seriously engaged with their counterparts from around the world, as in fact we find with our colleagues in India as well.
JOURNALIST: Just in relation to Senator Wong's proposal and offer to Malcolm Turnbull. How likely is it that Mr Turnbull gets Liberal Party support for amendments, and what will you do if he fails to do so?
PM: Well I was going to ask Penny to respond to that, until you added the second point. But I will ask Penny to respond in a tick anyway. The bottom line is this. Time's running out. We're either going to be serious about legislation on climate change or not. Why do we need this in Australia? Business certainty, the Australian Industry Group say so, the Business Council of Australia say so, businesses want to know what the rules are for the future. That's point one.
Point two, it's important for Australian to go to Copenhagen with an agreed national position about how we translate our targets into reality. That's both the national and global reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable of us, through the Minister, to say to the Opposition who are blocking this in the Senate, "tell us what your agreed amendments are to this legislation in sufficient time for this to work when this goes through the Senate the next time".
That's why the Minister has done what she's done, and I fully support her action. Penny, do you want to add?
SENATOR WONG: Yes, just very briefly Prime Minister. I think the point is this. What we have said to Mr Turnbull is what I've been saying for some time, put your amendments forward, and put forward amendments that have the support of your party room and the Government will be prepared to consider them. But it is very important that we have those amendments in sufficient time to properly consider them. I mean this is a big reform. Everyone knows this is a big reform, and we need appropriate time to consider them in detail, and prudently. So what we have said to the Opposition is this. We want to see your amendments, bring them forward after the date you've identified after the date you want to take them into the party room.
And what I would say is this- if Mr Turnbull fails to do that, if he fails on October 19 to get the agreement of his party room to put forward amendments for discussion with the Government, then Australians are entitled to question whether or not he really is intending to negotiate on this issue in good faith.
JOURNALIST: In Senator Wong's letter there's a couple of mentions about national interest. Would it be in the national interest to take the-
PM: I sense an enormous segue coming here mate, but go on.
JOURNALIST: Would it be in the national interest for you to take the ETS to a double dissolution election, when that legislation has not got the support from any other party aside from Labor?
PM: First of all, my intention, as I have stated repeatedly, is for this Government to serve full term. I have said repeatedly that my instincts on these things are quite conservative. I'm elected to do a job, I'm given a term in which to do it, that's my intention. Equally, I have said that we believe this important to get through for business certainty on the one hand, and also to make sure that when we go to Copenhagen that we can actually clearly articulate how we intend to realise our targets for the future. I think that's the responsible course of action, we haven't deviated from it.
To reinforce also what the Minister has just said about her letter to Mr Turnbull: why do we need an indication from the Opposition on about 19 October on this? This isn't just a piece of, you know, political slap and tickle here. This is a serious piece of legislation. It's a serious piece of legislation. And you're blushing Dennis. But, you can say on the day before something is considered in the Senate we'll hear the opposition amendment.
When you're dealing with something as profound and as complicated as an Emissions Trading Scheme, you can't at thirty seconds to midnight say here are 16 technical amendments, it doesn't work that way. And quite soberly and responsibly the Minister has said if there are agreed Opposition amendments to be put, agree them, provide them to the Government in sufficient time, therefore, for them to be properly deliberated in terms of their consequences for the overall machinery of the scheme. That's the right way to go.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister there seems to be conflicting messages coming from the United States military and the US Administration on the need for more troops in Afghanistan. Have you sought any clarification from the US Administration on its position and what is your view about the need for more troops?
PM: Well, firstly, we have now received the McChrystal report. Secondly, we've not evaluated it fully. Thirdly, in due course, we will make statements about it once we've worked it through with our friends and allies including, of course, with the Americans themselves. But as the Foreign Minister has already indicated, we see no grounds to increase our own ground troop commitment to Afghanistan.
As you know, having followed these things in Australia, we increased our commitment in recent times, in order to underpin our training effort for the Afghan National Army, we think that's about right. We don't imagine that it will be further requested as well.
JOURNALIST: Are we starting to see a divergence between the people who are on the ground in Afghanistan and the political leadership of the forces?
PM: Sorry?
JOURNALIST: Are we starting to see a differing views from the people who are actually on the ground in Afghanistan, the military representatives, and the political leadership of the forces?
PM: You mean here in the United States?
JOURNALIST: Well, generally. Are we starting to see a divergence from the people who are actually fighting the fight on the ground?
PM: Look, I can't comment on the detail of each individual military's relationship with their political leadership. There are many, many States involved in the operation in Afghanistan. What I can say is this. The way for us to succeed in Afghanistan requires an integrated military, political and economic strategy.
We've articulated our path in that strategy in the province of Oruzgan, and that is to provide sufficient training over time to raise an Afghan Army Brigade in order to transfer responsibility for the security of that province to the Afghan National Army. That is our mission. It is quite clear what we are doing, and we are set about that task, and we are at one with the advice provided to us by the Chief of the Australian Defence Force.
Can I say, again here in New York, let us all remind ourselves why we are in Afghanistan. In this city, eight years ago, three thousand people were murdered. They were murdered by terrorists, who in large part were trained or given support and succour out of Afghanistan, at that stage run by a supportive Taliban regime. We will not participate in strategies which simply deliver back open training grounds for terrorist for the future. That's why we're there, fully accepting that this is not a popular engagement.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what is your view on reconciliation with the Taliban, or at least some elements, softer elements of the Taliban?
PM: I think all these questions are to be worked through with the response to the McChrystal report over time. That is, as I said before, an integrated military, political and economic strategy, and that is, how do you actually effect a proper transition over time. We're very mindful, of course, of what happened in Iraq, in terms of some of the negotiations which occurred there at the political level between various groups in the Iraqi body politik.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, it's different. But if we are going to succeed with an integrated strategy, then the politics of the country are part of it. I mean let's not delude ourselves.
Sorry, you're looking very patient there.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, I'm conscious of the fact that you're standing in front of the Security Council (inaudible), have you been getting a high level of support in your bilateral meetings for Australia's run and tilt?
PM: This is a long, long-term process. We're talking about 2013, 2014 and a vote I think to be taken, from memory, at the end of 2012. There is absolutely no guarantee that Australia will win this. Absolutely no guarantee whatsoever. It's just like other things we're engaged in as the Government of Australia, which is, you have to get in there and have a go.
You either take the Council of the United Nations, including the Security Council, seriously or you don't. If you take it seriously, the opportunity rises, you put yourself forward for a candidature. It's a competitive process. It's like our engagement with the G20. You can either say it's there, I wonder what sort of role we should play. Our approach is get in, have a go, try and make a big difference.
We've sought to do that as hard as we can for the future. That's why, for example, we're having a go at shaping the long-term architecture for the Asia Pacific region. The proposal for an Asia Pacific Community. The goal is 2020, long-term process- is there a guarantee of success? None whatsoever. But do I think it's a reasonable thing for us to be behind, support an active regional discussion on, yes.
So with all these three things, if the precondition for beginning an initiative which aims to support peace and security, and economic development and prosperity is a guarantee of success in every case, then you never start. We're in the business of having a go.
And having said that, I've got to zip.