PM: Tonight I leave for Copenhagen for what will be a very tough set of negotiations for Australia and for the world on climate change. As one of the world's hottest and driest continents, the impact of climate change is being felt here in Australia first and hardest, which is why we have an Australian national interest at stake to get a strong outcome, as strong as possible, for the world in a global agreement in Copenhagen. That's why Australia, together with other countries, must play their role, their part, in bringing about such a global agreement.
We must have strong action at home, through a carbon pollution reduction scheme, and a strong action around the world through a strong agreement, a strong global agreement, at Copenhagen.
Some say 'why should Australia act?' My response is simple. If every country took the view that they won't act until someone else acts, then no-one will act at all, and if we are the hottest and driest continent, or among them, in the world, we have a deep national interest in making sure that there is a strong global agreement. It affects Australia first.
For Australia, we will do no less and no more than the rest of the world, whether that's a 5 percent target, a 15 percent target or a 25 percent target, because we have a strong interest in a strong global outcome for this nation of ours.
The alternative is simply to bury your head in the sand and to pretend that this problem will somehow just go away, and to push this problem off to our kids and to our grandkids, to simply stand back as we watch worse droughts emerge, more bushfires emerge, more extreme climate events unfold, coastal inundations, the devastation of Australian agriculture, and, of course, the destruction of great natural assets like the Barrier Reef. That's the course which happens through inaction, that's what actually unfolds.
Therefore, the responsible course of action is to bring about the strongest set of policies at home through a carbon pollution reduction scheme and the strongest possible agreement around the world, so that we can cool the planet.
That's our mission in Copenhagen. It will be a very tough set of negotiations. The outcome is far from certain, but we owe it to our kids and our grandkids to give this our every effort to bring about the best solution for Australia and for the world.
Over to you, folks.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you've obviously been hitting the phones in recent days with world leaders. What's the biggest roadblock, do you think, at this stage, to a strong agreement? Is it China?
PM: Well, there's a lot of disagreement around the world at present on three or four big questions, one of which is the level of ambition to bring down total greenhouse gas emissions, and that's where we need to see greater effort from both developed and developing countries. Second is how do we actually finance this new global agreement to make it possible for the least-developed countries to adapt to climate change in the here and now. And the third area which is contentious is what's called measurement, reporting and verification - that is, once we agree to things, how is it measured, how is it reported, how is it verified, so that we know the system is actually working to bring down greenhouse gas emissions over time.
They are three of the big ones. There are of course other areas of disagreement, and I've got to say the disagreements between now and this Friday are going to be intense. There'll be multiple predictions of total collapse, multiple predictions of emerging success. I wish I had a crystal ball and could tell you how it's going to turn out.
This is massively complex, but we intend to give it our best effort to try and forge an agreement at Copenhagen, because Australia's national interests are at stake.
JOURNALIST: The Coalition's also been trying to crank up this issue of how much money you'll be paying to developing nations. Is that going to be decided at Copenhagen and will you be able to tell voters how much Australia's going to contribute, and will that (inaudible) be raised under an emissions trading scheme?
PM: Can I, just on the question of Coalition policy, now that you've raised it, I've noticed that today the leader of the Liberal Party has said that he supports something that he calls direct action. We've seen a lot of erratic policy behaviour from the Liberals over the last week or so, not just on climate change but elsewhere as well, but let's look at this proposal of the Coalition, this direct action proposal.
What this is is effectively strangling the entire Australian economy in red tape, having Commonwealth bureaucrats dictate to small businesses right across Australia what they can and can't do. That's what it is. This strangling of the economy with red tape, this so-called direct action approach, is also the most expensive. It is also the least effective. It is also the most bureaucratic of the options which are available. It is the most expensive. Look at what Professor Garnaut has said about this so-called direct action. Professor Garnaut was invoked by the Leader of the Liberal Party today as his authority.
In other words, what Professor Garnaut says is that this is an excessively expensive option. It is more expensive, it is less effective, because it puts no cap on carbon pollution and then thirdly, it provides no compensation for families, so what have you got, in summary? You've got red tape strangling every level of the Australian economy through a system which is more expensive, which is less effective because there's no cap on carbon pollution, and for which there is no compensation for families.
This is simply policy on the run, it's erratic policy behaviour of the type we've seen now over a long period of time.
On the other part of your question, which goes to how climate change is financed, and I just said before this is one of the big outstanding areas - there is an emerging view in Copenhagen that at a minimum what we need to do is make sure that we support what is called fast-start finance, this is, in the first few years prior to a post-Kyoto regime happening, and then after 2012 there is an open discussion about what level of support is provided then.
We're still working our way through that with all the other countries of the world. There are vastly different views between the Americans, the developing world, the Europeans and ourselves, and that's one of the things to be resolved in Copenhagen.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the erratic approach, you're asking voters to accept that Tony Abbott's erratic. Tony Abbott is asking voters to accept that maybe (inaudible) non-authentic. Should he be believed as well?
PM: Can I just say that what we've seen in the last week and a half is a flood of ill-considered, dodgy policies on climate change, on foreign investment, on divesting the banks, on the United States defaulting, on the state governments of Australia defaulting on their debts, to name but a few. I'll let others make the judgement about whether they regard that as consistent and sober. I do not, and can I say what the Liberal Party needs to do is to take a calm, measured approach to developing mainstream policy for the future, including on climate change, rather than simply shooting from the hip, shooting from the lip, and policy development on the run, which is what we've seen a further example of this morning.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Others will make up their judgements about the performance of the Government.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well, can I say that all our approaches to tax and retirement income policy are currently being considered by the relevant government policy reviews. Where they are in their current state of development and when they'll be landed upon, that's a matter for the period ahead.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)-
PM: Can I just finish the answer, which is to say that, as you know, we have comprehensive reviews under way. One of the conclusions of the 2020 Summit last year was that we needed a root and branch review of the taxation system. That necessary involves consideration of the retirement income system, so we've always said, from the beginning, and the Treasurer's said this repeatedly, neither to rule in nor rule out any particular options, and that's the sensible way to approach it, and that's our approach going forward.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: National savings policy is very important. It's an important part of building for Australia's future. We're proud of previous Labor governments' inheritance on the question of retirement incomes policy. On the broader question of retirement income policy, we're proud of the fact that we've brought about the single greatest reform for the age pension in 100 years. Obviously, there is more work still to be done, but, as I said, for the future review of taxation, the review of retirement income policy, there are the proper mechanisms in place to consider all the options, so we're not in the business of ruling in or ruling out, as the Treasurer has said repeatedly.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Look, all that's a matter for the Roman Catholic Church. It's all a matter for the Catholic Church and its appropriate authorities. As I've said before, I think all Australians, whether they are Catholic or not, whether they are religious or not, have a high degree of admiration for the achievements of a very strong woman, Mary MacKillop, her great achievements in education, her great achievements in supporting the poor, but the processes of canonisation have nothing to do with any government. All a matter for the Roman Catholic Church, and those processes are still underway.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: I think you should put all such questions to the National Secretary and representatives of the national executive of the Party, in terms of individual preselections around the country.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just back to Mr Abbott for a moment. He says that you're actually stealing his policies, which are that better land management is going to reduce carbon emissions (inaudible)
PM: Can I say this, that when it comes to the embrace of deforestation as a part of land use, that was achieved in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations of 1997. It's been the case since then. It's also a set of arrangements available to all developed countries as of now.
What's currently being discussed in Copenhagen is where we go to from here for the future, and the second point, when it comes to dealing with the future of greenhouse gas emissions, let's be very plain about it, deforestation and land use represent some 18 percent of global emissions. The energy sector, what's called the stationary energy sector, represents 25 percent of emissions. Industry represents nearly 20 percent of emissions. Transport sector represents 15 percent of emissions, agriculture some 15. Therefore, if you want a comprehensive approach to bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, it's got to apply as broadly across the economy as possible. You can do policy development on the run, as the Liberal Party has been doing on climate change, and not just on climate change, or you can do the hard yards and work up a considered policy for the future.
This is, once again, erratic policy behaviour, policy development on the run, like what we've seen again in the last 24 hours with Barnaby Joyce on the question of Australian state governments defaulting. I mean, there you have Senator Joyce, the alternative Finance Minister of Australia out there again confirming in the financial review today that he doesn't back away from his position that Australian state governments could default. The Liberal Treasurer of Western Australia has responded to that. The Shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, has said that that is not Coalition policy, yet there you have the alternative Finance Minister out there in the pages of the Financial Review today saying he backs away from nothing.
This is a further example of policy development on the run, erratic policy behaviour, rather than putting in the hard yards.
JOURNALIST: That 2011 deadline (inaudible) given the legislation's been rejected and there's not a great prospect of-
PM: -2011 deadline on?
JOURNALIST: On the emissions trading scheme. Is it still possible to get that up and running, and if it's not, do you need to look at some sort of practical measures to start Australian business reducing emissions if you can't get a trading scheme (inaudible)?
PM: Well, remember, we have already passed through the parliament the Renewable Energy Target, and that's to increase renewable energy generation to 20 percent by 2020. Secondly, as I said before, we'll be re-introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to the Australian parliament as soon as parliament resumes, as I said before, in the hope that wiser, more sober heads within the Liberal Party prevail.
See, there's a big difference here. We've actually got a very clear cut policy about emissions trading, a carbon pollution reduction scheme, which is as follows. One, you put a cap on carbon pollution. Two, you make Australia's biggest polluters pay for polluting. Three, because they pay, they then have an incentive to adopt clean energy for the future. And four, we use the money that they pay to compensate families who would otherwise cop an additional cost to themselves. That's our approach.
Mr Abbott's approach, by contrast, is policy development on the run, a magic pudding to pay for everything, and an approach today which is the most expensive, the least effective, and the most bureaucratic and with no compensation for families. I don't get it.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, (inaudible)
PM: Well, the states and territories, through their police agencies, are working hard on this question - some more effectively than others. At a national level, at the COAG meeting in Brisbane last week, we also looked at the wider implementation of a national strategy for young Australians which goes to reinforcing all the great things that young people are doing, but also looking at how we can actually have more consistent national policing standards as well.
So our job is to work with the states and territories through youth policy, but also through nationally consistent policing policy to underpin the efforts of states and territory police services on the ground. This is a big challenge, it's a difficult challenge, and going into the holiday season it's one which lots of mums and dads across the country are very concerned about.
Having said that, I'm going to zip.