PM: I've just arrived from Tokyo, where I had some significant discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama on Copenhagen, and on the prospects for reaching an agreement here, at this important global conference on climate change. Prime Minister Hatoyama and I discussed the detail of many of the outstanding challenges that lie before us at Copenhagen. I look forward to catching up with him when he arrives here later in the week.
Having just arrived in Copenhagen now, later this evening I'll be meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen, the Chair of the conference. Also, Prime Minister Brown of the United Kingdom and various other leaders in order to be updated on the current state of negotiations as of today.
While there is absolutely no guarantee of success at getting a global agreement, my aim here in the days ahead is to work as hard as possible to secure the best possible agreement for Australia, in Australia's national interest. That means getting a genuine agreement between rich and poor countries to tackle climate change, for the first time in history. It also must be an agreement which is the cheapest, the most effective, most pro-jobs agreement possible. Just as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the cheapest, most effective way to act on climate change locally, so too is an agreement here the cheapest and most effective way to act globally.
So, I'll be here in the days ahead working as hard as I absolutely can, throwing everything at it, trying to get the absolute best outcome for Australia's national interest. Over to you folks.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) How does Australia fit into that process? When will we know the targets that Australia might commit to and the money that Australia might put up?
PM: Well having arrived about an hour ago, let me become fully apprised of where things are up to today. On the question of the deadlock within the conference itself, you're right, there's been a lot of sound and fury on the floor of the conference as I'm advised, certainly in the reports I received in Tokyo. And I think it's likely that we'll see further sound and fury in the period ahead. The key thing is that when you've got walkouts and threats of walkouts, lots of noise, lots of clatter- it's trying to find a consensus up the middle of that. And I'll be working very closely with the Danish Prime Minister later this evening on how we try and forge a consensus through this.
As I said, there's absolutely no guarantee of success. But my job, as Prime Minister of Australia- and Australia as a member of the international community- is to put our shoulder to the wheel, and try and get a good agreement for Australia's national interest, and for the world.
JOURNALIST: What agreement, Prime Minister, will serve Australia's interests? What do you think is reasonable (inaudible), and what's your expectation?
PM: For Australia's national interest to be served, we need a strong agreement- for the first time in history- between rich and poor countries. You see, in the past, this has primarily been a debate about what happens with the developed world. We know that the developed world is responsible for the largest slice of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. But why is this now important? Because for the first time in history, there is the prospect of an agreement which brings in the developing countries, for the first time.
And why is that important? Because if we go to the future, the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the future will be the major developing countries, led by China. China already- as of today- is the world's largest polluter. It's now bigger than the United States. So you ask, Mark, legitimately, what is a core benchmark for success in a conference like this? The absolute core benchmark for success is for the first time in history to have an agreement between the rich and poor countries, the developed and the developing countries, on this common challenge for us all.
If we don't do that, we're not dealing with the totality of the problem, and we'll not be serving the next generations of Australians, our environment, our economic interests, or our kids.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well, this is very much a debate between the past and the future. In the past, we have had- the facts speak for themselves- developed countries have contributed the lion's share of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. That's a fact. No one should run away from that fact. The parallel fact for the future is that the major developing countries, as I've just said before, will be contributing the lion's share of emissions for the future.
So, we can either degenerate into mutual recrimination, or we can get on with the task of actually working for an agreement. The easiest thing to do is to play the blame game. The hardest thing to do is to actually work, work, and work- to deliver a genuine agreement. That's what I'm here to try and do. Hugh?
JOURNALIST: Twice in your comments today you've said- stressed- that there is no guarantee of success. Is it important at this stage to start positioning Australians and everyone else to the very real problem (inaudible)?
PM: I actually just believe in telling it like it is. There's no guarantee of success. Let's just be straight up and down about this. You've got 190 countries who are participants in this conference. You've got more than 100 Heads of Government. You've got, as I said, the rolling sound and light show of what happens on the conference floor. There is no guarantee of success. My job, as Prime Minister of Australia- also as a friend of the Chair, of the Prime Minister of Denmark, together with other leaders, is to try and forge a consensus through this. Because it is in our Australian national interest that we do so. I just think it's important to be frank with people about the degree of difficulty of what we're trying to do, and it won't be through lack of effort on our part.
JOURNALIST: Are you at least optimistic then?
PM: I've always said this is going to be difficult. There are outstanding policy disagreements between developed and developing countries. There is a possible way through this, but it requires political will right across the spectrum. Both on the part of the developed countries, and the developing countries. There is a possible way through, but as I've said from the outset, there is absolutely no guarantee of success- but the Australian national interest demands that we put our shoulder to the wheel. To say what I've said repeatedly in Australia, we are among the hottest and driest continents on earth, where the impact of climate change is felt first and hardest.
Therefore we have an acute national interest at stake in Australia to bring about an agreement for the world on climate change. It is fundamental to the next generation of Australians and the next generation of kids around the world. Over here.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, at (inaudible)
PM: As are others. Go on.
JOURNALIST: I was just wondering-
PM: How long's your list?-
JOURNALIST: About a farmer being on a 22-day hunger strike over (inaudible) and not being compensated by the Government (inaudible)
PM: Look, I'm just unfamiliar with that. I've just arrived here. As you know, we have particular measures concerning agriculture as far as our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is concerned, but I just don't know the details of that report.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) developing country targets have and their implication of them, the Indian Environment Minister would not go along with co-chairing the committee with Senator Wong. He made some remarks today talking about Australia as an Ayatollah of the one-track process, and (inaudible)?
PM: Look, conferences like this are just full of political rhetoric a lot of the time. As I said, it's always necessary to sift out the substance from the sound and light show to get to the core of what we've got to reach an agreement on here.
So, going to substance of your question, which is about verification and about commitments from developing countries, we have seen some significant steps, both by China and India in terms of their emissions intensity targets. I am advised that there has been a further significant statement from the Chinese today in relation to finance, and these are positive steps forward, but you know something?
Unless we have all the emerging economies stepping up to the plate as well, in addition to the developed economies playing their role, we won't get an effective global deal, to go back to Mark's earlier question. What is at stake here is for the first time in history reaching an agreement between both developed and developing countries, between the poor countries and the rich countries. That's what's at stake here.
On verification, everybody, I believe, has a stake in making sure that what is agreed to here in Copenhagen, if we reach an agreement, is capable of verification. That is, that we have a way of determining whether the undertakings made here are verified in terms of the actions taken on the ground, because at the end of the day this is not just a piece of treaty law that we're prospectively talking about. It's not just a conference document that we're talking about. It has to be given substance and flesh and form and effect on the ground. That's why verification is essential.
On the forms of verification, there are many, many, many proposals on the table. More, to use the great Australian term, than you could poke a stick at, but we're sifting our way through those, together with a range of other countries. It is one of the outstanding major policy problems at this conference. I believe there is a way through. It requires political will.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) change its target range or perhaps a target for 2025 (inaudible)
PM: Our position's been clear on this from the outset, in terms of the range of targets that we have on offer, between 5, 15 and 25, and the latter two are conditional on various forms of international action. We're clear cut about that. We actually believe that it does represent the spectrum of responsible action on the part of Australia, and as I've said back home repeatedly, Australia is prepared to do no less, but no more, than the rest of the world, and we have our role to play, both in terms of what we do at home.
We also have our role to play diplomatically here in Copenhagen to try and bring about a global agreement in Australia's national interest. So, it's going to be a very tough and hard few days ahead, and as I said, no guarantee of success, but we will be putting our shoulder to the wheel.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, along with the (inaudible) and China, tonight they could be disappointed, particularly in you, because he says you went to Bali and signed and ratified Kyoto, but you're trying to-
PM: Are you quoting the Chinese here, or someone else?
JOURNALIST: I beg your pardon?
PM: You say you're quoting the Chinese, or someone else?
JOURNALIST: Lumumba Di-Aping, who's the chief negotiator on behalf of the G77 plus China.
PM: Right, okay, sorry. I thought you were talking about a separate Chinese statement. Go on.
JOURNALIST: He specifically singled you out and said he's disappointed in your position because he says it's changed since Bali, you seem to be-
PM: Can I just say that in response to that that there was a question before about various comments about Penny Wong, these next few days are going to be full of political rhetoric, full of, you know, political accusations of one type or another. That's part and parcel of how these conferences operate. Key thing is to find a consensus which is capable of producing a global agreement between the developed countries and the developing countries.
That's what we intend to work at while we're here, and we've been part and parcel of these negotiations since our ratification of Kyoto. We have been one of the most active countries in the negotiating process, but it is standard fare that when you get to the crunch point in negotiations like this, the accusations fly hard and fast. That's just to be expected.
The key thing, as I said before, is to separate out the sound and light show, not to be distracted by it, and to get on with the central task of seeking to negotiate a genuine agreement which delivers on Australia's national interest, which delivers on the global interest, and which is the cheapest, most effective, most pro-jobs, most environmentally effective agreement possible, and that's what we intend to do.
JOURNALIST: Have you softened your stance on Kyoto. Is he right on that one?
PM: Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol two years ago after the previous Australian Government refused to do so. Since then, we've been absolutely active in the negotiations since then and proposed to continue to be at this conference.
You know, our job as Australia is to argue for the Australian national interest, is to argue also as a responsible member of the international community, and these two interests are fundamentally linked. I go back to where I started.
If you're among the hottest and driest continents on Earth, where the impact of climate change is felt first and hardest, we have a fundamental Australian national interest in obtaining an agreement here in Copenhagen, and for the days ahead I'll be giving it my absolute best shot, working as hard as I can to try and support a consensus on the way through to get an agreement for Australia's national interests and for the next generation of kids around the world.
Thanks folks.