PM: It's great to be back in the United States, and I'm looking forward to the next several days here in New York, and of course at Pittsburgh for the G20. The purpose of my travel to the United States is twofold. And that is to meet with with world leaders on our continued response to the global economic recession. And for us collectively to try and take further action on climate change in the lead-up to Copenhagen. These are both difficult tasks. Here in the United States, when we speak of the global economic recession, it's worth remembering that one in ten people in this country are unemployed.
When I'm meeting with world leaders this week, there'll be many discussions about the impact of the recession, unemployment, small businesses around the world shutting their doors. Australia is doing better than most other countries in our response to the global recession, on unemployment, on growth. But we're not out of the woods yet.
The other thing I'll be doing here in New York is of course speaking with representatives of the US business community, and the Australian business community. I'll be seeking to use this as an opportunity to promote Australia as a destination for investment, for now and for the long term. We have a good story to tell given the performance of the rest of the international economy, in what has been a very difficult time.
The fact that Australia, of the 33 members of the OECD this last twelve months has been the only economy generating positive growth- the fact that we have the second lowest unemployment of the major advanced economies, the lowest debt, the lowest deficit, as well as the only one not to have gone into recession.
I think another point to emphasise with our friends and partners in the US business community and investment community here in New York, is the fact that of the nine remaining AA+ rated banks worldwide, four of those banks are Australian. So we have a strong economy, one that's doing better than most other countries around the world. The lowest debt, the lowest deficit of the major advanced economies, and our banks doing better than most other banks around the world.
Over to you, folks.
JOURNALIST: PM, there's been some commentary that this week the developed nations need to find money for developing nations to help transition to a low carbon economy (inaudible)
PM: We're not at that stage yet, but what must be discussed sooner rather than later, is what are the options for what is called within the debate, climate change financing arrangements, for the poorest economies. In other words, how do you make the transition possible to a lower carbon world for the poorest developing countries. This is a challenge. It has to be dealt with. This is a challenge which is not new.
You may recall from the major economies forum in L'Aquila that President Obama provided a specific reference to the G20 Finance Ministers to work on this. Not much progress has been made. A lot of work needs to be done on this, because it's part of the overall equation with Copenhagen. For Copenhagen to succeed on climate change, we need to see action on the question of targets in developed countries, and verifiable commitments from developing countries.
We of course need to see longer term climate change financing arrangements, both public and private capital, including that which comes from global carbon markets. Thirdly, we've also got to make sure that we are delivering the technology necessary, which make real transformations possible in realising those targets.
JOURNALIST: Are you prepared to stump up the cash though to help that goal?
PM: We in Australia have always said that we would be part of a global solution. You know something, we're not even near the point yet of looking at, let's call it, overall funding strategies, from private and public sources. Remember, another source of finance is that which comes from the global private carbon markets.
So that's one source of funding, obviously ODA type sources is a different way of providing support, the key thing is putting all these ingredients together. Targets for the future on climate change to bring down greenhouse gas emissions for developed and developing countries. Making it possible for all to participate and to do their bit. And to make sure the technology, including clean coal, has a proper role in the future.
Dennis and then you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the issue of climate change and Pittsburgh, or New York and Pittsburgh, how vital do you think progress is at this meeting to set up for Copenhagen? And are you concerned at the amount of time the President had to spend on his Health Bill rather than the Energy Bill?
PM: Well, when it comes to the President of the United States, I would be the last person to provide advice, Dennis, on his schedule. And nor priorities he should attach at this stage to a given item in his in-tray. Having dealt with the White House a lot in the last six months or so on a range of questions, his administration is indeed well ordered in the way in which they attend to their priorities. However, to go to the first part of your question, which is preparation for Copenhagen, let me say this. There's a danger, speaking absolutely frankly, that options for final decision in Copenhagen are left too late, because we are now I think less than 80 days away from Copenhagen.
And there are big questions and big decisions to be made- on targets for developed countries, on verifiable commitments for developing countries, all about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, and also how is all that made possible financially for the future as well, and the technologies. What concerns me is if not enough of that is distilled prior to Copenhagen, so that Heads of Government, and their Finance Ministers and Treasurers, can make the right decisions for the future.
That's why we do need to see another step along the work here at Pittsburgh, and the possibility of G20 Finance Ministers being deployed again between Pittsburgh and Copenhagen.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well I'm in the realism game, which is getting real results as early as you can. I think the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who I am meeting tomorrow, or I am meeting soon, is committed to using the gathering of Heads of Government this week in New York to provide maximum political momentum towards Copenhagen. Each time Heads of Government are brought together and confronted with the stark realities of climate change, it helps build momentum.
That's why we're lending our support to that as well, to confront Heads of Government with the economic and environmental cost of inaction, as opposed to, of course, the economic cost of action. This is the choice which Heads of Government must make. Some of the points I'll be making as Chairman of the Pacific Islands Forum is the real and present danger which climate change and inundation from the sea presents to a number of our island nations in the South Pacific.
There's sometimes a view in international conferences on climate change that this is a challenge for the long term future. If you look at what's happening with water supplies in the Murray-Darling in Australia, it ain't, it's happening now. If you look at the impact on inundation from the sea for the Pacific Island countries, it ain't long term, it's happening now. Therefore, part of the challenge which I support from the Secretary-General is to make this real, immediate and graphic in terms of the costs now, therefore the need to accelerate action now.
Sorry, you had a question.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you talked about getting momentum at this (inaudible)
PM: Is your reference here-
JOURNALIST: Talking about the UN summit.
PM: The UN summit on Tuesday? When it comes to the matters that the Secretary-General has on the agenda for us, I believe his mission statement is to achieve building blocks on the road to Copenhagen. I think it's unrealistic to expect a concrete, immediate outcome on targets and commitments and the other elements of the package this week. These are building blocks along the road. Go back over what I've said to Dennis just before. We do need building blocks along the road, otherwise you get to that last point, Copenhagen, and the wall is too high to scale, and if the wall is too high to scale, we fear we may not be able to reach it.
JOURNALIST: Does this make any influence on your timetable in Australia on your legislation?
PM: Absolutely not. What drives my interest in Australia, and those of the Government with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is business certainty. The business community, through the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, are saying they want certainty for the long term. The rules need to be laid out, because as you know, investment decisions, particularly in the energy sector, are long term investments. We need to have the rules up, out, clear, so they can be factored into the long term calculations of the business community.
We cannot afford, as Mr Turnbull constantly does, to procrastinate, procrastinate, procrastinate. Hard decisions have to be made. Our position's clear. It would be very useful if the Liberal and National parties had a position on the CPRS which we could negotiate with. Business certainty demands that Mr Turnbull show some leadership and deliver an outcome in terms of their position. Then, we can have a discussion.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Shadow Minister for Emissions Trading, Andrew Robb, has announced he's going to take three months leave owing to a depressive illness, what I'm wondering what your response is his decision to take leave (inaudible)
PM: I think Andrew Robb's decision to talk about this medical condition shows great courage, and I commend him for that. I commend Jeff Kennett for his work on this in the past in terms of bringing depression out of the shadows of our public discourse, and put it centre stage, together with other medical conditions. So full marks to Andrew Robb for having the guts to this, and full marks for all those who are participating in this discussion about how we deal with the incidence of these sorts of illnesses in Australia.
It's very important that this is brought in from the cold and regarded as any other medical condition which requires treatment, and be dealt with, because it afflicts so many Australians. I commend, therefore, Andrew Robb for his leadership on this, the strength of his decision to go out and do this, and I wish him well.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: I imagine that, one of the virtues of being here in New York this week and the G20 Summit is there are lots and lots of opportunities to speak with Heads of Government about other items which we are working on together around the world. Obviously Afghanistan is one of them. This is a difficult and hard war. Lots of Governments around the world, particularly in Europe, are coming under political pressure, including here in the United States as well.
It's important that we work practically our way through the challenges at present, the most immediate of course is dealing with the determinations which arise from the Afghan election process. But beyond that, to forge a continued, coherent political and military strategy to succeed in Afghanistan. We are here in New York- every time I come to this city I cannot do other than think of the twin towers and them coming down. It's eight years ago, it could be as if it was yesterday. The reason we are in Afghanistan is because terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. We are an ally of the United States. Those terrorists were in large part given training, sanction in Afghanistan. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become an open training field again for terrorists in the future.
JOURNALIST: PM, there's a story back in Australia about you dropping the f bomb?
PM: Well, I haven't seen that one, what am I supposed to have done?
JOURNALIST: Ask Glenn Milne.
PM: Liberal Party journalist of choice.
JOURNALIST: Apparently two weeks ago there was a meeting attended by David Feeney and a few others, when you dropped the f bomb, and it's various-
PM: Sorry, I'm a bit vague on this. I think it's fair to say that in the consistent tradition of the Australian Labor Party we're given to robust conversations. I made my point of view absolutely clear, and that is that these entitlements needed to be cut back, and I make no apology for either the content of my conversation, or the robustness with which I expressed my views.
Thank you very much.