PM: It's great to be here on this occasion of launching this extraordinary new addition to Australia's renewable energy technology.
Right now, as I said in my remarks before, Australia is engaged in action at home and action abroad.
In a further video conference link last night with the Prime Minister of Denmark and others, we are working towards, as hard as we can, a Copenhagen agreement, and it is encouraging what we have heard out of Beijing in the last 24 hours from President Obama and President Hu Jintao.
This will be a Copenhagen agreement built brick by brick. It's going to be very hard, very difficult, but our ambition must still be to realise a strong Copenhagen agreement on climate change.
Global action and local action is what will make the difference. Talking about local action, what we need to see, of course, is the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through the Senate. We are engaged in good faith negotiations with the Liberals. They've been going on for some time now and we are confident we can reach an agreement with the Liberals.
However, there have been some disturbing signs. The fact that we had a delay to the commencement of debate in the Senate, the fact that extended hours were not provided to the Senate for supporting a debate last evening, and there are only six sitting days remaining. Still, that is sufficient time for all Senators to have their say, and I'm advised today that the debate has begun in the Australian Senate.
We need to make sure, however, that good faith negotiations are translated into good faith action on climate change, and I would ask today Mr Turnbull and Mr McFarlane to come out and rule out the possibility of further delaying tactics on a vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.
Good faith talk is one thing. Good faith action is another. On climate change we need both, and we need it now. Therefore, these are very important days for Australia, they are very important days for the future of industries like this, and globally they are a very important three weeks remaining until Copenhagen.
I'll ask Premier Nathan Rees to add to my remarks, and then happy to take your questions.
PREMIER REES: Thank you, Prime Minister, and look, can I just support, 100 per cent, the remarks that the Prime Minister has just made. Prevarication by Malcolm Turnbull and others over what they do with CPRS means that investments like this, that are fundamental to the sustainable energy future of Australia and our energy landscape, will remain under a cloud.
Investors need certainty to make these investments. These wind farms; this is the single biggest shot in the arm for the renewable sector in New South Wales history, and it simply won't happen on the same scale whilst there's a question mark over what the Liberals might do with CPRS. That's why this is important.
The Prime Minister's talked about the green jobs that are attached to this. We've spoken with some of the apprentices which have specialised green skills. That is also the way of the future, the workforce of Australia's future in which sustainability is embedded into the electrician apprenticeships, into the plumbing apprenticeships and so on. That's why these investments are important - not just the energy content and the energy output, but the development of those green skills for Australia's future.
All of these investments need to have 'go' pressed on them. All of these investments need to be backed solidly by governments that provide the clear direction on these issues.
The Prime Minister and Minister Wong have been providing that leadership for an extended period now, and the other side need to get onboard with that.
The cost of getting this wrong is too great.
We have to act, and we have to act now, and I applaud Infigen for their investment on this site, but also the Commonwealth's clear and decisive action on this matter of global significance.
PM: OK, folks. Over to you.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, what do you say to the residents that object to this wind farm - the noise, the impact on landscape, the impact on the birds?
PM: I understand that there will always be community concerns at the local of any venture, any business venture, and particularly one which is associated with the energy sector, and that's why it's important that projects like this go through all the relevant local approvals, and they've done so. It's also why we at the national level are developing national guidelines for the location of wind farms around the country - to get the balance right.
Everyone supports the need to preserve at maximum local environmental amenity, but at the same time we've got to rise to the challenge of how do we deal with the renewable energy future as well, and all the renewable energy options have an environmental impact, whether it's a solar plant, whether it's a wind farm such as this, or whether it's some of the new and innovative technologies I've seen in wind and wave, in wave and tidal, I should say. But we've got to get the balance right, and I believe the project proponents here have got the balance right.
JOURNALIST: Is it a concern to you that the price of renewable energy certificates has collapsed to $28 and there are no new major renewable energy infrastructure projects in the pipeline right now?
PM: Well, my advice is that there are quite a number of renewable energy projects which are in the pipeline. I referred before to the extra megawattage which is currently being planned when it comes to wind power alone across Australia, some 538 megawatts. Obviously, if you've just introduced renewable energy target legislation and we're moving into a new regime, there are always going to be teething problems as the new regime gets underway. That's natural.
What's the alternative?
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: Hang on, hang on. The RET, after 12 years of inaction by the previous government, has only just been introduced. We are embracing a whole generational change, out to 2020, so to ask a question about success or failure after a two to three month point, I think that's going a little far. Can I say that there is a long way to go.
What were we required to do? Give business certainty so they know the operating environment within which they'll be operating out to 2020.
Furthermore, on top of that, we must provide certainty also in terms of the definition of a carbon price in the market. These are the two arms of certainty. What's going to get a price of carbon? That's why you need a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; that's why people have cap-and-trade schemes evolving all around the world. On the other hand, what specific incentives are you going to provide to the renewable energy sector?
Two arms of our approach - we've got one bedded down, and it's being implemented now after 12 years of inertia, and on the other hand we've got another piece which is currently before the Australian Senate, and the debate starts today.
Sorry, mate - here.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your expectation after (inaudible) last night about what will come out of Copenhagen? Will there be a binding global agreement or a statement (inaudible)
PM: The language that we are discussing with the Danish Prime Minister is along these lines: that we will have a Copenhagen agreement which will be an operational framework agreement on climate change.
I looked carefully at what President Obama said at our roundtable conference in Singapore only three mornings ago, and also at the language that came out of Beijing late last night. The President of the United States, on both occasions, has spoken of an agreement with immediate operational effect. That is different from a statement of political principles. So let's get very clear here about what we're talking about.
We want to ensure that we get a Copenhagen agreement which is an operational framework agreement on climate change which goes to specifics on targets, on commitments, on the scientific threshold 2 degrees Celsius, on climate change finance, and on the question of technology transfer.
Then there's the question of the translation of such an agreement, such a framework agreement, into a legally binding treaty, which is a highly dense and technical exercise.
I think there is a danger that some assume that first exercise we are talking about, this Copenhagen agreement, should somehow drift off into a statement of anodyne political principles.
Let me tell you the direction in which we are pushing hard, which the Danes are pushing hard, and which I believe the Americans are pushing hard, is for a operational framework agreement capable of giving real guidance to technical negotiators to translate into a legally binding global treaty.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Let us be very clear about this, that when the Danish Prime Minister talks about one agreement, two steps, that's precisely what he means. He means that we should move toward a Copenhagen agreement in Copenhagen in a few weeks time, which a lot of us are burning the midnight oil on at the moment. Which goes to, what's the science target here? Two degrees Celsius. What targets in terms of emissions reductions can developed countries commit to? What actions can developing countries can also commit to? What climate change finance is therefore necessary to underpin such a set of arrangements, and what technology transfer globally is possible as well.
If you can, at Copenhagen, get a Copenhagen agreement which gets some sort of landing point on those key elements, then you are capable of providing the guidance for the next step, which is a very complex, legal drafting process to produce a legally binding global agreement. One agreement, two steps- that's precisely what the Prime Minister of Denmark is on about, and I think it's important that the international community understands with absolute clarity that is the direction in which we, as leaders of those countries which are seeking action on climate change, are seeking to drive this process now.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what do you make of Nick Xenophon's comments that there should be an investigation into the Church of Scientology?
PM: I've seen something of what Senator Xenophon has said, this morning. These are grave allegations which he is making. Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology. I share some of those concerns. But let us proceed carefully, and look carefully at the material which he has provided, before we make a decision on further Parliamentary action. And we intend to provide appropriate examination of the material which he has put forward.
JOURNALIST: Do you think there should be an overhaul of the tax concessions that are given to charities and churches?
PM: This matter concerning the tax exempt status of the Church of Scientology, I'm advised, was dealt with by the High Court of Australia back in the eighties, I'm so advised, I stand to be corrected. Therefore, the true question I suppose is, the actual nature of the operations of Scientology now, against the determinations provided in law at that stage. But I don't rush into any judgement on this, other than to say he's raised concerns, he's made some serious allegations, let's examine them, and then we'll decide what, if further, Parliamentary action is necessary.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your message (inaudible) New South Wales Labor Party (inaudible)
PM: Well as I said from Singapore the other day, I strongly support Nathan's gutsy call to pull it on, and to say the rules are changing. And he did. And that is a necessary set of changes to the rules, whereby the Premier or the Prime Minister of the day decides who should be in the Ministry or the Cabinet. It's a necessary reform nationally, which we undertook at the beginning of last year, and it's a necessary reform in New South Wales as well. So that was an absolute right call, and required strong, decisive action.
Secondly, I think it's important for everyone to give this bloke a go. And that includes anyone who may be a little upset by some of the decisions taken. It's supposed to be a team effort. There are big challenges in New South Wales. He's giving a darn good go, and his colleagues, and all those in the Parliamentary party and beyond, should get behind him.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rees, are you planning on dumping anyone else from your front bench?
REES: No. We have a very solid team in place now- John Hatzistergos as Attorney-General, an encyclopaedic knowledge of statute in New South Wales, and a key reformer; Carmel Tebbutt, extraordinarily experienced and at the helm of the biggest agency, which is Health; Verity Firth, groundbreaking firms with regard to the school leaving age, for example; Ian Macdonald- sorry, Freudian slip- John Roberston, as Environment Minister, about to save the river red gum, but also has recently introduced a growth spurt in solar tariffs; so they're the sorts of reforms that we're getting on with, and that also includes of course a complete overhaul of donations law in New South Wales which we foreshadowed at the weekend.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Joe Tripodi to undermine your leadership in the background?
REES: Look, that's a matter you can address to him. I'm not going to speculate on that, I simply focus on getting the job done. I made my decision at the weekend. Everyone I've spoken to in my caucus and in my Cabinet supports that decision 100 per cent and it's time for us to get on with the job.
JOURNALIST: Has Joe Tripodi given you his undertaking that he supports you?
REES: He's said it publicly.
JOURNALIST: Premier, are you concerned there could be a series of by-elections with all these sacked Ministers?
REES: No.
JOURNALIST: Surely, surely you are concerned?
REES: I've just said no.
JOURNALIST: About by-elections, there could be a big swing against Labor.
PM: Give it another go.
REES: I've just said no.
PM: Roll your arm over one more time.
JOURNALIST: I have two questions for you, sir. Before the Copenhagen summit is going to happen, what about global measures taken for the developing countries?
PM: This is a very good question, and I discussed these recently in Delhi with Prime Minister Singh of India, and also most recently with representatives of other developing countries at the APEC Summit in Singapore.
Clearly, what is needed is for an effective Copenhagen agreement is an agreement which also deals with effective technology transfer to developing countries. Secondly, what we must also concern ourselves with is adaptation of the most vulnerable small island countries around the world. In the Indian Ocean, look at countries like the Maldives, in the Pacific Ocean, look at countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati, and elsewhere, where low-lying countries face huge challenges in terms of coastal inundation. So therefore, specific action to assist small island countries is part and parcel of our deliberations, as well as more broadly, effective technology transfer when it comes to climate change and mitigation.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
WONG: Well I think you've asked me this before Chris, and I think I've indicated that we anticipate that to be around 2012. But, this will only happen, we will only have Australia's emissions start to fall if we pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in this fortnight of Parliament.
Let's be clear, without legislation in place that for the first time sets a limit on how much carbon pollution Australia produces and puts into the atmosphere, what we will continue to see is continued growth over the years in Australia's contribution to climate change, that's what we have to turn around.
PM: Let me just add as I go- we've actually got to get back to Canberra- just on what Penny's just said and in response to what I think is a very valid question about when we actually start to come down.
These are big days for the nation. They are big days for the world. I mean, sometimes, you've heard the word climate change bandied around for years and years and years, we're actually going to some crunch times. Crunch time for the nation is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We've got to set a price on carbon. If we're able to achieve a draw-down over time of our increase in carbon emissions. It's crunch time for the world as well. That's why Copenhagen's important. And you know something, as I deal with all my colleagues around the world, each of them faces huge domestic political pressures on this. No one's Robinson Crusoe. Therefore, what's required is a bit of political courage for everyone collectively to step up to the plate, put behind the familiar, put behind the fears and concerns of the past, embrace instead the opportunities of the future, dealing with climate change, and understanding it also creates a whole new employment and industry future for the countries.
We're at one of those crossover points in the world, one of those crossover points in Australia. Let's rise to the challenge, rather than simply succumb, here at home, and abroad, to the politics of fear.
Thank you