PM: Welcome back to the ranch.
Let me say a few things. I'd like to officially take this opportunity to welcome President Obama's decision to travel to Australia. This is good news for Australia. It's good news for those who attach great importance to the Australia-US relationship. Of course, President Obama is not the first US President to visit Australia. But all of his predecessors, President Bush Jr., President Clinton, President Bush Sr., and way back before then- President Johnson- have been welcome guests in Australia. And that will be the case with President Obama as well.
So I'd say to our good friends in the United States that the President will be in welcome company here in Australia, it will be good to have him among us. As I said earlier today, this is the 70th anniversary this year of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the United States. Way back in 1940 when life was looking pretty grim around the world is when we opened our first mission in Washington. Things have come a long way since then- formalised in the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. But this is still, by far above, our most important foreign relationship. Not just in security terms, where our common interests across the Asia-Pacific region and more broadly around the world are practically as one, but beyond that, the continued fundamental importance of the United States to the global economy, global economic recovery.
For the United States, and for Australia, therefore, it's a good opportunity to reaffirm the fundamentals of our relationship. We will of course be going through the details of our security relationship and our economic relationship as well. So the President- and Michelle, who I understand is coming as well, and the kids, don't hold me to that, I understand that's the case- we look forward to making them all feel welcome in Australia.
The further details concerning the President's visit, we will release those as they are confirmed between ourselves and the White House. So don't hold me to every single element to what I've just said, particularly where it concerns the travel by the President's family.
One other thing I'd say is this- today the Government will be re-introducing its legislation for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We're doing so because, like Mr Howard, like Mr Costello, like Mr Turnbull, and like 35 other countries around the world, the Government concluded that this was the most effective and least costly way in which to deal with the challenge of climate change. The Government's views haven't changed on that. The reason that we have concluded that this is the best market-based way of handling the challenge of climate change is because it responds to the entire economy flexibly.
The bottom line's this: if Mr Howard had won the last election, guess what? We would have had an emissions trading scheme passed through this Parliament. Had Mr Costello become Prime Minister, you'd have an emissions trading scheme passed through this Parliament. If Mr Turnbull had become Prime Minister, you would've had an emissions trading scheme passed through this Parliament. That's my view as well, and we're not alone- 35 other countries around the world. In fact, it's difficult to find many other countries at all which would have the same approach as that which has been outlined so far by Mr Abbott. Over to you, folks.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, President Obama does not have an emissions trading scheme. Is that an area- climate change- that you'll be pushing the President for stronger action on when he visits?
PM: Well, I actually worked quite a lot with the President on these matters in the lead up to the meeting at the end of last year. Of course, as you know, there's a cap and trade scheme currently before the Congress, and the United States will be embracing a range of measures in dealing with its proposed target of greenhouse gas reductions. Each country will make its own decisions. What is the welcome change in the United States is that the President of the United States, head of the largest economy in the world, and now the second largest emitter in the world, has decided to be part of the outcome- not standing to one side. And if you actually wish to work towards a global outcome in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, America's got to be part and parcel of the deal. And since the President's election, that's been the case- Michelle.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) as is expected-
PM: What do you know that I don't know, Michelle?
JOURNALIST: Will you put it a second time to the Parliament?
PM: We will see how it progresses through the House of Representatives. I'm modestly confident that it'll probably make its way through the House of Representatives. It'll be interesting to see what happens in terms of others who may support it from the other side of politics.
In terms of the Senate, we'll be watching that very carefully. We haven't yet spoken to the Greens about possible handling there, or whether there's been any change of view on the part of the Independents.
So I think we should just take this one step at a time.
As I said, the reason we have backed an emissions trading scheme, and there's no particular rocket science in this, it's because if any other Government around the world amongst the advanced economies had seriously concluded that there was a cheaper, more effective way of doing this than through an emissions trading scheme, I'm sure they would've been on to it a long, long time ago. And that's why Mr Howard, Mr Costello, Mr Turnbull, and myself reached the same conclusion.
JOURNALIST: Yesterday the Greens put up an interim compromise of a two year fixed price. That will buy you some time to work on getting the emissions trading scheme through Parliament. Does that compromise, does that interim measure holding any attraction for you?
PM: Well, the discussions between Minister Wong and the Greens are ongoing.
We've always said we'll conduct good faith negotiations with all political parties represented in the Senate. We did that at the end of last year too, except they then decided to change the leader of the political party in question. But those discussions continue and we'll see what fruit comes from them.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in his State of the Union address, President Obama said that nuclear power will be part of the United States' solution to climate change. Why isn't it part of yours?
PM: Well, the United States has been running civil nuclear programs since year dot. Yeah, that's right, and they've been long-established in that country, they've been a long-established part of their total energy mix.
It hasn't been the case in Australia.
As I've said many times before, this is an energy-rich country. We have multiple sources of energy. The challenges for us are to make sure that we use those energy resources as effectively, as environmentally sensitively, and as cost effectively as possible. On the question of cost again, I'd just go back to part of the earlier discussion as well. Our approach, emissions trading, is for a system which is the most effective and least costly of all those on offer. And Mr Abbott to be credible on this question, not only must the approach he puts forward be effective environmentally, it must be costed and funded. I mean, this is a series of arrangements which affect the entire economy.
JOURNALIST: Do you think there's going to be a chance for Mr Abbott to meet President Obama, and do you think President Obama will get a better reception than President Bush did?
PM: Oh well, first of all, it would be entirely natural, normal and proper for the President of the United States to meet the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps there's a little bit of irony in this, not so much in the case of Mr Abbott, I can't remember what Mr Abbott said about Mr Obama in years past, I certainly remember what Mr Howard had to say about Mr Obama- I seem to recall Mr Howard saying that the election of Mr Obama as President of the United States was going to be a victory for a well-known organisation somewhere in the world. Well, time's moved on. The President is a respected friend of Australia, and I'm sure there'd be an opportunity, consistent with our practices and conventions here, for him to spend some time with the Leader of the Opposition.
As for how he is welcomed in this country, I'm confident that the Australian people will be their normal, gracious, welcoming selves to a visiting President from our most important and one of our oldest allies.
JOURNALIST: Do you know where he's going to yet? Do you know what cities he's going to? Coming to Canberra? Sydney?
PM: I don't have an answer to that one Malcolm, and the reason is, it's subject to continued discussion between ourselves and the White House.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: One at a time, and I'll get on to that one.
We'll obviously be attentive to some of the priorities which are put forward by the White House. Haven't been through that in detail yet, but I was having a chat down at Church this morning with the US Ambassador about a bit of this. But things will be sorted out in the days ahead. I think the usual avalanche of US advancers will arrive here with the thundering of hooves before long.
But to go back to the question just asked before from our good friends from the Herald, on the question of an address to the Parliament, that would certainly be a good thing. What I am not certain on yet is what city is he going to work in terms of the program. Certainly, if it works out that way I think that'd be great. Remember, President Bush addressed the Parliament, and prior to him, President Clinton. This is the way in which we respect the leaders of our great democracies, of which the United States is one. Dennis?
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, yesterday you warned your colleagues that it was possible you could lose the election this year. Will you be doing anything different in your efforts to try and make sure that doesn't happen?
PM: I think, Dennis, what I said was we should all be very mindful of what happens to first-term Governments, and that this will be a very, very tight election. It's always been my view.
Remember, the Government's majority is what, eight seats? Two or three percentage points? It doesn't take much to move that.
As I said this morning, I think on television, two or three people in a hundred change their votes, then Mr Abbott's the Prime Minister. That's the bottom line, that's the mathematics here.
So what I said to the colleagues, I think - either in the Caucus or the Ministry - was that, be very mindful of history. Be very mindful of how close the 1998 election was for Mr Howard. Be very, very mindful of how close the 1984 election was for Mr Hawke. Which means that have to be really on our game.
I think one of the things we also discussed yesterday is that the Government has been doing a lot.
We have done a lot on the economy, you're familiar with the umpteen debates we had last year on the stimulus strategy, and the elements of that, the controversy associated with that, the implementation of it, the controversy associated with the implementation of it- but in a whole bunch of other areas too, including education, including health, and including infrastructure. I think our challenge to go to the other part of your question Dennis, is to communicate more effectively that which we have done, to communicate our record of achievement more effectively than we have done. I think we all share some responsibility for that, including myself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, is there any possibility of a reshuffle before an election, and on the issue of climate change, do you have any concerns when you look at what happened in Copenhagen, when you look at opinion polls, that the political climate is changing on that subject?
PM: On the first part of your question, I have a pretty conservative view about governments serving their allotted time, as I've said on many previous occasions. That's our intention. Also, a pretty conservative approach of reshuffles for the sake of reshuffles. The team's very good, performing very well. The ministers are very competent, both in Cabinet and beyond the Cabinet and the parliamentary secretaries. They're a strong team and I have great confidence in them.
The other part of your question was, again?
JOURNALIST: Any concerns that the political climate in the opinion polls is shifting on climate change?
PM: Look, let's be very blunt about it - climate change is not easy. It's very hard. It's really hard, and there are lots of hard decisions to be made, and we're not Robinson Crusoe there. They are hard decisions in any country around the world.
These decisions lie at the very top of the decision-making pile of most governments around the world at the moment because they affect not just the future - they also affect the economy in the here and now as well.
So, you've got two approaches which you can adopt to that. One is to say 'all too hard' and play the fear game, or you can get on with the business of taking a decision in the national interest to make a difference on climate change, both here and abroad. That's our approach.
It's one of the easiest scripts in politics to always criticise and never to propose an alternative or never to propose a credible alternative. Again, as I said somewhere this morning, I'm starting to see a fair bit of a pattern of that with Mr Abbott - always out there to criticise, but I notice that whenever you good folk in the media say 'and what would you do and what your policy is', within about a nanobyte Mr Abbott's onto a further litany of evils on the part of this Government. But, anyway, that's his go.
Bonge, then you, Steve.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how do you answer the Greens' charges that your five percent target is as good as nothing, even worse than nothing?
PM: Well, if you look carefully at the statement that the Climate Change Minister issued the other day, we, together with the Opposition, maintain a spectrum of greenhouse gas reductions, from 5 through 15 to 25. Furthermore, if you look carefully at what Minister Wong had to say, in 2011 any adjustment will be made based entirely on the commitments of the rest of the world, our judgement about the enforceability of those commitments around the rest of the world and our judgement about how they are effectively globally monitored. The virtue of an emissions trading scheme is that you can adjust the scheme over time to meet targets. That's why it's one of the flexible, market-based systems.
It's for those reasons that we think it's not just a good mechanism, that is, the most effective and the least costly, it's also market-flexible into the future as well, and it directly goes to the question you raised about being able to incorporate broader targets in the future.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, there are a couple of thousand farmers gathering out the front to march today. Do you acknowledge their concerns about property rights, and do you think the Federal Government has some role to play in addressing those concerns?
PM: Well, I was talking to Burkie about this the other day, the Agriculture Minister, and I was scratching my head and he is scratching his head as to what have we done on climate change which affects the property rights of any farmer anywhere? Still scratching my head over that one.
It's a free country. Everyone can go and protest about whatever they like, whether they are people from various trade unions or farmers or both on the same day, but the concerns in relation to Mr Spencer go to an outstanding dispute with the New South Wales Government of some time ago under New South Wales statute. Now, that, I understand, has been taken through the courts. Everyone's got those rights - good. Everyone can rally in protest in support for those rights - that's good. But we see no connection between any action on our part on climate change and the operational freedom of farmers.
In fact, maybe you should ask that question in terms of any changes which occur or which are announced as a consequence of Mr Abbott's policy today.
JOURNALIST: On climate change, how will you achieve your five percent target if you cannot get your ETS through the parliament?
PM: Well, as I indicated, I think, in an interview yesterday, if our approach is rejected then obviously climate change is going to figure pretty prominently, together with health and hospital reform and the economy, in an election, whatever form that election may take. And so, that'll be, ultimately, then, for the people to decide. We accept that.
Remember, the end of the Kyoto commitment period is, I think, 2011. A new system has to start in 2012, so we have an intervening democratic opportunity to resolve these things.
Sorry, Steve, I answered you before.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just on the question of ETS, Abbott's been running a very robust scare campaign. Do you think that it is (inaudible) in the Government's fall in popularity, particularly with today's Newspoll?
PM: I think, on climate change, it's hard, and with Mr Abbott, on everything he criticises and on practically nothing does he propose anything practical, and that's why I'm pretty sceptical about what is in the reports so far at least, that a proposal is about to be put forward today which may have a costing attached to it but nothing in terms of how it might be funded.
Climate change is more complex than a magic pudding solution.
You can't just go out there and say 'hey, look, I'm Tony Abbott. I've just invented a solution to climate change, and guess what? It involves no cost to anybody.' That's a magic pudding approach.
Together with Mr Howard, Mr Costello and Mr Turnbull and 35 other governments around the world, we've been through this - up, down, sideways, through, in, out, through the wringer a hundred times, and guess what? The conclusion on all of us, all our parts, is there is no easy, cost-free solution to this. Therefore, if a proposal gets put out today and says 'here's the magical fix' with a bunch of regulations on this, that and the other - there's a cost attached, and the cost is either delivered through taxes or through increased prices or both. So let's just have a bit of reality in the debate.
But to go to the other part of your question, my job as Prime Minister is to take decisions in the national interest, and many of those will not be popular. I accept that, but on this question it's pretty important to get it right for the long term.
JOURNALIST: Have you given any further thought whether you want a population of 36 million, and as Prime Minister, shouldn't you actually have an opinion about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, particularly if you want to cut carbon emissions? Do you think that you would take a population policy to the next election?
PM: I think it's good and healthy we're actually having a discussion about population. That's what the IGR is out there for. That's why Mr Costello released two previous reports, as well.
What we've done, or what the Treasury have done, I should say, in terms of that report, is just honestly project ahead, based on historical migration growth patterns and the fertility rate, where it all goes to, in terms of the overall number of our population and the aging of our population. So, that informs the debate.
What I've sought to do in the lead up to Australia Day is simply say 'what are the real policy implications for all of us here today and for the decades ahead, kids and grandkids arising from population growth, but in particular the aging population', and as I've said in a number of the statements recently, they're pretty clear cut.
We've got to compensate for the aging of the population by making our economy more productive and by boosting participation in the workforce. Those were the implications, pretty clear cut, coming out of the first Intergenerational Report and the second Intergenerational Report. We didn't see a lot done about those.
What I've sought to do is say that's implication number one, because you've got to boost economic growth in order to get more revenue growth, for then dealing with the second big implication - having enough tax revenues to then invest in the health, aged care and hospital services that all Australians, but in particular senior Australians, are going to need in the future.
These are the two big debates: how do you boost productivity and how do you therefore develop the health and hospital system for the future that you need, and we're into these big debates, up to our armpits, to be quite honest.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) think about what population-
PM: -You know, you can have a debate about that number or that number. We're just being realistic about what the projections are and what you therefore must do about it, and that's what's been missing in the national debate up until now. National policy action is absolutely critical, absolutely critical on this question, and all I've done is look at the data and said that's where it's going, that's what's happening with aging, that's what's happening with overall population growth. How do we work within that framework?'
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you've talked about the need to explain the things that you are doing this year. Can you explain in simple terms what an emissions trading system is to the Australian people and what affect it will have in their daily lives?
PM: Sure.
An emissions trading scheme does three basic things. It puts a cap on carbon pollution. The second thing it does is that it charges Australia's biggest polluters for their pollution. And thirdly it uses that money to provide compensation to working families for the 1.1 percent increase in their cost of living which comes from that, which also gives them the opportunity to invest in energy-efficient appliances to make a difference to those costs in the future.
That's what we're on about.
What's the alternative? The alternative is, Mr Abbott's proposal is not to put a cap on carbon pollution, not to put a charge on Australia's biggest polluters - let them get off scot-free - not to provide a dollar's worth of compensation to working families, and somehow the magic pudding then kicks in and you still get five percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I would suggest to you that's the alternative.
Thanks very much, folks. Better run.