Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I guess if you were the minister for the Pacific and you didn't actually go to the Pacific, that's probably the sort of point of order you would take. The other point of order you would take if you asked a question like that is one of relevance. The opposition appears unaware that in fact, as part of these negotiations and discussions, Australia argued successfully that the donor base should be reviewed so that those countries that weren't rich in 1992 but have now become developed and are now wealthy should contribute—not receive but should contribute to the fund. That might have passed you by. That's exactly what we are doing. We were joined by the United States, the European Union, Canada and New Zealand. I understand that the difference between donor and recipient might be a bit confusing to those opposite, but that is exactly what we argued, and that was exactly reflected by the text, which indicates a multiplicity of donors and a revision of the donor base.

So if the opposition is going to go down this cheap and nasty road, they want to at least get their facts right. Previous prime ministers have understood that engagement on these issues is important. John Howard knew that. In the aftermath of the tsunami he knew that contributing to Indonesia's recovery was good for Indonesia, good for our region and good for Australia. But John Howard was a leader. He was a leader who understood our national interest. The current Leader of the Opposition does not understand the national interest; he just understands cheap and pathetic politics.

See this speech in context