Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the motion moved by the member for Fairfax. Australia has an unedifying track record when it comes to international climate conferences. In the 1990s we opposed the Kyoto protocols. In the 2000s, having finally signed up to Kyoto, we withdrew. Last year we took an unambitious target to Glasgow and the then energy minister stated he wanted to use the conference to promote Australia as a safe and reliable destination for an investment in gas—in gas, a fossil fuel, at a climate conference.

Given this history it was great to see Australia back at the table at COP27. We saw several success stories from the conference. The Paris Agreement goal to hold temperature rises to 1.5 degrees was reaffirmed. Australia signed up to global compacts on limiting deforestation and accelerating climate finance. But, most importantly, the international community agreed to establish a loss-and-damage fund, which will go some way towards covering the cost facing countries most vulnerable to climate change, and these costs are enormous.

Over the last two decades, the 20 most at-risk countries have lost over half their economic growth potential due to climate change, equivalent to $525 billion. But these losses are not just about money; they are about people. They are felt by the 7.2 million people across Bangladesh who have had their communities washed away by flash flooding. They are felt by the 22 million people across Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia who do not have enough food because of the worst drought in 40 years and they are felt by the five million people who die each year across the world because of extreme temperatures. And those countries most vulnerable to climate impacts include our friends and neighbours in the Pacific. Indeed, the risk to the Pacific of rising sea levels is so extreme that Tuvalu recently announced it would upload a digital replica of the entire country to the Metaverse in the hope of preserving their nation and culture after their lands are washed away—how heartbreaking. The idea that we should not support these countries is out of step with our commitment to being a good neighbour in the Pacific and is out of step with being a responsible global citizen.

The loss-and-damage fund is supported by the European Union and it is supported by the United States, and our Pacific neighbours have been calling for it for more than 30 years. We are at the early stages of developing the fund, but the COP27 text makes it clear that it will help focus on developing countries who are most vulnerable. It makes clear that the donor base will be expanded to include countries that have developed rapidly over the past 30 years, and that the funds will also come from multilateral institutions and global financial institutions.

I commend the government for committing to participating in this fund and I reject the assertions made to really obscure the purpose of this fund, but I urge the government to go further. More ambition is needed if Australia is going to host COP31 in 2026 and, frankly, and more importantly, more ambition is needed if you're going to keep 1.5 degrees warming alive. That must start by ending public subsidies for fossil fuels.

My community in Wentworth was deeply disappointed to see Australia fail to sign a pledge to end public support for fossil fuels. The government must be resolute in its desire for this transition and a failure to sign a pledge that says, 'We won't spend money on fossil fuels,' flies in the face of what the government says it is committed to publicly. Fossil fuel subsidies are not good for our planet and they are not good use of taxpayers' money. The government must do better. And we must raise the bar on emissions reduction. The science is clear: 43 per cent is not enough, and so I urge the government to adopt, at minimum, a 50 per cent target by 2030—a position backed by business and the community. It's great that Australia is back on the international scene, but there is much more for us to do. Thank you.

See this speech in context