Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

notes that:

the Government has committed Australia to the United Nations' 'loss and damage' fund without providing any details on what it will cost Australians or how it will be implemented;

the Government has signed an international agreement which could cost Australians tens of billions of dollars without outlining any plan as to what is expected of Australia;

the 'loss and damage' fund is reported to cost upwards of US $2 trillion globally per year by 2030;

China, the world's second largest economy and the world's biggest carbon emitter has not been ruled out as a potential recipient of compensation funding due to its status as a developing nation;

this scheme will penalise Australia for being blessed with an abundance of energy resources—resources that have been used to lift hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty;

the Prime Minister was quick to rule out support for Australian families struggling with cost-of-living pressures in the budget but has effectively signed a blank cheque (which could be worth tens of billions of dollars) for an international compensation scheme with no detail, and for which no economic modelling has been undertaken;

Australia has a long history of supporting its regional partners, especially those in the Pacific, and at COP26 the former Government doubled its climate finance commitment to $2 billion over 2020-25, with at least $700 million for Pacific climate and disaster finance; and

instead of finding a solution to skyrocketing domestic power prices, that are threatening up to 800,000 manufacturing jobs, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has focused the Government's attention on committing the country to international pledges for which there is no detail; and

calls on the Government to explain what the 'loss and damage' fund will cost Australian taxpayers.

On entering this parliament, my background was of well over 20 years in business, much of that spent negotiating international deals, particularly throughout the Asia-Pacific. I think I was 21 when I first led an international joint venture negotiation based up in Asia. Throughout all of those years of doing negotiations, I never once had the opportunity, the fun, of facing across the table somebody as incompetent and suffering from eternal cluelessness as this government's Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I sat across the table from many a wily negotiator, but never did I have the pleasure of facing somebody as hopeless as this minister. This is the minister who represented Australia and negotiated on our behalf at COP27 in Egypt. You can just imagine the shrewd operators who were leading negotiations from other countries and how excited they would have been when they saw this minister coming—a minister all excited, jumping in front of every camera he could, claiming Australia was back and we had money to give away. And that was precisely a mission that he lived up to at that conference.

I also don't know who's cunning plan it was—which country—to convince the United Nations to tap this minister on the shoulder to facilitate negotiations about a loss-and-damage fund. But it was a clever move and a move that worked, because, again, they knew that this minister would jump at the opportunity and give away everything he could—and indeed that's what he did. True to form, he negotiated on Australia's behalf a loss-and-damage scheme which is effectively a compensation scheme, a scheme into which Australia, as well as other developed nations, will pour money, and it will be drawn down upon by developing nations. But, as the great negotiator—as, indeed, the architect of the loss-and-damage scheme—this Labor minister cannot tell us what's in it. This government cannot tell us the cost of the loss-and-damage fund. Reports suggest it will cost up to US$2 trillion annually up to 2030, yet this minister cannot tell us how much it' quick save turn sleep s going to cost. What's more, he cannot tell the Australian people how much Australia will be contributing to that fund. Of course, it was the same conference where the minister happily signed Australia up to the global methane pledge. Again, no work was done—no homework—in understanding what this will cost and what the demands will be on Australian industry, especially farmers with livestock. This is the ongoing business model of this new government, and it causes great concern to Australian industry and households.

Right now, Australia is amidst an energy crisis. We all know that for the last six months industry has been on its knees because of skyrocketing prices. Families are heading into Christmas deeply concerned about what to do about power bills. As an opposition, we've been calling on the government for six months. This same minister—who is very happy to go overseas on an act of blank-cheque diplomacy and sign Australia up to deals overseas for which he's done no homework and cannot answer any questions—has ignored the plight of Australian industry and Australian households. Still to this day, the government have no plan to address these problems. They've been saying for six months that a plan is being baked up; a plan will come forward. Meanwhile Australian households suffer and they pay, and they are bound to be paying billions of dollars through this loss-and-damage fund.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

JOSH WILSON () (): Wow! At the end of a long year, in the last week of parliament, this motion really is something. It's a waste of time, because it's fundamentally hollow and, frankly, it is silly in the extreme. It is utterly without substance. The basic assertions and assumptions are wrong. The whole thing depends on cooked-up fearmongering and false claims. I genuinely wonder whether the member for Fairfax really believes some of the rhubarb he is trying to peddle here today. In essence, this motion and the embarrassing questions advanced in question time by coalition members last week are designed to whip up some kind of political advantage from misunderstanding and disingenuousness and xenophobia. That is all there is to it, and I reckon that Australians are thoroughly sick of that at the end of what's been quite a long year. I reckon Australians have had a gutful of that kind of dishonest and lazy political game playing.

The essential falsehood in this motion is that the Australian government has signed some kind of blank cheque, and that is wrong. That is a falsehood. That's what the motion says, and it's a lie. It's a lie. The motion says that the Australian government has already made a pledge of a funding scheme, and that is a lie. That is not true. The member said that this is a compensation fund. It is expressly not a compensation fund. That is a lie. This motion demands answers to questions that don't exist. How much has been pledged? No pledges have been made by Australia or by any other country. It is expressly not a compensation fund. But all of this is designed to create a cloud of bulldust that might trigger people into believing that sensible international cooperation in the global effort against climate change is actually a secret plot that seeks to penalise Australia. Sadly, all of this is born of a coalition that was hopeless and desperate in its dying days of government and yet, apparently, remains hopeless and desperate to this very day.

The truth is that the Australian government, along with many of our best and most sensible allies—the US, the UK and the EU—have agreed to a framework for ensuring that developed countries can help provide support to developing countries in dealing with the impact of climate change. That's what this fund is about. It's no different from the way Australia supports climate related measures in our region. It's no different, in essence, from the Green Climate Fund that the coalition government signed up to in 2016. It's the kind of assistance that reflects our character and promotes our national interest, especially with respect to the support we provide for nations that comprise our Pacific friends and neighbours. It's the kind of assistance that you should absolutely provide, even if you're taking the most selfish perspective possible, because it will help ensure resilience and stability and peace and trade and economic self-sufficiency in our region, all of which is to Australia's benefit.

This morning I attended a gathering as part of the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Summit. Needless to say, the issue of responding co-operatively to the impacts of climate change and the concept of climate justice was mentioned by everyone who spoke. Minister Conroy's statement that the Australian government will provide an additional $900 million to the Pacific, over four years, in development assistance with a focus on climate change was welcomed by all. Shadow minister McCormack said that he agreed with and endorsed every part of that approach.

In stark contrast to that bipartisan common sense, this motion peddles the idea that supporting climate action in the Pacific somehow penalises Australia. What's almost funny, in amongst all the falsehoods, bad faith and climate denialist dog whistling of this motion, is the suggestion that the coalition is somehow interested in carefully managed budgets and carefully applied taxpayers money. Give me a break. These are the jokers who burned billions of dollars in their awful mismanagement of the French submarine project. These are the jokers who wasted more than $19 billion in JobKeeper payments to companies whose profits rose during the pandemic; $2.6 billion went to companies whose turnover more than doubled in the relevant period. If the particular flavour of your funding waste outrage was in relation to money sent overseas, don't forget that some of the largest recipients of those wasted JobKeeper billions were foreign companies with foreign shareholders who pocketed the lazy, incompetent largess gifted by those opposite. You talk about shrewd operators. You talk about money to give away and cunning plans. Bloody have a good look at yourselves, for God's sake.

While the motion seeks to whip up anger out of misunderstanding and xenophobia and small mindedness, the reality is that after a decade of climate denialism and the clownish ineptitude of those opposite, the Albanese Labor government is returning Australia to its historical position and its historical character and values as a cooperative, supportive, influential middle power. That's who we are and, without question, that is in our national interest.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Fairfax's motion. Despite ruling out support for Australian households and businesses struggling with skyrocketing power prices, as forecast in the federal budget, Minister Bowen has happily handed over a blank cheque to other nations through a compensation scheme for which there is no detail. Mr Bowen continues to pat himself on the back for being the architect of the loss-and-damage fund but can't explain how much it'll cost, who will pay, or when it will pay.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A report, supported by the United Nations, suggested that this will cost upwards of US$1 trillion.

Honourable members interjecting—

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the member for Flynn please stop. I would ask members present to direct their comments through the chair, and please note that two members who are currently interjecting were heard. I made sure that I called out any misbehaviour. Let's all hear each other in silence. The member for Flynn may continue.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Australia produces 1.6 per cent of global carbon emissions, then presumably Australia's contribution to the loss-and-damage fund will be upwards of $16 billion per annum. This is economic insanity. It's communism 101. It is distributing wealth from this country to give to another: countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina, Iran and even China, as well as Columbia, who claims an absurd $800 billion a year for loss and damage—a claim roughly 2.5 times its GDP.

The loss-and-damage fund is all based upon an unproven theoretical hypothesis which relies on computer modelling that has no correlation to real world data. How can these climate change policies change the climate when global carbon emissions continually rise? Why do you pretend that our weather patterns have become more threatening when historical records do not reflect this?

Pagan tribes sacrificed virgins to appease the gods and the Labor Albanese government, led by Chris Bowen, will sacrifice Australia's affluence, countless jobs and reliable power to appease the angry climate zealots. This is the pinnacle of economic madness. Minister Bowen has led a charge, committing Australia to an unknown future expense with little regard for the Australian people and the services they rely on.

While they're happy to distribute the wealth of Australia, according to the Australian Medical Association budget papers have revealed $2.4 billion is being cut from public hospitals over the next four years. What this government are saying is they're happy to pluck $2.4 billion out of our hospitals and give it a nations such as China, the world's second-largest economy and the single-largest carbon emitter. They're happy to take money away from hardworking Australians that are hurting every time they go to the supermarkets, pay their electricity bills or fuel up their cars. This is a disgrace and it's an absolute example of hypocrisy and pious virtue signalling.

In the October budget, the Labor government committed $45.8 million over six years for international engagement on climate change issues, including the bid to host a Conference of the Parties in partnership with Pacific islands. There are Pacific nations who are supporting China. Their reason? Australia is not doing enough to support climate change. This while China is the biggest carbon emitter and is not signatory to any of these climate policies. The hypocrisy is staggering, and you can't make this stuff up. Are the entire Labor Party morons? I want to see what madness will come out of their mouths to justify this lunacy. It seems Minister Bowen is willing to concede tens of billions of dollars through the loss-and-damages facility to win critical support for his campaign to host a COP meeting in Australia. If this is the case, how about he hosts the COP meeting at Gladstone, in my electorate of Flynn, and he can explain to the people and the families there how he intends to shut down their industries, take their hard-earned dollars and give them to another country.

The government can't continue signing Australia up to international fund pledges where there is no detail and it has no mandate and which there is no plan to deliver. The coalition didn't sign up a methane pledge. Signing this pledge goes against getting the agriculture sector to grow to $100 billion by 2030. Mr Bowen told the Australian livestock sector that the pledge carries little meaning but told the rest of the world how meaningful that pledge is—a prime example of saying one thing overseas and another in regional Australia. This is after Labor promised the Australian people that they would not introduce a carbon or methane tax. At a time when families are struggling with the cost of energy and mortgage repayments, this tax on the grazing industry will only push up the price of food.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Bruce, I'd like to remind everybody present in the chamber that the member who is on their feet has the right to be heard in silence, and loud interjections from other members do no good to the debate.

The DE PUTY SPEAKER: Order, Member for Fremantle. I would ask that people respect this chamber and respect the member on their feet.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was just bonkers. It's difficult to know where to start. I'll quote the member from the opposition who just spoke. Ancient societies 'sacrificed virgins', which apparently is the equivalent of acting on climate change. 'Why do you pretend that our weather patterns are becoming more threatening?' I don't know; because they have? Because since the 1980s we've seen an 80 per cent increase in destructive climate-related weather events? I don't know—science? Bye-bye, cooker; see you later. That was like standing on the Mulgrave polling booth in the Victorian election on Saturday. That was just completely bonkers. I'm going to video-clip that bloke and advertise him every day into Victoria and we might win even more seats.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bruce—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think he noticed what happened to Josh Frydenberg and Katie Allen—the teals and the whole climate emergency. Who knows!

This is a nasty, bizarre little motion. It's like a series of Sky News talking points and conspiracy theories vomited onto the parliamentary Notice Paper. As the previous speaker, the member for Fremantle, said, it's a 'cloud of bulldust'. It's wrong, it's false, it's nonsensical and it's misinformation.

But let's cut the rubbish. Let's call out in plain English what they're actually trying to say with all their fancy words that they're bandying about. They're trying to say: 'The government are a bunch of woke sell-outs because they believe in climate change, and they just signed a sneaky globalist agreement to give trillions of dollars to China and a bunch of other poor countries where coloured people live. Please be very angry, because the government didn't splash cash in the budget, like we did, and push up interest rates.' That's what it boils down to. It's complete nonsense. All that's missing are chemtrails, antivax mandates, gender theory and globalism. Go and talk to your Liberal Party mates in Victoria and see how well that went on the weekend. What I heard then is exactly the kind of nonsense that the Victorian Liberal Party, who just got smashed, are on about.

Some have, perhaps unkindly, compared the member for Fairfax to Mr Sheen—an unfortunate resemblance. Mr Sheen, as the saying goes, cleans, shines and protects. The member for Fairfax smears, sullies and discredits with this motion. The good thing is, though, it's so broad that I can make a few points in response. Member for Fairfax, science is real, climate change is real, and we need to actually do something about that. Australia can't fix the problem alone, because we share the climate with other humans in other countries. We need to work together with other countries. That's why we go to COP27, to talk about what we can do together.

The loss-and-damage fund is about developed countries helping developing countries. It's not about reparations and compensation. Even if you don't care about the increase in natural disasters; even if you don't care, member for Fairfax, that more than 90 per cent of deaths—that's right, other human beings dying; I don't think that registers the empathy bypass over there—all happen in developing countries; even if you don't care about the fate that awaits the poorest on the planet for their societies and economies from runaway climate change, it's in Australia's national interest to collaborate. We're the developed country most exposed in the world to climate change. Australians will bear the brunt of runaway bushfires, out-of-control floods, desertification and salinity creeping across our continent.

It's Australia, though, that has the most to gain of any developed country in a zero-carbon world. We have the best resources. We can bring back manufacturing onshore, member for Fairfax, in this zero-carbon world, and it's critical for a stable region. Let's be blunt: it's cheaper and better to provide aid and assistance to other countries to manage their transition than it is to commit military bases and combat failed states on our doorstep. Do you want to talk about security? That's a security threat. So, instead of carping and spreading your conspiracy theories via the national parliament, I would encourage the opposition to take this seriously, unlike the Victorian liberals.

An agreement is not a contract to pay money. Any funding into the loss-and-damage fund will be a matter for future negotiations between parties, as you've been told. And your scare campaign about Labor giving money to China, as you well know, is nonsense. You're relying on a list from 1992 of countries that were then considered developing countries. As you well know, because you've been told, no money is going into that fund until there's a new list of developing countries. If you think that this country is going to give money to China, you're as bonkers as your colleague who spoke before you and, no doubt, those who are going to come after you. You can see them sitting in tactics: 'I know, we'll whip up a scare campaign with the Chinese community.' Just pathetic! You are the lowest form of grub I've seen—

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member's time has expired.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a grub.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will address the member in the correct form and withdraw that comment.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, Deputy Speaker, the member over there is a grub.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Withdraw that comment, please.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Grub' is a well-known parliamentary term.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw the comment, please.

I'm not withdrawing.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be noted.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Grub' is well-established in practice as a suitable epithet to that type of member.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will remain in his seat.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, at COP27, we saw the Albanese Labor government's blank cheque to diplomacy in full swing. Unfortunately, the same generosity that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are showing to countries overseas, they are not showing to Australian citizens. While his government has ruled out support for Australian families and businesses struggling with skyrocketing power prices, as forecast in the federal budget, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy have happily handed over a blank cheque to other nations through a compensation scheme for which there is no detail.

With nations such as China, the world's second-largest economy and single-largest carbon emitter, angling to be a recipient of such funding, it's no wonder many are scared and unsure of what this means for their hip pocket. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy continues to be proud of himself for being the architect of the loss-and-damage fund but can't explain how much it will cost or who will pay and when. All we know is that this is set to cost upwards of US$2 trillion by 2030 and could cost tens of billions of dollars for Australia.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy also signed Australia up to 30 per cent reduction of methane emissions by 2030 at COP27. They told Australia's livestock sector that the pledge claims little meaning but told the rest of the world how meaningful that pledge is. This is after Labor promised the Australian people that they would not introduce a methane tax. Cattle producers in Capricornia are still unsure what this will mean for them. My office continues to receive correspondence from farmers who are afraid that they will be slugged with another tax and another penalty for existing.

Labor are trying to walk both sides of the street, and the coalition are calling on them to be upfront with the Australian people. We saw the Labor Party give mixed messaging exactly like this in 2019, when they couldn't decide whether they liked coalmining or not or whether they supported the Adani coalmine in Capricornia. We have also seen them flip-flop on the Rockhampton Ring Road in my electorate. The federal government blamed cost blowouts and the Queensland government not being able to deliver the project fast enough, while the Queensland government blamed the federal government for not delivering the funding fast enough.

The opposition has been very upfront with the Australian public in ruling out the coalition 's support for this so-called compensation. This government can't continue signing Australia up to international pledges and funds for which there is no detail, for which it has no mandate and where there is no plan to deliver. Unlike the government, we believe in practical solutions and in having clarity on where the funding goes. This is why we favour bilateral assistance to the Pacific island nations, not signing a blank cheque to the United Nations for a huge fund which no-one knows the details of. At COP26, the coalition doubled its climate finance commitment to $2 billion over the period from 2020 to 2025, with at least $700 million of this for Pacific climate and disaster finance. We scored runs on the board at home too. Our government saw more than $40 billion invested in renewable energy since 2017. Since 2005, emissions fell by more than 20 per cent while our economy grew by 54 per cent. We also beat our Kyoto era targets by 459 million tonnes. Our government also reduced emissions faster than Japan, New Zealand, Canada and the OECD average.

The Albanese government still has no plans to reduce power bills for households and businesses, despite misleading the public and telling everyone that they did. On 97 occasions the Prime Minister promised your power bill would go down by $275. He was adamant he would deliver. Just this fortnight, the CEFC, Origin and the RBA have all raised concerns about the increasing costs associated with Labor's accelerated transition. Even Dan Walton from the Australian Workers Union has warned that 800,000 jobs are at risk due to the soaring price of energy if Labor does not act. What's more, Labor has been caught out by its own budget papers, which revealed Labor's plan to see your electricity bill go up by more than 56 per cent over the next two years. It is not only electricity, though. Your gas bill will also go up by more than 44 per cent. Every day that Labor dithers means more hip-pocket pain for Australians. Our hardworking families who live in Capricornia deserve better than this government, and I will be fighting every day in this place to ensure we get our fair share.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding compounded by the very much alive strain of climate denial that we continue to see bubble up to the surface in the leftover landfill site that now comprises the federal coalition. First of all, this is a fundamental understanding on the part of the coalition The loss-and-damage fund is not the result of a court process. It is not a legal obligation. But it's a prospective partnership of aid programs. I prefer to think of it as a misunderstanding, as I have often been well guided by Hanlon's razor: to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Nevertheless, the coalition terminated Australia's aid budget. Under the coalition, Australia has come 21st in a list of 29 OECD countries donating aid money to developing countries. We are wealthier than most of the countries ahead of us on that list. The new Labor government has pledged to rebuild Australia's development program and increase the official-development-assistance-to-gross-national-income ratios each year in an effort to counteract this downward trend.

The Lowy Institute has found that foreign aid has historically not been popular with the Australian public—no doubt the basis for the coalition's dog-whistling. However, in 2022, Lowy found that cuts to the aid budget had become less popular. Forty-two per cent of Australians say spending on foreign aid should be kept around current levels, an increase of six percentage points since 2019; thirty-four per cent say foreign aid spending should be decreased, down by 13.4 percentage points; and 24 per cent say that Australia should increase spending on foreign aid, an increase of seven percentage points. The Lowy Institute also found that Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of Australia providing foreign aid to Pacific island states.

This government is serious about being useful to our neighbours. But don't take my word for it. Let's check a review:

"We warmly welcome this increase in the aid budget, which will make a world of difference to countless people in our region and beyond. We commend the focus on the Pacific and Southeast Asia as our closest neighbours, especially as these two regions have been devastated by the climate emergency, COVID-19 and now the cost-of-living crisis," said Kirsty Robertson, Caritas Australia's CEO.

The other day the Prime Minister said that having a serious climate policy is now the price of entry into productive global relationships. I need to repeat that for the benefit of members opposite: having a serious climate policy is now the price of entry into productive global relationships. Members opposite are rather keen on free trade agreements but they have not yet joined the dots and understood that trade agreements are built on trust and shared interests. In September the head of the European parliament's trade committee, Bernd Lange, visited Australia. He was quoted as saying the Albanese government's enshrining of the emissions reduction target and legislation had removed a major barrier to the finalisation of the Australian-EU free trade agreement, and we expect to have that deal done soon. How ironic it is that if the former government had managed to have a workable climate change policy they may well have been able to close that deal on their watch.

The other thing that has slowed down those negotiations was damage done to our relationship with France by the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook. Prime Minister Albanese has been busy repairing that relationship because our international relationships have to be about relationships. They cannot just be about trade, about seeing how much we can benefit financially from a series of transactions. If our neighbours are not prospering from the relationship then there is a real limit to how much we can prosper from it and a real limit to how much we morally should be able to. The opposition needs to realise that dog whistling is not a substitute for policy development. A climate change policy might be a good place to start. Climate denial is a problem for relationships and for aid, for trade and for good energy policy. When you reject the science you have to cling to something that is not science and there will always be loss and damage accompanying that.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose it's not a surprise that the opposition has decided to try and use the loss-and-damage fund agreed to at COP27 as a scare campaign, but it is a new low. It is clearly out of step with where the Australian people are, who clearly demonstrated in May this year that they wanted a government that is serious about climate change and its challenges—something this Labor government is and will continue to be.

The Australian people have made it clear that they don't want a government like the previous Liberal-National one that put their head in the sand, actively denied and tried to pretend that climate change wasn't happening. And if May wasn't enough for them, let's look at Saturday in Victoria. Another clear message to those opposite that their dog whistling and their climate denial is out of step with where Australians are. I stood at booths across my electorate over the weekend—in Greensborough, in Eltham, in Ivanhoe—and nobody said to me, 'Gee, I don't think we should do anything on climate change.' Nobody said to me: 'We should slow down on climate change. It's not a critical issue.' Everyone I spoke to said to me climate change was one of the top issues in their minds, and one of the top issues they expected their governments to be dealing with. Once again, with this motion, what we see is an opposition that is out of step, that is out of touch, that is actively working against our country's and our communities' interests. It is just not good enough.

The loss-and-damage fund is in Australia's national interest. Its focus is simple: it will help developing countries to adapt and to respond to climate change. That is in our interest; it is in the interests of developing countries; it is in our entire planet's interests. It recognises what everyone knows, with the exception of those opposite it seems: that climate change is truly a global challenge. We do all need to be working together to maximise the efforts that we have to put in to combat climate change. As part of this we do have to recognise that while climate change impacts every country, the impacts are much larger in developing countries. A lot of this hits developing countries when we see changing weather patterns and natural disasters. While we are seeing natural disasters occur here in Australia more frequently, this is also happening across the world. Since the 1980s, natural disasters are up more than 80 per cent and almost half the population of our planet live in areas that are highly vulnerable to climate change.

Many of those people live in developing nations. These are people whose lives are being turned over, almost consistently, by floods and by famine. This is a global problem. It is a problem that it is in Australia's interest to support efforts to fix and to mitigate, and that is what our government is doing with its support of this fund. We're not putting our heads in the sand. We're not pretending that this is something that Australia can go it alone on. We are saying that we are part of the world in finding this solution and we recognise that we have a responsibility to developing countries. We recognise that we are in a neighbourhood made up of many developing countries and we have a responsibility to support our neighbours, to act as a friend to our neighbours and to do what the previous government failed to do.

The previous government tried to lecture our neighbours and wasn't there to support them. We are here to support their efforts and to support people's efforts to live in their countries while they're facing the increasing effect of climate change and climate induced disasters. After all, we know it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as a senior member of the previous government, said about the Pacific islands: 'Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door.' This is the sort of commentary that demonstrates the complete lack of interest in or understanding of the seriousness of the challenges being faced. People's lives and livelihoods were tossed away by the Leader of the Opposition with a toss-away comment that he thought wouldn't be heard.

Well, it was heard and it was noted, and what we see now—now that we have a Labor government that is prepared to genuinely engage in the Pacific—is that we are able to have strong relations with our neighbours. This is in their interests, but it is very much in our interests as Australians to have strong relations with our neighbours and with the rest of the world and to be in those international talks that we were locked out of because we were climate deniers. This government is getting on with it. The opposition is still stuck behind.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting.