Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In 1991, Vanuatu, on behalf of small island states, first asked the question: 'Who should pay for climate catastrophe?' Over the next three decades, wealthy nations of the global north dodged and deflected that question, while continuing to fuel the climate crisis. They relentlessly pursued profit and power, putting the world on track for climate catastrophe and fuelling climate disasters. These disasters have affected 33 million people in Pakistan, and 50 million people in the Horn of Africa face the threat of famine, amongst many others.

After decades of pushing by the global south, a loss and damage fund has finally been agreed to. New Zealand, Denmark, Germany and Scotland have already committed to contributing. Will the government today commit to paying our fair share of loss and damage?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are committed to an effective global response on climate and, as Mr Bowen made clear, we welcome the historical progress made in—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to waste your question time, I'm happy for you to do so!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start again. We welcome the historical progress made in agreeing to a new loss and damage fund, and the parties have committed to exploring—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston! This is a question from Senator Faruqi. I think the least you could do is listen in silence so that the answer can be heard at that end of the chamber. Minister.

Senator McGrath! Interjections from you are particularly disorderly. Senator Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are pleased that the parties have committed to exploring a broad range of ways to provide support to vulnerable countries, including those in the Pacific. We have heard our Pacific family when they've said the region's loss and damage needs are distinct from adaptation and resilience. And, as you know, we are actively working with Pacific partners to consider new climate finance options, including on loss and damage, and to ensure that global funding mechanisms work for the Pacific. So there's an engagement and a willingness to discuss. I would make this point, because the Greens come in here and they want us to do this but they also want to reduce revenue from other sources, such as—

Honourable senators interjecting—

What do you think happens if we end coal exports? What do you think happens? But I would make this point—

Honour able senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Thorpe, I've called the chamber to order. Minister, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply make this point: it would be much better for the country if there was bipartisanship on development assistance. I regret that that was lost under those opposite and appears to continue to be lost, but— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary?

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you well know, the climate crisis is an existential threat to the Pacific, where communities are facing rising sea levels and extreme storms. The government claims to be listening to the Pacific islands. The Pacific islands have waited decades for loss and damage funding that is owed to those nations as a matter of global justice. What will your government do to ensure that a fund is established urgently, with no room for backsliding?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm interested in the implication about our motivation in that, because we are motivated, genuinely—

We had a long discussion yesterday about motivations. Senator McKim demanded something be withdrawn. I notice you did put it on social media afterwards anyway, but that's okay. But I would say to Senator Faruqi: the implication that we're not genuine in our engagement with our Pacific neighbours is wrong. We are. That does not mean there is not a lot that we have to work through, and I have been upfront with them. I have said: 'We are a highly emissions-intensive economy. We are seeking to shift the trajectory—the direction in which we're heading—and we are doing so belatedly. It will cost us more and it will be harder because of nine years of inaction. But we are serious about doing it.' So, please, if there was an implication, and perhaps I misheard, that somehow we are not genuine in how we engage with the Pacific—because we understand the nature of the threat—it is incorrect. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary?

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy tabled his climate change statement earlier today but failed to even mention the elephant in the room: the impact of new coal and gas on Australia's climate targets. And yet the latest greenhouse gas inventory, also released today, shows that emissions from gas are increasing. Does the government acknowledge that burning coal and gas is causing and fuelling the climate crisis? And why won't it rule out opening new coal and gas projects?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered this question many times. I understand this is the political campaign that the Greens party wishes to run between now and the next election, if I may say; that's a decision for you. But actually the policy challenges are far greater—far greater. So you can have a mantra around that, but what we need to do is transition an economy which is not only emissions intensive domestically but reliant on highly emissions-intensive industries for much of our export revenue. Now, we have to transition the economy, change the economy, so our people, our children and our country can thrive in a net zero world. That is an enormous undertaking.

I'll take that interjection. I'll take that interjection, because, as I said to Senator Milne years ago, it's possible that people might just disagree. It's not because we're corrupt; we just might disagree— (Time expired)