Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cox today relating to climate change.

Senator Cox spoke eloquently about the COP27 negotiations. We know that this last fortnight has been tough, not just for those negotiating the final text at COP27 but for the planet. What we saw come out of those negotiations were steps forward in some respects but terrible steps backward in others, and, of course, an intransigent attitude from those governments who continue to want to fund, publicly, the expansion and continued operation of fossil fuels. The reality is that, when we look at the science, it is crystal clear that we cannot continue to expand and open new fossil fuel projects if we are to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees. In fact, even if we want to keep global warming below two degrees there is no way we can continue to open more gas, coal or oil projects, not just here in Australia but around the world.

Australia, of course, has a huge role to play in this. We remain the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Do you know what that means, Deputy President McLachlan? That means we are the third-largest exporter of pollution—dangerous, climate-changing pollution—in the world, and we have to take some responsibility for that. That's why Senator Cox asked the government today in question time when we'll we stop funding fossil fuel companies to continue to expand and grow. When will we end the unneeded, unnecessary and dangerous fossil fuel subsidies in this country that litter our national government budget? Of course, we didn't get a response from Senator Wong. But what we did hear from both this government and others was a reluctance to do anything that is needed in relation to winding back those fossil fuel subsidies.

There was also a question that went to an important element of the discussions and negotiations that were had at COP 27. This was in relation to the loss and damages commitments. This is an important step forward, that rich, wealthy countries—those who have done a lot of the polluting already—help to pay for those less-wealthy countries who are suffering now because the climate crisis is here and is only going to get worse. It is important that we have a proper commitment from the Australian government in relation to this. I just want to make the point that while we were in Senate question time here in this place today, over in the other place the Leader of the Opposition, the man who thinks that he should be Prime Minister, decided to attack the world's poorest people—to attack the poorest countries on the globe over this particular clause that was negotiated at COP 27. That, of course, was Mr Dutton, the same bloke who laughed at the suggestion of water lapping at the doors of our Pacific neighbours, laughing at the horrors that these countries now face because of the pollution that Australia continues to export and the climate crisis that our nation continues to drive to be worse and worse.

The man who wants to be Prime Minister in this country, the Leader of the Liberal Party, is laughing and now playing the dirtiest, lowest politics of all. He suggested that Australia should not play a role in this because charity 'starts at home'. Is this really the attitude from today's Liberal Party, that not only do they not believe in climate change but now they think that they can also rip off the world's poorest people? I'd like to know in this place today what the moderates in the Liberal Party say—Senator Birmingham, for example, from my home state in South Australia, what do you say—about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition thinks the world's poorest should just drown?

Question agreed to.