Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pulled Australia out of the race to host next year's international climate summit. That global meeting would have brought scrutiny on the fact that Australia is the world's second-biggest exporter of climate-wrecking emissions, behind only Russia; that this government has approved over 30 coal and gas mines since coming to office, and five since the most recent election; and that you're now trying to get coal and gas approved within 30 days under environmental laws without their climate impacts on nature being considered. Is the Australian government's addiction to coal and gas the reason why the Prime Minister stopped pushing to host the COP?

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

No. And it's a pity, Senator Waters, that you don't engage more with the Pacific because—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Well, it is. You clearly don't talk to the Pacific leaders and Pacific ministers, unlike the government, which has engaged directly with the Pacific about this Conference of the Parties. This is actually what amplifying Pacific voices means. You engage with them to resolve a negotiating position that they are backing. Just remember, when you want to lecture us, that we went down this path, both for the bid and in all of the detailed negotiations over this last year, in very close discussion with some of the people you don't bother talking to, which is Pacific leaders and ministers.

I know you're too busy lecturing us to actually talk to some of the people who are affected most by climate change. Our primary motivation in wanting this Conference of the Parties was to elevate Pacific experience and Pacific voices. The discussion with Turkiye and the discussion in Belem that Mr Bowen was involved in, involved engagement of the Prime Minister, my level, Mr Bowen's level and official level to work out, in a circumstance where we were not able to get agreement to our bid, what we could get to ensure that the Pacific's experience, issues and priorities were on the agenda. That is what Australia has achieved. I want to thank our Pacific colleagues for working with us and the respectful, decent way in which they have engaged with us on this issue.

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

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia just signed the Belem declaration at COP, which contains the strongest language on phasing out fossil fuels that Australia has ever signed, which, incidentally, is exactly what the Pacific is asking us to do—and that your government isn't doing. When will the government outline its road map to transition away from fossil fuels, including coal and gas exports?

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

It seems a little inconsistent, if I may say, with the first question, but so be it. The Belem declaration talks about a road map to deliver a fairer transition. It is consistent with our language from the Conference of the Parties in 2023, I think. The Australian position has not changed. We're supporting the global transition, and we remain a reliable trading partner. These are matters that are challenging. These are matters which do involve a global economic transition and an economic transition for this country. We understand that that requires policy. It requires delivery. It requires us to change the nature of the economy in which we are. You don't do it through bumper stickers, and you certainly don't do it by making false accusations.

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

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was reported over the weekend that many insiders said Australia was in a strong position to win the COP bid, that Minister Bowen had worked hard to get there and that the Prime Minister had pulled the rug out from under him when he gave in to Turkiye. Why is the Prime Minister undermining his climate minister and Australia's climate potential?

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

There's so much that is incorrect in those assertions. Can I make this point: if you have followed this, Senator—and you may be aware of this—you'll know that we did have very broad support. You will also know that there is no way to avoid or to break the impasse at a Conference of the Parties and that, under the UNFCCC rules, in the absence of that impasse being broken, the conference would have reverted to Bonn. The COP president would not have been elected until the first day of that conference, which has implications for global climate negotiations and for the Pacific.

These were the real issues that we worked through very carefully with the Pacific, and we're very pleased that we were able to achieve a whole range of propositions, including a pre-COP held in the Pacific with leaders, pledging for the Pacific Resilience Facility and Pacific engagements in leading aspects of the negotiations. We were very pleased that we were able to achieve that with the support of the Pacific.