Government Defends Climate Record as PM Skips COP30, Hosting Bid Uncertain
This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.
Today’s Article is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.
The Albanese government confronted escalating attacks on its climate credentials Tuesday as Coalition leaders accused Labor of failing to reduce emissions after four years in office, while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s absence from this week’s United Nations climate summit raised questions about Australia’s commitment to hosting the 2026 conference.
The political clash over emissions data and international engagement highlights fundamental disagreements about both the measurement of climate progress and the government’s strategic priorities as it defends an increasingly complex climate policy position.
Pat Gorman, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, told Sky News that Australia remains “on the right trajectory to meet the interim targets we set for 2030 of a 43% reduction in emissions,” while defending the decision to send Assistant Minister for Emergency Management Josh Wilson rather than senior Cabinet ministers to COP30 in Brazil.
Nationals leader David Littleproud countered that government targets require annual emissions reductions of 4.8 percent compared to just 1.7 percent for OECD nations on average, characterizing Labor’s approach as a “$9 trillion net zero plan” that threatens Medicare and disability services funding.
The absence of Australia’s head of government from the annual climate summit marks a notable shift from previous years, with the last Australian Prime Minister to attend a Conference of the Parties being Scott Morrison at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021.
Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.
Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.
Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.
Coalition Challenges Emissions Reduction Progress
The Coalition has centered recent criticism on claims the government has not achieved measurable emissions reductions despite climate policy receiving significant political focus and budget allocation over four years.
“The Coalition keeps saying to your side, though, that you haven’t reduced emissions,” interviewer Andrew Clennell said to Gorman during the Sky News Politics Now broadcast. “So power prices have gone up and you haven’t reduced emissions in four years. Do you accept that? And why is that?”
The “stuck at 28 percent” formulation referenced during the interview appears to relate to emissions reduction achieved from a baseline year, though specific measurement details and data sources were not provided during the discussion.
The attack line combines two distinct Coalition criticisms: that emissions have not fallen meaningfully, and that electricity prices have risen substantially, together suggesting Labor’s climate policy has imposed costs without delivering environmental benefits.
Gorman defended the government’s emissions record by focusing on projected trajectory rather than backward-looking measurements, emphasizing targets set for future years rather than reductions achieved to date.
“What we see is that we are on the right trajectory to meet the interim targets we set for 2030 of a 43% reduction in emissions,” Gorman said. “We’re going to go further. When it comes out to 2035, we took the independent advice from the Climate Change Authority, chaired by Matt Kean. That tells us we can get to some 62% to 70% emissions reduction.”
The 43 percent target represents Australia’s commitment under its updated Nationally Determined Contribution submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, establishing the baseline for international assessment of Australian climate policy.
When pressed repeatedly about current emissions levels, Gorman pivoted to criticism of previous Coalition government performance.
“Well, I can tell you the sorry story of the wasted decade that we had under the coalition,” Gorman said. “At the moment, I’m more focused on what we need to do right now.”
Interrupted Exchange Highlights Political Tensions
The interview transcript captures a tense exchange in which Clennell interrupted Gorman’s defense to emphasize the government’s time in office.
“You’ve been in for four years, though, Pat Gorman,” Clennell said as Gorman attempted to discuss renewable energy grid integration. “You’ve been in for four years. Isn’t that enough time?”
The interruption pattern reflects broader political debate about when governments should be held accountable for policy outcomes versus when inherited challenges explain current performance.
Gorman’s attempted response about getting “renewable energy into the grid” suggests the government’s argument centers on infrastructure transformation timelines rather than immediate emissions measurement.
The exchange highlights ongoing tension about political accountability timeframes for complex, long-term policy challenges, with Clennell’s repeated emphasis on “four years” reflecting a view that governments should demonstrate measurable progress within a single parliamentary term.
Nationals Frame Cost and Comparison Arguments
David Littleproud’s interview segment provided the Coalition’s alternative framing, centering on cost concerns and international comparisons to argue against the government’s approach.
The Nationals leader repeatedly referenced what he characterized as Labor’s “$9 trillion net zero plan,” a figure intended to shock voters with the claimed total cost of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
“We don’t believe that Labor’s $9 trillion net zero plan that puts Medicare and NDIS at risk is the only way to achieve emissions reductions,” Littleproud said, linking climate policy costs to potential threats to popular social programs.
The specific basis for the $9 trillion figure was not detailed in the interview, and the government disputes both the calculation and the characterization that net zero transition requires government expenditure of that scale rather than representing broader economy-wide investment including private sector capital.
A central element of the Nationals’ case against current government policy involves comparing Australia’s required annual emissions reductions to other developed economies.
“The targets that this government has set by 2035 means that we have to reduce our emissions by 4.8% every year,” Littleproud said. “The OECD is only going to reduce their emissions by 1.7%. So why are we streaking ahead when we can do our fair share, we can live up to international commitments, but we can have a cheaper, better fare away than Labor’s $9 trillion net zero plan?”
The comparison suggests Australia is being asked to reduce emissions at nearly three times the rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, positioning the government’s approach as disproportionate to international norms.
The Nationals leader positioned Australia’s 1.1 percent share of global emissions as justification for a less aggressive domestic pathway.
“We’re 1.1% of global emissions,” Littleproud said. “And if we peg ourselves, we don’t need to streak ahead.”
This “fair share” argument represents a departure from the principle that developed nations with high historical emissions and strong economic capacity should lead global decarbonization efforts, instead suggesting Australia should match rather than exceed international average pace.
Prime Minister’s COP30 Absence Raises Questions
Against this backdrop of domestic climate policy debate, the government’s decision to send Wilson rather than Albanese or senior Cabinet ministers to COP30 has prompted questions about Australia’s level of commitment to both international climate engagement and its bid to co-host the 2026 conference.
Wilson holds the portfolio of Assistant Minister for Emergency Management, representing the member for Fremantle in Western Australia. His attendance contrasts with the head-of-government presence many competing nations deploy to major climate summits to demonstrate political commitment.
When asked whether the Prime Minister might be “secretly kind of a little bit glad that this COP bid appears to be falling over,” Gorman rejected the suggestion while acknowledging uncertainty about the outcome.
“You might want to write it off, Andrew, but I certainly don’t,” Gorman said. “We’ve got Josh Wilson, the assistant minister for climate change over there right now, putting the case for Australia, just as our diplomats have done, just as the prime minister has done and the foreign minister and, of course, Minister Chris Bowen.”
Gorman defended the multi-track diplomatic approach the government has pursued.
“These conversations happen over months and years, not just at the conference that’s happening right now, but over a period of time,” Gorman said. “But, you know, also, Josh is a very persuasive person. I’m confident that he is putting the case for Australia right now.”
The Assistant Minister emphasized that multiple government ministers including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen have advocated for Australia’s hosting bid “at different points in time.”
When asked directly whether Albanese’s absence undermines the hosting bid, Gorman noted that “I recognise it is one of the more complex ways of deciding a location, as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday.”
Historical Context and International Comparison
The absence of Australia’s head of government from COP30 represents a notable contrast to practice at previous summits, raising questions about the government’s priorities and confidence in the hosting bid.
The interviewer noted the irony that Morrison, often criticized by climate advocates for insufficient action, maintained a higher profile at international climate conferences than the current government presenting more ambitious emissions targets.
“It’s a bit of an irony though isn’t it that I think the last PM to have attended a conference of the party’s climate conference was Scott Morrison,” Clennell said.
Gorman acknowledged the attendance history while emphasizing policy substance over summit appearances.
“We had Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott all having commitments to different ways of getting to a zero carbon future or net zero future to make sure we take action on climate change,” Gorman said. “I think what we’ve seen is that this is becoming overly politicised by some in the Liberal Party.”
Morrison’s attendance at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 came amid intense international pressure on Australia to commit to net zero emissions by 2050, a target the Coalition eventually adopted over Nationals objections before the policy unraveled in opposition.
Economic Investment and Pacific Partnership Arguments
Central to the government’s rationale for both ambitious emissions targets and pursuing COP31 hosting is the argument that climate action represents significant economic opportunity rather than merely regulatory burden.
Gorman highlighted private sector investment in decarbonization as evidence of commercial opportunities in the energy transition.
“You’ve got leading Australian business people at COP30 right now,” Gorman said. “Dr Andrew Forrest is there. They’re making billions of dollars of investment into decarbonising the iron ore industry, a pretty carbon intense industry.”
The Assistant Minister framed climate investment as a competitive global market Australia should pursue aggressively.
“There’s a lot of opportunity and money on the table from investors,” Gorman said. “I think it’s about two trillion dollars is around the figure that’s used in terms of global investment in low and zero carbon technologies. I want to get as much of that money to Australia as we can and this is all part of that.”
Australia’s bid to co-host COP31 centers on partnership with Pacific Island nations, reflecting the government’s emphasis on Pacific engagement and recognition of climate change’s disproportionate impact on low-lying island nations.
“I think about putting Australia on the world stage to say that we’re a great place for investment and that we also understand the complexities of this global transition to a low-carbon economy that we’re all going through,” Gorman said.
The Assistant Minister referenced his Western Australian constituency’s resources sector background to emphasize understanding of transition challenges.
“I mean, I’m from a resources state. I get that this is not easy, but it takes determination to get it right, and that’s what we want to do here in Australia,” Gorman said.
Political Risk Considerations
When pressed on whether hosting COP31 could become a political liability similar to other high-profile initiatives, Gorman acknowledged the comparison while defending the strategic value.
“Couldn’t it be a bit of a millstone around your neck, though, as I just alluded to, like the voice?” Clennell asked, referencing the failed Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum that damaged the government’s political standing.
Gorman did not directly reject the comparison but emphasized the economic and diplomatic benefits of hosting.
The Voice referendum failure has made the government more cautious about high-profile initiatives that could become politically divisive, with internal debates about whether major climate conferences generate domestic political risk.
Gorman attempted to position the COP31 bid as economically beneficial regardless of political challenges, referencing Perth’s experience hosting the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
“My electorate of Perth some 15 years ago was the host of the CHOGM Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting,” Gorman said. “To this day, people still talk in Perth about what a great opportunity that was. So I’m not someone who likes to wave the white flag. I’m an optimist.”
Climate Change Authority Role and Bipartisan Framing
The government’s reference to independent Climate Change Authority advice represents an attempt to position its 2035 targets as technically grounded rather than politically determined.
Matt Kean’s chairmanship provides potential bipartisan credibility, with the former NSW Liberal minister bringing conservative party credentials to recommendations the federal Coalition might otherwise dismiss as Labor partisanship.
The Climate Change Authority is established by federal legislation to provide independent advice on emissions reduction targets, carbon budgets, and climate policy effectiveness.
The Authority’s recommendation of 62 percent to 70 percent emissions reduction by 2035 below 2005 levels represents the midpoint of a range based on modeling of feasible pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The government adopted the Authority’s recommended range, though critics note governments retain discretion about accepting or rejecting independent advice, and the Authority’s analysis depends on assumptions about technology costs, deployment rates and policy settings that may prove optimistic.
Energy Grid Transformation Challenges
Underlying the emissions reduction debate are fundamental questions about the pace and cost of transforming Australia’s electricity system from fossil fuel dominance to renewable energy majority.
Australia’s National Electricity Market has experienced significant renewable energy penetration over the past decade, with wind and solar now providing substantial portions of generation during peak production periods.
However, coal-fired power stations continue operating and providing baseload electricity, with retirement schedules creating ongoing political tension about replacement generation capacity and grid stability.
The government has emphasized renewable energy deployment targets and transmission infrastructure investment to enable greater clean energy integration, arguing current short-term challenges will yield long-term benefits.
The Coalition has countered that renewable energy intermittency requires expensive backup generation or storage, that transmission costs are insufficiently acknowledged, and that electricity price increases demonstrate failure of the transition approach.
Nuclear power has emerged as a Coalition policy priority, with proposals for government-owned small modular reactors to provide low-emissions baseload electricity, though the government argues nuclear would be more expensive and slower to deploy than renewable alternatives.
Medicare and NDIS Framing Strategy
Littleproud’s repeated invocation of Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme as threatened by climate policy costs represents a strategic attempt to reframe the debate from environmental to social policy terms.
“That puts Medicare, that puts the NDIS at risk,” Littleproud said multiple times, linking climate spending to potential cuts or underfunding of popular social programs.
The argument suggests government budgets face zero-sum tradeoffs between climate action and essential services, positioning voters to choose between environmental ambition and social program protection.
The government has not announced Medicare or NDIS funding reductions connected to climate policy, and the characterization of $9 trillion as government expenditure rather than economy-wide investment spanning decades has been disputed.
However, the framing reflects Coalition strategy to associate Labor’s climate agenda with fiscal risk and competing budget priorities, particularly targeting voters for whom healthcare and disability services represent higher immediate priorities than emissions reduction.
Measurement Complexity and Baseline Issues
The debate over whether emissions have been “reduced” or remain “stuck” reflects technical complexity in greenhouse gas accounting and the importance of baseline year selection.
Australia’s emissions have fluctuated significantly over recent decades based on factors including electricity generation fuel mix, industrial production levels, land use changes, and economic activity.
The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory provides official measurements reported to the United Nations, with the most recent complete data typically lagging 12 to 18 months behind current dates due to data collection and verification requirements.
Different baseline years produce dramatically different percentage reduction calculations, with the Paris Agreement allowing countries to select baselines that present their progress most favorably.
The Coalition government used 2005 as a baseline year for Australia’s international commitments, a choice that maximized apparent progress because 2005 represented a high-emissions year before several major industrial changes.
The current government has maintained the 2005 baseline for consistency with international reporting, though domestic political debate often references more recent years to assess Labor’s specific performance rather than Australia’s overall trajectory.
Pacific Relations and Diplomatic Strategy
The COP31 hosting bid represents a component of the government’s broader Pacific engagement strategy aimed at strengthening Australia’s regional diplomatic position.
Australia faces increasing competition for Pacific influence from China, which has expanded diplomatic, economic and security engagement across the region over the past decade.
Climate change ranks as the highest priority for most Pacific Island governments, making credible Australian leadership on the issue strategically important for regional relationships.
The government’s decision to pursue co-hosting rather than sole hosting reflects sensitivity to Pacific nations’ desire for recognition and agency rather than merely facilitating Australian diplomatic objectives.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has made Pacific relations a centerpiece of Labor’s foreign policy approach, conducting frequent visits to island nations and emphasizing Australia’s identity as a Pacific country.
Pacific Island leaders have consistently identified climate change as the existential threat to their nations, with rising sea levels threatening the viability of entire countries including Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.
Australia’s relationship with Pacific neighbors has been complicated by the country’s historical positions on climate policy and continued reliance on fossil fuel exports, though the Albanese government has emphasized strengthened Pacific engagement since taking office.
Implementation Challenges and Timeline
If Australia succeeds in securing COP31 hosting rights, the government faces significant logistical and organizational challenges to deliver a major international conference in 2026.
The timeline provides limited preparation time for security planning, infrastructure development, accommodation arrangements and the complex protocol requirements of a major United Nations summit.
Previous Australian hosts of major international summits including the 2014 G20 Leaders’ Summit in Brisbane and the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast faced substantial organizational challenges and cost pressures.
The government has not released estimates of COP31 hosting costs or outlined funding arrangements with potential Pacific co-hosting nations.
Environmental and activist groups would likely use an Australian-hosted climate conference to highlight the country’s continued fossil fuel exports and any perceived gaps between government rhetoric and emissions reduction achievement.
Australia’s Per Capita Emissions Context
The government has previously argued that Australia’s high per capita emissions, concentrated energy-intensive industries, and economic capacity justify ambitious targets despite representing a small share of global emissions.
Australia ranks among the highest per capita emitters globally due to coal-fired electricity generation, energy-intensive mining and manufacturing, and relatively small population compared to industrial base.
Government ministers have consistently positioned climate action as economic opportunity rather than regulatory burden, emphasizing job creation in renewable energy and export opportunities in green hydrogen and critical minerals.
Gorman did not directly respond to Littleproud’s specific 4.8 percent versus 1.7 percent comparison during his interview segment, which occurred before the Nationals leader’s appearance on the program.
However, the Assistant Minister emphasized Australia’s resource sector context and the complexity of industrial transition in defending the government’s approach.
“We’re saying we can live up to our international expectations,” Littleproud said. “We’re 1.1% of global emissions. And if we peg ourselves, we don’t need to streak ahead.”
This positioning reflects the Nationals’ view that Australia should not exceed international average decarbonization pace regardless of per capita emissions or historical responsibility arguments.
Opposition Response and Political Context
The climate policy debate occurs as the Coalition finalizes its own position, with the Nationals having abandoned net zero by 2050 commitments while arguing Australia can meet Paris Agreement obligations through alternative pathways.
Liberal Party positions on hosting international climate conferences remain unclear as the party determines its climate policy stance, though state Liberal leaders supporting climate action would likely support continued international engagement.
The Coalition’s internal climate policy battle reflects broader strategic calculations about electoral positioning, with the Nationals prioritizing regional constituency concerns while Liberals weigh metropolitan voter sentiment.
Opposition parties have challenged whether the government’s emphasis on international climate diplomacy and conference hosting represents substantive achievement or symbolic positioning disconnected from domestic emissions reduction.
Labor ministers quickly seized on the Coalition’s internal divisions as evidence of Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s inability to manage her party room and develop credible alternative policy.
Path Forward and Political Uncertainty
The emissions reduction debate will intensify as the next federal election approaches, with the Coalition’s finalized climate policy providing voters a clear choice between competing approaches.
The government’s challenge involves demonstrating sufficient emissions reduction progress to maintain credibility while avoiding economic disruption or electricity price increases that fuel opposition attacks.
The Coalition’s challenge involves developing an alternative climate policy that appeals to both regional constituents skeptical of aggressive decarbonization and urban voters expecting credible climate action.
Gorman concluded his discussion of both emissions progress and the COP31 bid by emphasizing optimism while acknowledging challenges.
“I’m not someone who likes to wave the white flag,” Gorman said. “I’m an optimist, and so I know that we’ll keep that determination to put forward the case that Australia and our Pacific Island friends in this Pacific family in which we live will be great hosts, co-hosts, of COP31 should Australia be chosen.”
Whether Australia’s approach of sending a junior minister to COP30 while pursuing a 2026 hosting bid represents confident diplomacy or misaligned priorities remains a subject of political debate as the selection process continues.
Australia’s climate policy debate continues reflecting deep divisions about the urgency of emissions reduction, the appropriate pace of energy transformation, and the acceptable level of economic cost to achieve environmental objectives.
The government must navigate these tensions while maintaining international credibility on climate action and defending its domestic policy achievements against Coalition attacks focused on electricity prices and emissions measurement.
Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support
Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.
Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.
As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:
Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve
Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.
Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)
Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:
It only takes a minute to help us investigate fearlessly and expose lies and wrongdoing to hold power accountable. Thanks!