There’s tension in the air at this pre-COP. Tension between Pacific Island states and Australia. Tension over the world leaders who have not turned up. Tension over Australia’s continued expansion of coal and gas, even as it asks to be applauded for its climate leadership. And tension over how to call out a powerful partner whose aid and cooperation you still need.
Wed 7 Oct 2026 10.17 AEDT
Photo: Supplied
A federal Nationals MP from Queensland has expressed concern about changes to state mining and environment laws proposed by the state Liberal National Party Government. A controversial Crisafulli government proposal would restrict landholders’ rights to information and to challenge mining projects affecting their communities.
When a gas project can't win on the facts, it goes shopping for a new story. Last week, Woodside's CEO Liz Westcott told a Perth business breakfast that the proposed Browse gas and CCS project could power AI data centres and keep AUKUS shipyards humming. The same project was once sold to keep the lights on in WA.
As planes descend into Fiji this week, passengers are being welcomed with a message that captures both the hope and the pressure surrounding the Pacific’s pre-COP climate summit.
“As the national airline of a small island developing state on the frontlines of climate change, we are proud to fly you here to experience our Pacific realities firsthand. We thank you for your commitment to holding the line on science and keeping the 1.5°C target within reach.”
It is a generous welcome. But it is also a challenge.
Delegates are being asked to confront what their decisions mean for the people hosting them.
There’s tension in the air at this pre-COP.
Tension between Pacific Island states and Australia. Tension over the world leaders who have not turned up. Tension over Australia’s continued expansion of coal and gas, even as it asks to be applauded for its climate leadership.
And tension over how to call out a powerful partner whose aid and cooperation you still need.
That is a difficult dance for Pacific governments. But at a pre-COP stakeholder event on Tuesday, community advocates were not dodging the issue. “Climate colonisation” was among the descriptions discussed by Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, and other panellists.
“From a legal standpoint (fossil fuel expansion) is completely unacceptable under the law and not tenable with what the International Court of Justice has said,” Prasad said.
“The ICJ talked about the licensing, exploration, and subsidies of fossil fuels as potentially being an illegal act under international law, and that does not seem to be factored in by the Australian Government.”
His verdict on Australia’s leadership at this COP was equally sharp.
“Australia is taking the complete opposite track in addressing climate change, meeting its legal obligations and being the Presidency of COP that we are hoping it should be.”
Australia should be listening to the impassioned voices of young leaders like Prasad. Instead, it keeps giving its critics fresh material.
Last week, the NSW Independent Planning Commission approved the extension of Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) coal mine, allowing it to produce coal to 2045 and emit over 800 million tonnes of climate pollution while doing so.
That’s decades more coal, locked in on the eve of a Pacific climate summit.
It is hard to imagine a clearer illustration of the gap between the climate leadership Australia claims and the fossil fuel future it continues to enable.
What makes it all the more baffling is the fact that this conference really matters to Australia. Canberra wants strong Pacific partnerships, not least because it wants to counter China’s growing influence in the region. But our Pacific neighbours’ demand for a genuine transition away from fossil fuels is a test of whether those relationships mean what Australia says they do.
We want our Pacific family’s trust. We want their partnership. We want credit for standing beside them.
We just keep making decisions that directly undermine their future.
Australia has spent years trying to repair its standing in the Pacific. Our record gives us plenty to repair. Who can forget Peter Dutton’s remark about time meaning nothing when water is lapping at your door?
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
But time means everything to the Pacific.
Time is measured in rising seas, salinated water supplies, threatened homelands and displaced communities. It is measured in how much can still be protected, and how much will be lost while governments find another excuse to delay.
What this region does not have time for is more obfuscation dressed up as climate diplomacy.
That is why the thin turnout of world leaders at this event has been so disappointing.
“We were hoping for more,” Vanuatu’s climate minister, Ralph Regenvanu, told Reuters ahead of the summit. “It just reflects the lack of attention and priority given to what Pacific nations consider the greatest threat to their future.”
Last month, the UN Environment Programme warned that global warming is set to cross 1.5°C, likely within the next few years, and called for immediate, sustained emissions cuts.
That report highlights the ultimate tension on the ground here: maintaining hope in the face of worsening climate damage and the deliberate extension of the fossil-fuel economy by supposed allies like Australia.
The generosity of the welcome Australia has received in Fiji should not be confused with acceptance. Nor should diplomatic restraint be mistaken for an endless supply of patience.
For Australia’s Climate Minister, Chris Bowen, this conference and COP31 in Antalya are a crucial test.
As President of Negotiations, Bowen has “exclusive authority in relation to the negotiations”.
He cannot force every country to agree to his personally preferred outcome. But Australia has sought and accepted a position from which it can shape the result.
If we cannot demonstrate climate leadership now, while leading the negotiations and partnering with the Pacific, then when will we?
And what does climate leadership mean if not bringing an end to new coal and gas projects at home?
Bowen has a bumpy road ahead.
On one side, he faces pressure from his own cabinet colleagues and fossil-fuel companies. On the other are the needs of communities across the Pacific and in Australia fighting to protect their homes and livelihoods.
The difficulty of his task is real. So are the consequences of failure. They are not remotely equivalent.
The Hunter Valley Operations coal mine extension still needs federal environmental approval, which gives the Australian Government a concrete decision to make.
Australia can keep calling itself a climate leader. But if it backs decades more coal while asking Pacific countries to wait their turn, it should not be surprised when they call it something other than leadership.
Hypocrisy is an option that comes quickly to mind.
Noah Schultz-Byard is the Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Australia Institute.
