Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:42): I thank the member for his question about my speech to the Lowy Institute, from which I understand he doesn't share my views that Australia's national interests should always come first and take priority over the agendas of global institutions. I'm surprised that the member opposite thinks global institutions should be telling the Australian public about what should be happening in this parliament. I make reference to a number of our policy positions that the Australian government has been urged to change. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr MORRISON: I'm happy to name them, Leader of the Opposition. There are those who are overseas who think that our commitment to a 26 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 should be changed and that it should be higher, and we don't agree. And neither do the Australian people, because we took it to an election and the Australian people supported the re-election of our government on the basis of us going forward with a commitment to a 26 per cent reduction of emissions. The other thing we recently had was some correspondence from the UN. From the UN we had some correspondence— The SPEAKER: Prime Minister, I think the Leader of the Opposition's seeking to take a point of order. Does he want to take it now? Mr Albanese: Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. It was a very specific question. We want to know which multilateral institutions he was talking about. The SPEAKER: Now, the Prime Minister— Mr Albanese: Which ones? The SPEAKER: Just literally a microsecond before you jumped, the Prime Minister mentioned one rather prominent organisation. I call the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON: I was making reference—I was about to—to border protection issues and where we have been written to by the UN saying we should change our policy. I remember when the UNHCR used to write to us and say we should change our policy. We don't agree. Do you agree? Does the Labor Party agree that we should be changing our border protection rules to comply with the international wishes of the UNHCR or any other organisation, when that is in conflict with the express policies of the Australian government, taken to the Australian people in an election? But I return to the issue of emissions reductions. We on this side of the House are in no doubt about our policy: a 26 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. On that side of the House, the member for Hunter actually agrees with us. He thinks that it should be 26 per cent. The member for Hunter thinks that—but it's not only him; the member for Blair thinks that as well. So there is a lot of support for the member for Hunter's ideas, but sadly not from the member for Sydney. She says she reserves her right to perfectly disagree with the member for Hunter. So she's still for the 45 per cent reduction. Government members interjecting— Mr MORRISON: Then we can go across to the member for Wills, who says he doesn't know. He says, 'We don't have the answers right now.' Then there's another position, which is put forward by the shadow minister assisting for climate change— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might just pause for a second. He's now moving away from what was a specific question. He's compared and contrasted. As I've always said, he's entitled to do that briefly. Mr MORRISON: I was responding to interjections. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: On that occasion, I don't think you were! I'm certainly not hearing any interjections from my left. So if the Prime Minister can— Mr Buchholz interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is not helping. Don't try. The Prime Minister can address his remarks in the final seconds to the question. Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While you might not have heard any interjections from your left, I can assure you that the member for Hunter does—from his own side and his own party. The Labor party is riven with division on climate change. Only this party has a policy— (Time expired)