Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:26): It's unsurprising, perhaps, to get a question like that from this opposition led by a man who thinks that the impact on the Pacific of climate change is a laughing matter, who thinks it's a great big joke. We don't on this side of the House. We will work with the Pacific because we know that that is in our interests as a country in a very complicated geopolitical environment. Not only does this opposition engage in this sort of cheap dog-whistling politics; they also don't even know what was agreed. I'm surprised to get a question like this from a man who was the minister for the Pacific. That's the best they can do! He was the man in charge of our relations with our region. The SPEAKER: The minister will take a break. I will hear on a point of order from the member for Mitchell. Mr Hawke: It's on relevance. The minister wasn't listening to the question. I asked why the money was going to China. That was the question—not the Pacific. Th e SPEAKER: On the point of order, the minister is being relevant. The question was a very broad question and he is being entirely relevant. Mr BOWEN: I guess if you were the minister for the Pacific and you didn't actually go to the Pacific, that's probably the sort of point of order you would take. The other point of order you would take if you asked a question like that is one of relevance. The opposition appears unaware that in fact, as part of these negotiations and discussions, Australia argued successfully that the donor base should be reviewed so that those countries that weren't rich in 1992 but have now become developed and are now wealthy should contribute—not receive but should contribute to the fund. That might have passed you by. That's exactly what we are doing. We were joined by the United States, the European Union, Canada and New Zealand. I understand that the difference between donor and recipient might be a bit confusing to those opposite, but that is exactly what we argued, and that was exactly reflected by the text, which indicates a multiplicity of donors and a revision of the donor base. So if the opposition is going to go down this cheap and nasty road, they want to at least get their facts right. Previous prime ministers have understood that engagement on these issues is important. John Howard knew that. In the aftermath of the tsunami he knew that contributing to Indonesia's recovery was good for Indonesia, good for our region and good for Australia. But John Howard was a leader. He was a leader who understood our national interest. The current Leader of the Opposition does not understand the national interest; he just understands cheap and pathetic politics.