Australia vs. The Fossil Free Pacific : 30 Years of Undermining Pacific Climate Leadership

Last month Campaign Republic produced a report for the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative on Australia’s role in the Pacific on climate action. With so many excellent climate advocates being quite time poor we thought it might be useful to share an overview version of the report here emphasising its key points. 

The Pacific has long led the world on climate advocacy and action

Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have been the global leaders of climate action for nearly four decades. They have used diplomacy, coalition-building, and moral authority to set the international climate agenda. 

From the creation of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in 1990, to securing the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement, to launching the diplomatic push to negotiate a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to the successful campaign for an International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations, Pacific nations have shaped the rules and norms that now guide the global response to the climate crisis.

Australia is torn between pro climate action rhetoric and its domestic fossil fuel sector

Australia, by contrast, has pursued a more conflicted path. In the early 1990s, Australia’s position largely aligned with Pacific priorities, but diverged as Australia came under pressure from its fossil fuel industry to resist efforts to reduce emissions ahead of the Kyoto Protocol. From that point on, successive governments, Labor and Coalition alike, prioritised fossil fuel interests. 

Today, Australia is the world’s second largest climate polluter, when exported emissions are counted, and responsible for over 95% of domestic emissions across the Pacific region when counted alongside its 14 PIC neighbours. Australia spends billions each year subsidising fossil fuel production, while contributing only a fraction of its fair share of international climate finance. This is perhaps unsurprising, considering that almost every Australian federal resources minister since 2001 has taken a job in the fossil fuel sector after leaving parliament. 

Australia’s recently announced 2035 emissions reduction target has also come in for criticism as inconsistent with a 1.5 degree heating limit.

This contradiction lies at the heart of Australia’s strained climate diplomacy. PICs view climate change as their greatest security threat, a stance enshrined in the 2018 Boe Declaration and reaffirmed repeatedly at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including ones signed by Australia. Yet Australia’s continued approval of fossil fuel projects, like Woodside’s gas expansion to 2070, directly undermines those commitments. 

As Dr Mahendra Kumar notes, the region “hasn’t forgotten the hypocrisy”, with civil society voices frequently highlighting the gap between rhetoric and reality. Reverend James Bhagwan of the Pacific Conference of Churches captures the sentiment: despite warmer dialogue under the Albanese government, “the shadow of climate change is hanging over a lot of the discussions.”

Is Australia an international climate outlaw?

The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion now challenges Australia’s support of fossil fuels head-on. It clarifies that states have a duty to prevent climate harm by setting 1.5 degrees as a global heating limit, and that fossil fuel subsidies, licensing, and exports may amount to “internationally wrongful acts”.

As Monash University’s Dr Ella Vines observes: “Australia now needs to be aware that its fossil fuel exports…can constitute internationally wrongful acts and that the Pacific…can try to hold Australia to account.”

Australian diplomacy undermines its credibility in the Pacific

Australia has further underlined its support for fossil fuels with a series of diplomatic efforts aimed at watering down climate ambition in Pacific and global forums, including at the 2023 Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) and COP 28. Australia also put in a strong submission to the ICJ arguing against the position that states were responsible the ICJ eventually took in its Advisory Opinion, namely that governments have a legal duty to prevent climate harm, including from their fossil fuel exports.

Beyond climate, Australia’s engagement on oceans has also drawn scrutiny. Australia signed the 2023 Global Ocean Treaty but, two years on, has yet to ratify it. Its pledge to protect 30% of its waters by 2030 compares poorly to the positions taken, for example, by Palau and Niue. Australia’s $477 million Pacific Maritime Security Program expands surveillance and patrol capacity, but comes with strings attached. On plastics, Australia has supported Pacific participation in negotiations, but resisted binding caps on domestic production.

Australia’s preference for bilateral deals further exacerbate tensions and risk undermining Pacific unity. Under the Falepili Union with Tuvalu, Australia offers migration pathways and over $110 million in support, but ties Tuvalu’s foreign and security policy to Australia. Former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga, described the pact as “secretive” and “shameful,” arguing it shifts attention from urgent emissions cuts and compromises sovereignty. Civil society leaders, such as Joseph Sikulu of 350, have dismissed it as a “band-aid solution” that distracts from the root cause: Australia’s continued fossil fuel expansion.

Australia has since struck a similar treaty with Nauru and initialled the Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu in August 2025, announced just before the PIF: a familiar pattern of pre-summit deals that secure influence but sidestep collective Pacific priorities. As Dr Wesley Morgan explains, these agreements echo old colonial objectives: preventing other powers from gaining a foothold, while “using aid to blunt criticism of Australian climate policy.”

Hypocrisy that doesn’t go unnoticed

The result is a diplomatic dilemma. Australia wants to be the Pacific’s development and security partner of choice, while simultaneously expanding fossil fuel production that threatens the very survival of its neighbours. By seemingly taking a more transactional, geopolitical approach over genuine climate partnership, Australia risks eroding the trust and unity that has given Pacific nations their greatest strength on the world stage.

What should happen?

Our report has revealed the shadow of injustice that lies on the relationship between Australia and the Pacific. It is a shadow cast by Australia’s fossil fuel emissions, bipartisan policies that subsume the interests of PIC ‘family members’ to Australia’s national interest, and an extractive approach to the region. In order to allow the sun to shine on that relationship in full force, this report recommends a series of policy actions.

Policy recommendations

It is clear, now more than ever, that a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a powerful mechanism to help redress the climate injustice that is pervasive in the Pacific’s relationship with its powerful neighbour. This is why the proposal has been increasingly spearheaded by a number of Pacific Island nations. A widely implemented treaty would curb fossil fuel growth around the world and send a strong message to recalcitrant states about the carbon-free path the world needs to take. 

A range of other policy recommendations can be found on page 38 of the full report. 

The role of civil society 

While the power to implement ambitious climate policy rests primarily with governments, civil society has a powerful role to play. We urge Australian civil society organisations in the climate change, environment, and social justice sectors to ramp up their efforts to push the federal government to take meaningful action in line with 1.5ºC, including on a fossil fuel phase out, and not shirk from robust criticism when it fails to do so.

What now?

2026 is a critical year for climate action in the Pacific. COP30’s Belem Declaration saw Colombia and the Netherlands announce that they will co-host the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels on 28-29 April, and organisation for a regional pre-conference in the Pacific is already underway. 

As a signatory to the Belem Declaration, Australia will be expected to attend in late April and take an ambitious position. All eyes in the Pacific will be on Prime Minister Albanese. Will he step up, or will his government’s action continue to lag behind its rhetoric, as outlined in our report?