TV interview with Minister Butler, Sunrise - 28 August 2026
Media event date: 28 August 2026 Date published: 28 August 2026 Media type: General public NATALIE BARR, HOST: Well, more than $7 million of taxpayer money was spent by the government trying to secure for our bid to host a climate summit that we never won. In just eight months, 107 bureaucrats made 156 trips to 64 trips across 31 countries, costing taxpayers $3.5 million.
And the year before, plus officials and security, the total bill hit $7.3 million. Let’s bring in Health Minister Mark Butler and Deputy Opposition Leader Jane Hume. Good morning to both of you.
Mark, you say Australia being at the forefront of these climate conversations is important for our future, but how do you justify spending millions of dollars flying bureaucrats overseas when taxpayers are struggling to get by in a cost of living crisis? MARK BUTLER, MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGEING, MINISTER FOR DISABILITY AND THE NDIS: Morning Nat. I understand your viewers would expect rightly that Government is very careful about the way in which we spend money to send officials over to engage with international forums but also with countries with whom we have an important relationship.
The important thing about this is that this was not only a bid by Australia but also our Pacific neighbours. Our Pacific neighbours consistently rate this question of climate change as their number one security and strategic issue. As we build stronger relationships with those Pacific neighbours in a really volatile, unstable geopolitical environment, we thought it was important not just for our interests, because we have significant issues at stake with climate change, but also for the broader region. : Jane, Chris Bowen's department pointed the finger at you guys for travelling on the taxpayer dime when you were in government, said you guys did this too.
What's your response? SENATOR JANE HUME : Actually, I think that they were pointing the finger at Dan Tehan, who at the time was a trade minister. That means he had an international portfolio, not a domestic one, and that's what Chris Bowen has.
Let's face it, Chris Bowen looked taxpayers in the eye and said that he was going to take $275 off their energy bills and he has failed to do that. Surely, surely he should be focusing on the one in three Australians who are failing, who are struggling to pay their power bills right now. But Chris Bowen has failed on every domestic target that he has set himself.
He hasn't hit his 82 per cent renewables, he hasn't brought down emissions, and he hasn't delivered on the $275 that he promised off your energy bills. Surely, he should be focused on that, not sending bureaucrats around the world on what is, let's face it, a Chris Bowen vanity project. : Is that what it is, Mark? : No, it's not nothing, Jane. They're sort of belied, really, the approach that the Coalition has had for years about this issue.
Climate change is a top tier international issue now, as I said, particularly for our Pacific neighbours, who are so important to our strategic position in this region. The Climate Conference is now the biggest annual conference of nations anywhere in the world. There are big issues at stake for Australia. : Most leaders aren't even going, though, are they, Mark? : There are big issues at stake here.
This is the biggest conference that happens between nations. There are very few countries, given our environment, that have bigger issues at stake in climate change than Australia, except our Pacific neighbours. They consistently rank it as number one.
They expect their big, wealthy neighbour, Australia, to play a significant role on behalf of the region, and that's what we've been doing. Now, of course, on a constant basis, we're using Zoom, we’re using Teams to engage with international partners, but there are times when face-to-face meetings are important to engage with international partners. : Our big wealthy neighbour, Australia.
We're getting less wealthy though, Mark - : Seven million dollars’ worth? : When the government agrees to spend money, do you look for bang for buck because people out there this morning are thinking millions of dollars, that's a lot of money. What did Australia get for its $7 million here? : As I said at the outset, Nat, we look at these very carefully. I know when officials in my department are seeking approval for overseas travel, sometimes they're approved by me, sometimes they're not.
Sometimes I reduce the size of the delegations that go overseas, because I know your viewers would expect, as taxpayers, that we get value for money as a nation. But at the end of the day, so many of the issues that are important to Australians, health, climate change, obviously our foreign relations, are not just issues confined to our borders. They are issues where we share interests with international partners and, at the end of the day, have to engage with them. : Okay, moving on.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has back flipped on plans to cut the annual refugee intake by a third. Mark, how are you going to make your immigration targets if you are now increasing the refugee numbers back to 20,000? : This is not a backflip, Nat. This is a restatement of a position. : Well, the Refugee Council were told it was reduced and then the Prime Minister increased it again. : I think we should all take the word of the Prime Minister for the position of the Government.
We've had for many years a humanitarian intake number of 20,000. We only reaffirmed it at our national conference last month in Adelaide. I mean, yes, it has to go through the usual process of budget renewal, but there's been no change for a number of years in the Australian Labor Party position on the humanitarian intake. : Are you saying the Refugee Council that said they'd been advised by Tony Burke's department that it was being cut to 13,750, are you saying they're wrong? : Well I can say there was no position change by Government.
As I said, only last month at the national conference we reaffirmed our intake number at 20,000. : So why would they say that? : At 20,000, which I think is the reasonable number alongside our strong border protection arrangements. : That’s a bit weird, isn’t it? : I can't tell you why they said that. It may well be that there was some communication about the need for a budget renewal process, but to the extent there was any confusion in the public commentary yesterday about this, the Prime Minister dispelled that.
And that reflects, as I understand it, the ongoing position of our government, which was to maintain a reasonable humanitarian intake number of 20,000. : Last word, Jane. You have said you want under 200,000. : I think Labor are all over the shop on this one. : What would you have for the refugee intake? : Well, we've actually said that we will target our migration program according to the number of houses built.
And I think Australians understand that it's a massive housing shortage right now. We shouldn't be inviting people into the country that we can’t house. Labor are all over the place on their migration policy… : And what would your refugee intake be, Jane? : Already we’ve seen Tony Burke have a speech cancelled.
We will announce our migration mix closer to the election based on the number of houses that are built and we'll be responsive and responsible at the time based on the needs at the time. That's 18 months away. But Labor needs to announce their policy now because they're in charge.
They're pulling the levers, but they are all over the place. Tony Burke's already had his speech cancelled. He's already had the Prime Minister contradicting him publicly.
Labor needs to make up their mind where they're going to need to go. And their conference suggested 25,000 refugees, not 20,000, Mark. : Okay, and Tony Burke has said that policy is coming. Thank you.
We'll see you next week. The Hon Mark Butler MP About the department Accessibility We acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia, and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders both past and present. © Commonwealth of Australia