Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am getting there. Senator Waters has talked about 'targets that reflect science' but the minister has never provided any science to back this bill up. Neither have the Greens and Senator Waters in particular. Then she talked about science-based targets. Never have we seen them.

The point I'm getting to is that my amendment will require cost-benefit analysis to be inserted into the bill for future progress reports from the Climate Change Authority. I want to know if the minister understands that there has never been provided specific, quantified evidence, so how the hell can we ever have a basis for this legislation? Is the minister aware, for example, that 10 senators and MPs have put in writing the fact that nowhere have they been provided with any evidence from their party or from the parliament? I'll read these names out. These are the names of senators and MPs with character, courage and integrity: Mr Llew O'Brien, Mr Craig Kelly, Mr Kevin Andrews, Mr George Christensen, Mr Bob Katter, Senator Eric Abetz, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Senator Gerard Rennick, Senator Pauline Hanson and I. We have provided been provided at any time ever in parliament or from their parties with such evidence. Is the minister aware that this bill of hers builds on Prime Minister John Howard's position in complying with the UN's Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and that later on, after he introduced the Renewable Energy Target and stole farmers' property rights through his government, he then said in 2013 that he was agnostic on climate science? I care about that because it's hurting people right around the country.

My amendment introduces the concept of cost-benefit analysis into climate change. It introduces the need for specific evidence into the basis for legislation. Will you support my amendment and, if not, why not?