Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is about natural disaster recovery work in Queensland and Victoria. They indicate that I was minded to speak on this issue after the performance of Senator Macdonald in his earlier contribution where he talked about the issue of climate change.

I want to talk about it in the scientific terms—I have been advised by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Climate Commission and the Australian Academy of Science—and actually get back to some of the real issues that we are dealing with.

Senator Macdonald has been here are very, very, very, very long time. I think we are starting to see that he is really not injecting much sense into the debates. In my view it is about time he gave it away, because he is so predictable. He is absolutely predictable on every issue he stands upon. He is no more predictable on any issue than he is on climate change.

You only have to look at the weather patterns that we have around the country to understand that there are real issues. The problem for the coalition is that they do not seem to understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is a short-term phenomenon that we deal with; climate is a long-term phenomenon. You have to look at what is happening with weather over a period of time to determine what is happening in the climate. I would rather listen to the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology and the academy of science of every developed country in the world, who say that there are huge issues that the world has to deal with.

The glib nature in which the coalition deal with this issue is just not in the interests of future generations of this country. Their Direct Action Plan is a joke. It will not deliver the changes that are required. It will not demonstrate to the rest of the world the Australian leadership that John Howard, the previous coalition Prime Minister, said we should. It will not do that. It is a Greg Hunt, patched together approach to try and say there is a policy that is different from the government's policy. When you look at that policy you have to shake your head, because it is really not dealing with the issues that the CSIRO say we have to deal with. Mr Malcolm Turnbull, in the other place, has clearly described Mr Hunt's policy as 'not very good', and that is being kind. It is like that because he does understand that from time to time governments and oppositions have to deal with the scientific facts. And the scientific facts are clear—that climate change is on us, we have to deal with it, we have to mitigate against it, and we have to protect future generations.

Senator Macdonald should actually be an advocate for mitigation and an advocate for science—the advocate for North Queensland that he says is. If he was a real advocate for Queensland and North Queensland he would be saying, 'We have to do something real in relation to climate change,' because the storms that we have had recently are consistent with the modelling that has been done internationally as to what is going to happen in Australia. It is consistent with the modelling that has been done by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, which shows that more extreme weather incidents will take place. That is what we are seeing. We are seeing communities now being wiped out—homes and businesses that have been insured for years and years not being able to get insurance.

When you trace the issues that we are facing it goes back, as the Bureau of Meteorology point out, to the start of the Industrial Revolution. You can trace the increase in CO2 from the Industrial Revolution to where we are now. You can model that where it is going to head. You can model the implications. It is physics. I was hopeless at physics at school. I do not know anything about physics—except the advice that we get from the people that actually do physics for a living, the scientists.

The scientists would scoff at Senator Macdonald's performance tonight. It is easy to come in here and run all the glib lines that might go down well with the climate change deniers in the coalition: 'Ho, ho, ho!' 'What a job you did, Senator Macdonald. You were your usual self. You were there denying there was any change to the climate. Senator Macdonald, how good are you!' But, really, that is just really a denial of the future for future generations in this country. It really is disgraceful.

Senator Macdonald could not help himself. He is back. And so he should be back. If he would deal with the science and not the politics of climate change, he would actually be putting future generations before political opportunism. That is what Senator Macdonald does all the time in here. It is political opportunism mixed with a bit of smear, mixed with a bit of vitriol and mixed with a bit of attack on individuals—and we will see that again tonight. That is Senator Macdonald's bread and butter. He is a one-trick pony. He has been here far too long. That is the reality.

I take the view, not being a physicist and not understanding science to a great degree, that I take advice. I take advice from the CSIRO. I take advice from the Bureau of Meteorology. I take advice from the Academy of Science. And I say: 'Give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Give the kids of the future the benefit of the doubt. Do not come here and play short-term politics with the climate.'

Do not come here and play short-term politics, as Senator Macdonald does every day he is on his feet in this chamber. Actually think about the future generations of this country and give future generations the benefit of the doubt that the scientists have got this right. The scientists are saying to politicians around the world that you have to deal with this issue. I would say to Senator Macdonald, who was speaking on the CSIRO the last time he was on his feet: 'Have a read of what the scientists in the CSIRO say about climate change. Read the climate change book that the CSIRO have produced.' Senator Macdonald, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself because you are putting yourself and your political position before the needs of the North Queensland, before the needs of future generations in this country and before the needs of the environment. I think it is time, Senator Macdonald, that you stopped being a one-trick pony and you started looking at these issues and the reality of the scientific facts that are before us. Australians deserve better from their politicians.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had ceded out of respect for Senator Cameron before, but I somewhat regret that now, given the heap of abuse he has just hurled at a Senate colleague. I also encourage him, before he leaves the chamber, to go and have a look at my speech of 3 November which directly addresses the issue of science in the climate change debate. He may, if he is prepared to read it with an open mind, change some of his views.

I wish to talk to the 2011-12 major projects report by the Australian National Audit Office of the Defence Materiel Organisation. This report is a very thorough and good document that is of great utility to the parliament, representing the interests of the Australian people. The Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit worked closely with the ANAO and Defence to bring the report into being back in 2007-08. The ANAO have developed an expertise in auditing Defence and Defence procurement that is a significant asset to the Australian taxpayer through the transparency that it provides in public reporting and to this parliament. Their expertise was particularly useful during the recent Senate inquiry into Defence procurement. It does beg the question, though, of whether, if this report by the ANAO is actually more thorough and more detailed, particularly when you look at the project data summary sheets—and they give us a very good insight into the progress in terms of cost, schedule and capability, looking at a number of parameters for each of these projects—we can actually start to track the progress of these projects against the business case that was presented to government at first and second pass leading up to contract signature. It does raise the question of whether, if this is such a useful document and if it provides the public, the parliament and particularly the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit with a balanced insight, there is a role for this expertise, during the life cycle of a project, to feed into Defence's and the executive's and the parliament's ongoing oversight of Defence procurement.

Rather than having an audit that is looking back at events, have the same kind of rigour and expertise involved through the life and at decision points of projects, in terms of whether to proceed, how to proceed, whether or not to make it a project of concern, and how any rectification and recovery of the project may occur. Not that I think our system ever should be like the American system, but I note that the GAO in America fulfils a similar function, in terms of reviewing the progress of projects and informing the congressional oversight committees who do have that role in the American system.

The other part I wish to raise about this report is that, as well as giving us that tracking of cost-scheduling capability and where the project is up to, it makes a pretty fair effort of analysing and then listing lessons that should be learnt from each of these projects. That is where one of my significant concerns lie. During the Senate inquiry into Defence procurement we raised, on a number of occasions, the level of confidence within Defence to make adequate assessments of risk before we even brought the project to first and second pass and certainly before contract signature. Defence's position was that the technical risk assessment was going to be conducted by DSTO, and the point was discussed on a number of occasions with both the Capability Development Group and the DMO. But most of the risk that translated into project delays and cost overruns was not so much with the underlying technology but with issues dealing with integration, certification and acceptance into service. The DSTO and, in fact, most of the people working within Capability Development Group and even many within the DMO were not competent, by strict definition of their qualification and experience, to identify, analyse and make an accurate assessment on the implications of that technical risk.

It is concerning, having highlighted that during the Senate inquiry, to go back and look at the major projects reports from 2007-08 onwards and to see some of the lessons learnt, when it was highlighted by the Audit Office that one of the things that should be learnt out of these projects was that a more robust and informed assessment of risk was needed before the Commonwealth accepted that a capability truly was non-developmental or off-the-shelf, whether that be commercial or military.

It also is a good opportunity to review and to get an independent assessment on how Defence views that issue of off-the-shelf acquisition. What we are consistently told—both in the Defence Senate inquiry into Defence procurement and in estimates—is that Defence's interpretation of the Mortimer and Kinnaird reviews is that an off-the-shelf option has to be provided to government as a benchmark for them to make a decision about value for money. What is written down and what occurs in practice is an issue of culture. I find it interesting that in paragraph 48 of this year's report what the ANAO finds, having audited the DMO again, is that following the Kinnaird and Mortimer reviews, government has increasingly been requiring Defence to pursue MOTS or COTS capability solutions, where they exist, that can deliver the required capability. The intention of this policy is to reduce the risk associated with the acquisition of new capability by limiting the Defence organisation's exposure to the additional risk associated with developmental projects. There is a subtle difference there. It is no longer just a benchmark; it is a preferred direction.

In the additional comments to the Senate report, I talk at some length about the medium- and longer-term implications of continually shifting our design engineering and our design acceptance as well as our test, evaluation and certification capabilities offshore, because it reduces our ability to even conduct rigorous ongoing maintenance of our capabilities. The Rizzo report into the Navy's amphibious capabilities is a classic example that shows that, once those capabilities have atrophied, the unknown unknowns increase. People do not know what they do not know, and we start seeing a decline in the technical battle worthiness, airworthiness and seaworthiness of defence capabilities when that expertise decreases.

It is not good enough to just send people on courses. Qualification alone does not make people competent. People's competence for technical engineering roles around design assurance and ongoing battle worthiness, airworthiness or seaworthiness comes from a combination of both qualification and experience. You only get experience if people have the opportunities to work in those roles. So the long-term consequence—by long-term I mean within the decade—of continuing to send those functions offshore is significant. Take electronic warfare, for example. It has been recognised as a priority capability for industry, yet, if we look across a number of, or almost all of, our fixed-wing platforms—perhaps with the exception of the classic Hornet—we are seeing less and less involvement from the Australian Defence Force and its people within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation or JEWOSU, the Joint Electronic Warfare Operational Support Unit, and from Australian industry, which have the opportunity to put into practice the experience and the qualifications they have in these areas. Through our acquisition decisions, we are undermining the ability of the Defence organisation and industry to maintain that priority capability into the future.

I commend the ANAO for this report, the latest in the series. It sets a really good benchmark for what the Defence department should be providing to this parliament. There are opportunities there to look at how we can use those skills as part of the ongoing process of Defence acquisition and review. But we also need to make sure that the lessons learned are used by Defence and change behaviours as opposed to just sitting in a book that may well gather dust on a shelf.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to talk on document No. 5, which my parliamentary colleague Senator Cameron spoke about before Senator Fawcett. I feel a little bit for Senator Cameron. I know he is under a lot of pressure because of his past close association in the left faction of the New South Wales Labor Party with my namesake, Ian Macdonald—as has been mentioned, the 'bad Ian Macdonald'. I know Senator Cameron was very close to him because they were both significant in the left faction in New South Wales. I know he is under a bit of pressure in Western Sydney and is trying his best to look after Ms Gillard as she finds her way to Western Sydney—apparently the first time for a long time. So I accept that Senator Cameron may not have been quite himself in the comments he made on this Auditor-General's report on natural disaster recovery work plans in Queensland and Victoria.

Senator Cameron, as usual, was full of bile and was being vindictive about me. That does not worry me at all, coming from someone of Senator Cameron's standing. It does not worry me at all. But I want to clear the air and put some facts for Senator Cameron. Unlike Senator Cameron, I maintain an open mind on the question of the science and the debate on climate change.

I have always made the point that of course the climate is changing. I am not a climate change denier; I accept the climate is changing—it has been for millions and millions of years. There was once a time when Australia was covered in snow. It is no longer covered in snow, so, clearly, the climate has changed. If you go to the deserts of Central Australia, you will see fossils of what used to be a lush rainforest in the centre of Australia. It is no longer there, so, clearly, the climate has changed. I have never been a climate change denier; I always accept that the climate is changing.

What I am uncertain about, for Senator Cameron's information, is whether it is man that has caused climate change. I know it was not man that caused climate change a couple of thousand years ago, but Senator Cameron subscribes to the theory that man has done it in the last couple of hundred years. He may be right. I have an open mind on that. But, when Senator Cameron says, 'All of these scientists,' and quotes the CSIRO, he shows that he gets the point of the comments I made earlier about some elements—some, not all—of the CSIRO.

There are very well qualified scientists who do have a different view to Senator Cameron. I do not have the background or the learning to say that people who have a different view to Senator Cameron are correct, the same as I do not have the expertise to say whether people whom Senator Cameron follows slavishly without question are right or wrong either. I simply do not know. What I have always said is that there are a number of very well qualified scientists on both sides of the debate who have very strong views, and it does not seem to me as if the science is settled. Who better to support that suggestion than the UK Met Office, which recently indicated that 'global warming' has stalled for the last 17 years. Do you remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, before that marvellous Copenhagen conference, everyone was talking about 'global warming this', 'global warming that' and 'global warming the other'? Suddenly the rhetoric changed. No longer was it global warming; it was climate change.

We have Senator Cameron here today following the Professor Flannery view that all of the floods in recent times are the result of climate change. He forgets to say that the flood in Brisbane last year was the biggest since 1917, so it has happened before. Senator Cameron and Professor Flannery are saying that all of the ills that confront us now—fires, famine, droughts, floods, cyclones—are the fault of climate change, and yet, if Senator Cameron lived outside the capital cities or had lived a bit longer in Australia perhaps, he would know that up my way cyclones are a common fact of life. They get more publicity these days with 24-hour news, but the occurrence of cyclones has not much changed. They go in cycles and that is the way it is.

The UK Met Office have said that, contrary to Senator Cameron's view, there has been a stalling in global warming for the last 17 years. I know some people say you have to wait for 30 to 40 years before assessing that. Okay, I accept that—I have an open mind—but, clearly, according to the UK Met Office the climate has not been warming for the last 17 years. Even the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quoted as saying, 'The science isn't settled. There should be debate.' People like Senator Wong and Senator Cameron should not be vilifying anyone who happens to have a different view to them on climate change. When the head of the UNIPCC says that, you have to stop and think a bit.

I say to Senator Cameron that he should have a look back and consider the comments by Professor Flannery—and I have no doubt that Senator Cameron would have endorsed them at the time—that the Brisbane River would never flow again. Australia would be in permanent drought. Never would the dams in Queensland ever be full again. This is Professor Flannery, the Labor Party's pick for the head of the climate change commission in Australia. Professor Flannery, have a look at Brisbane last year and this year. Have a look now. Have a look at the dams in Queensland that you said would never, ever be full again because of climate change. Good heavens, if we rely on Senator Cameron and Professor Flannery for our advice on climate change, we are in real trouble.

I want to make this point: I have an open mind on these things. I do not accept and I do not reject that it is carbon emissions that are causing climate change, but, even if it is right and you stopped emissions in Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of world carbon emissions, in their tracks, it would not make any difference. If carbon emissions are causing climate change and Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent, how is taxing Australians with the world's biggest carbon tax of $23 a tonne going to help? New Zealand's carbon tax is $1 per tonne; in some provinces in China it is 20c; the Europeans, depending on which day it is, charge $5 or $10 a tonne. Australia has a carbon tax of $23 a tonne to stop, or reduce by five per cent, the 1.4 per cent of emissions that come from Australia. What stupidity!

Before the last election the Labor leader, Ms Gillard, understood that. That is why she promised she would never introduce a carbon tax. She must have understood that. Senator Wong, one of her cabinet colleagues, is now saying, 'The carbon tax is brilliant.' I ask Ms Gillard: if you believe Senator Wong and think it is so brilliant, why did you promise before the last election not to introduce it?

If you now think it is so good, were you stupid then? You knew it was good but you promised not to introduce it. These are the questions that should be answered in a rational debate on this subject.

This Auditor-General's report before us, on natural disaster recovery works in Queensland, is germane to this whole argument. Sure, there have been natural disasters in Queensland, but I am not one, like Senator Cameron and Professor Flannery, who believes that all disasters around the world now are the result of man's emissions of carbon—more importantly, are the result of Australia's 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon! Senator Cameron, I only say this to you: please, open your mind a little. We live in Australia; we do tolerate other views. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there have been some sensible contributions to this report with respect to what is happening with our climate and with natural disasters that have occurred in my home state of Queensland. This is the third consecutive year when we have seen significant flooding. I suggest that the third consecutive year would highlight some issue around the climate. I am only a young fella, born in the fifties—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

In the late fifties, of course! I can reflect on the '74 floods in Brisbane, when I was a teenager. I went out and helped a number of people in the streets of lower Kedron. That has received flood mitigation, and I thank the Labor council government in those days for flood-mitigating those particular areas. It is a shame the current Liberal council in Brisbane has not done the same task with respect to flood mitigation that previous Labor city council governments achieved. Nevertheless, I am sure they will get around to it one day.

I was involved in helping people rescue their possessions from those homes. I remember one particular street—Thistle Street in Lutwyche—not far from where Kedron Brook flows through, where it is all mitigated and there are no homes along that brook. When you think of a 'brook' you think of a steady stream of water travelling through a particular part of the environment. No doubt the '74 floods were like what I saw recently when I went doorknocking after the 2010-11 flooding in a number of my duty seats, where those brooks, those streams and those creeks turned into raging torrents. On that particular day back in '74, my then-wife and my second-eldest brother, cleaned out the house—a 'Queenslander', which, as I am sure you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, is built on stilts—while this brook was swelling to the extent of a raging torrent, virtually becoming a river. Slowly but surely, over what seemed minutes but was hours, it kept eroding the banks of the brook and the earth—and then, pillar by pillar, that old Queenslander started tilting towards the raging river. The last item we got out of the house was a piano. And then, sadly, we watched as the house that this family had lived in for many, many years in Brisbane slid into the raging torrent and was washed down, never to be seen again, broken into splinters.

That was the type of thing that was seen and experienced as a result of flooding over the last several years. It was my privilege as a Queensland senator to go out and doorknock in some of my electorates; places like upper Narangba. There was flooding in those regions and communities—and, to some extent, you could probably argue it was the poor planning by those local authorities. They built those estates, pushed up earth and directed the streets and the land arrangements around what were the best places to put houses for the residents that moved into those areas. It seemed odd: in some cases of flooding that I witnessed, as a result of the changes in that particular environment, water was moving uphill in the suburbs of Narangba.

You start wondering over time. I have lived in Brisbane all of my life. I went to some locations where previously there were pine forests—now they are housing developments in the suburbs of Narangba. I saw people—middle-aged and families—dragging their carpets and their furnishings out the front door, with their stereos, plasma TVs and those sorts of things being thrown to the front of their homes. Some of these people, unfortunately, were not covered by insurance; but we probably do not have the time this evening to get around to the issues associated with that.

People were devastated, because they had never been affected by flooding to that extent in their lives before. The widespread flooding that occurred, certainly in 2010-11, was nothing like what I experienced when I was involved in the flooding in '74—although the flooding was greater in height in '74 than in 2010-11.

The good thing about this ANAO report is it identifies the outcomes and the procedures that are put in place as a result of auditing to ensure that the money and the transparency of where it goes is done correctly. The Prime Minister said on 27 January that the preliminary estimates indicate that Australian governments will need to contribute about $5.6 billion to rebuild our flood-affected regions. You would know yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, as a Queensland senator and from getting out to the regions that you visit, that the wide effect of that flooding was quite significant. From memory, I think 95 per cent of the state was declared a natural disaster area—95 per cent! Think about the size of Queensland; it is a huge state. It is not like some of those smaller states down south—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

I'm not having a chop at the Victorians and Tasmanians in the chamber! But it is a significant state, the most decentralised in our country, and 95 per cent of it was declared a natural disaster area.

One of the good things Labor did—and it is something I can remember those opposite voted against—was to introduce a flood levy to ensure that people in our state were taken care of and supported in their greatest time of need—that is, when they were affected by such an extreme volume of water and the flooding that affected their homes and their environment.

One opportunity that occurred for me was up in Murphys Creek. Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, you would appreciate that that is one area that was decimated by the flooding that came from the town of Toowoomba. Many lives were lost in Murphys Creek. I was fortunate enough to go there and open the Building the Education Revolution hall. It was amazing to hear from the residents. They spoke about boulders the size of cars being thrown around by this raging torrent that came down from the tablelands at Toowoomba. They were being thrown around like matchsticks and crashing into the trees.

This report identifies and recognises that we do have an issue when it comes to climate change. I am no tree-hugging greenie but I recognise we have a problem not only in this country but in the world when it comes to the environment. It is great to realise the we, the government, are doing something about it.

It is odd that I found that Senator Macdonald, in his first speech, raised the subject of the environment. They have a policy they believe in—the Direct Action Plan—which we know will cost more and will not deliver what it is supposed to deliver. In Senator Macdonald's first speech he indicated he had a passion or a belief in the environment. I struggle to understand the extent of it. It is fine to stand there making your first speech and say that you have a belief that there is something that needs to be managed in the environment. But that is the limit he went to.

In the short time left, I must recognise and to some degree commend the Republican leader in the United States of America and also the leader of the UK Tory government for commending the Australian government for introducing climate change policy. We are leading the world when it comes to these sorts of reforms to ensure that we protect and look after the generations of children to follow, like my granddaughter Xavia. No doubt one day she will have children and she will want to make sure that the environment is protected for her children and her children to follow. That is one difference that sets us apart from those on the other side. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to compliment Senator Furner on his contribution, because I think it did address some serious issues about disaster relief and recovery that have taken place in Queensland. It is a distinctly emotive and personal topic to so many of us. But I am disappointed—and I think Senator Macdonald touched upon this after Senator Cameron's exchange—that they dragged out the old chestnut of climate change—the catch-all climate change—which apparently is responsible for every disaster that has befallen the country in the last few years.

I want to put on the record the lack of acknowledgement by this government that the facts around their rhetoric have changed somewhat in recent times. As far as I can recall, the government and the climate change alarmists have claimed the IPCC as the font of all wisdom and so we should heed their warnings, no matter how discredited they have been on many occasions. They also claim that the head of the IPCC, Mr Pachauri, is someone who should be listened to. Well, Mr Pachauri, I think, in Australia last week was reported as saying that they cannot explain why the earth has not warmed over the past 16 or 17 years. It is fact. It has not warmed over the past 17 years. But this is a fact that this government continues to ignore.

You have ministers who are supposedly economically responsible, rational and coherent, although it is hard to associate that with this government. One is Dr Craig Emerson, who flat out refuses to acknowledge the truth of the matter. I am not hypothesising or conjecturing; I am talking about the absolute facts. The problem in this debate is that the government tries to insert a whole range of rhetoric and discussion and their self-evident beliefs into it to support their policy agenda. Quite frankly, the policy agenda they have adopted is flawed, is wrong and is a broken promise in respect of the carbon tax and climate change.

To link climate change so directly with this disaster that has befallen the Queensland people does the government no credit. It is more reflective of the former leader of the Greens Party in this place, Bob Brown, who described the coal miners, who have provided billions of dollars in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs, as being responsible for it. The government should not sink any lower than it already has. It does them no credit to blame carbon dioxide for these floods.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed I am.

Leave granted.