Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, three senators each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 75. Senator Siewert proposed a matter of urgency, and Senators Gallagher and Roberts proposed a matter of public importance for discussion. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot.

As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Roberts:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The policy position of the Australian government towards the disputed theory of global warming with the election of Mr Trump as President, who is well known to reject exaggerated claims of anthropogenic climate change.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. I am very proud to represent my home state and stand up for everyday Australians who had to endure years of green guilt. The debate on this matter of public importance is in the context of the statements made by Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC earlier today during question time, when he stated:

At the heart of our national interest is our alliance with the United States …

I note that the ALP and the Greens have subsequently said that we need to abandon the TPP because of President-elect Trump's opposition. I say to my fellow Queenslanders that this historic debate in this chamber marks the beginning of a Western spring. Today begins the process by which we expose the truth of the green guilt elite—those who sit in this chamber and others who stand over Australians as if they were our lords and barons at birth, as if the red of this chamber were infused in their blood as a right. The world of the elites came crashing down when Donald J Trump was elected. They knew it last Wednesday, and that night they collectively wet their beds. Mr Trump has previously called the alleged human-caused climate change catastrophe a hoax, and has thus vowed to cancel the USA's participation in the Paris Agreement, as well as ending President Obama's war on coal by removing a number of climate policies and significantly downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency.

One Nation applauds President-elect Trump's highly moral and courageous position, yet many in this parliament still want to recklessly plough ahead with economy-killing climate policies such as ratifying the Clayton's Paris Agreement, in stark contrast to the plans of President-elect Trump. If the honourable Prime Minister would like to reconsider his government's stance, then my office team is in a strong position to assist, given, firstly, the presence of our team's economic policy adviser and former Trump campaign economic policy adviser, Darren Brady Nelson, and our growing relationships with senior members of the Trump presidential team like Myron Ebell, who will reportedly lead the EPA, and David Malpass, who is under consideration to lead the Treasury. We need to use every resource at our disposal if we are to extricate ourselves from reprehensible accords such as the Paris Agreement.

It is important at this juncture to highlight that the Paris Agreement, like all Australian federal, state and local climate policies over the past few decades, was not subject to a proper and independent cost-benefit analysis for the benefit of the Australian people. Who do they think they are, these people passing such policies? A Paris Agreement cost-benefit analysis is long overdue and preferably should be done by the highly credible Productivity Commission. Any such cost-benefit analysis will need to include at least two scenarios: one based on the evidence-light pseudoscience of the climate alarmists, such as the minority within the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the UN along with their related calls for massive government control, and, secondly, an alternative based on the evidence-heavy science of the climate realists. The National Interest Analysis for the Paris Agreement states:

The Office of Best Practice Regulation confirms that a regulation impact statement is not required for the ratification of the Paris Agreement.

This is outrageous, given that the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says:

Treaties which affect business or restrict competition are also required to be tabled with a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).

Such a study often includes cost-benefit analysis, as it should and must. My recent submission to DFAT on the Paris Agreement emphasised the crucial need for cost-benefit analysis. One of the reasons was that cost-benefit analysis most explicitly recognises that human wants are infinite, and natural resources are finite. Decisions have to be made between alternative government actions that compete for such resources. There are always choices to be made, even if the choice is to do nothing.

It is also important that I draw the Senate's attention to the wealth of experienced people President-elect Trump has gathered around him to dismantle the elites running the global climate agenda. The potential future head of the EPA, Myron Ebell, is currently the director of the Centre for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Sometimes called a 'climate denier in chief', he has called for abolition of the EPA and wants to scrap the Paris Agreement, a deal Trump has vowed to withdraw from. The potential future head of Treasury, David Malpass, is currently the founder and president of Encima Global, an economic research and consulting firm based in New York City. He served as Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under President Ronald Reagan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President George W Bush. As may be recalled, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party took to the last federal election a comprehensive environment policy. To quote from it:

Climate change has and will continue to be used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain. We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable. Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money. Let's know the facts and scientific evidence to make a well informed decision as to how best to look after our environment.

…      …   …

Our solution is comprehensive because core problems cannot be solved by ad hoc, one-off party politics. That failed Liberal-Labor-National approach, combined with Greens grandstanding, is causing Australia's deterioration.

To tap into Australia's wealth and to share it with all Australians we need to get to the root causes, the core problems and address them comprehensively. We need to involve people across Australia in developing solutions to restore Australia's productive heartland and wealth for the benefit of all.

…      …   …

Instead of so-called 'Alternative Energies' that are really 'alternatives to energy'—

as South Australia shows—

we will work to reduce energy prices and bring back dependability and reliability through environmentally responsible, energies. Low cost energy enables efficiency and productivity that generate wealth to protect the environment.

For the pleasure of the Senate I highlight the following summaries provided on the environmental policies of the Trump administration. President-elect Trump, who has called the alleged human-caused climate change catastrophe a hoax, vowed to cancel the United States' participation in the Paris Agreement. Mr Trump has also committed to scrapping the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature effort to reduce production of carbon dioxide with no scientific benefit or justification. Mr Trump has said he will review and possibly reverse the EPA's determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant endangering public and environmental health. Reversing that endangerment finding would end the legal justification for a range of climate policies. In the process it would end radical environmental activists, who are supported by American billionaires such as George Soros, and their ability to use the courts to impose climate policies on an unwilling public whose elected representatives have repeatedly rejected climate policies. Who do they think they are? These people are funding activists destroying Australian industry and jobs, and they are closely connected to the Hillary Clinton camp and President Obama's advisers. Who do they think they are, interfering in our country and our state and destroying our industry and our jobs?

Before the election Mr Trump said he would reverse Obama administration rules imposing undue burdens on businesses. In particular, Mr Trump said he would cut the EPA's budget dramatically, virtually reducing it to an advisory agency, and review all EPA regulations, eliminating many of them, because 'overregulation presents one of the greatest barriers to entry into markets and one of the greatest costs to businesses that are trying to stay competitive.' Hear, hear, Mr Trump!

Mr Trump says he wants to open up more federal lands to oil and gas drilling and eliminate regulations that have contributed to the decline of his coal industry. I put it directly to the chamber: many here joined the conga line behind President Obama when his policies suited them and said we had to follow our ally's lead. As Senator Brandis said this morning, our most important strategic alliance is with the United States. If it was good enough for some here to use the US when it suited them, then it is good enough now for us to follow the Trump administration. Australia's prosperity and the prosperity of the world is now reliant on our country withdrawing from the great global warming swindle. Future generations will judge us poorly if we do not take action now to stop our deindustrialisation. For their sake, let's trump control with freedom.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Back, I know you are a well-educated man, from the Christian Brothers many years ago—probably before my day—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well before!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imagine this: we put the most expensive carbon tax on industries here in Australia. I want to draw attention to the cement industry. In Australia we produce 10 million tonnes of cement a year. We also import two million tonnes, mainly from China. When we produce one tonne of cement here, we produce 0.8 of a tonne of CO2. So the 10 million tonnes produces eight million tonnes of CO2. Under the previous Labor-Greens-Independent government, when we were told that we were never going to get a carbon tax—'not under the government I lead' as former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said—of course she came under pressure from not only the Greens but Independents like Tony Windsor, who demanded a multiparty climate change committee, and along came the most expensive carbon tax in the world. Even though the cement industry had 95 per cent reduction of the carbon tax, it still cost them an enormous amount of money. In China they produce one billion tonnes of cement a year, compared to our 10 million tonnes. When they produce a tonne of cement in China, they produce, on average, 1.1 tonnes of CO2. Ours is 0.8 of a tonne of CO2; theirs is 1.1. So if we produce those ten million tonnes in China instead of Australia, there would be 11 million tonnes of CO2 produced instead of eight million tonnes.

What was the effect of the carbon tax? Shutting down the cement industry and putting it under pressure, when we already had Kandos and big factories closed recently. Shift the manufacture overseas and produce more CO2—to me that is not very smart at all. That was the effect of the most expensive carbon tax in the world—the carbon tax we were never, ever going to have. I am sure you remember that, Mr Acting Deputy President.

This is where we have to be very careful. I have not travelled the world much, though I have been to Thailand many times for Anzac Day. Carbon dioxide is actually odourless, colourless and non-toxic. You cannot see it. When you get to Thailand, you never see the sun or the stars, from the pollution—the carbon monoxide, the smoke, the lead, the sulphur—all those poisonous gases that are very harmful to mankind and to animals on this planet.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the atmosphere.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the atmosphere. But what do we do about reducing those poisonous gases? We will concentrate on carbon dioxide—the odourless, colourless, non-toxic gas which is essential to all life on earth —and we do not even concentrate on the poisonous gases. Twenty years or so ago, on a calm, fine spring morning, you could see the smog over Sydney—the pollution and smoke mixed. You do not see it now. Unleaded petrol has helped in some way. There are huge lead deposits under the Sydney Harbour Bridge, as scientists have discovered. I find it amazing that we concentrate on carbon dioxide and not poisonous gases. I wonder why those poisonous gases are okay? I see how on TV in China they have a meter measuring the dangers of breathing the air, and it is blowing through the red level. That is what they are breathing. The carbon dioxide is not hurting them, but those poisonous gases are. What are they doing to address it? It is a big argument.

Never forget that Australia produces roughly 1.3 to 1.4 per cent of the world's CO2. But we are doing our bit. Instead of spending $10 billion a year tax, which the previous Labor-Greens-Independents government placed on us—$9 billion and growing, going up and up all the time—we are spending $2.5 billion over four years with the Emissions Reduction Fund. That is about one quarter the cost to the Australian people of the carbon tax.

I want to make another point here. It is one of my pet hates. You see so-called environmentalists lock up national parks—just lock up the country and leave it. That has been pushed strongly through the National Parks Association. They have shut up the red gum forests in southern New South Wales now and all this country in New South Wales. They lock the country up, then the rain falls and of course the grass and vegetation grow. There is no grazing, very little hazard reduction burning and very little management, and along comes the lightning and along comes the bushfire. The Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria released an estimated 90 million tonnes of CO2. The one bloke who cleared the vegetation around his house—some 200 metres—was fined by the local council for clearing around his house, but his was the only house in the area that survived the fire. That is because he reduced the fuel levels on the ground. What a criminal he was! He was fined for doing the right thing and protecting his house. The insurance company should have paid his fine—they did not have to rebuild his house. I find this whole debate about the environment so ironic when it is all right to lock up country and not manage it.

In Tasmania, where Senator Whish-Wilson is from, 52 per cent of the six million hectares of that state is locked up. It is like you having a farm, Acting Deputy President Back, of 10,000 acres, locking up half and wondering why you cannot make a living on your farm! Because you have half of it locked up. That is in the national parks, wilderness areas and so on. Of course, they will get their share of fires—especially this year. One of the big concerns this year, after the huge wet winter and spring we have had, is South Australia. I see Senator Farrell from South Australia in the chamber. They will face a huge future bushfire danger. I hope that people do the right thing and that those who do the wrong thing are charged and punished severely if they are out lighting fires, because we are going to see more risk this year. Of course, bushfires put more CO2 into the air as well, plus the huge damage they do to stockfeed and, sadly, in many cases, the loss of life.

One thing I have pushed strongly for is soil carbon. When my wife, Nancy, and I bought our farm a few years ago the first we did was get the bulldozer in—the Greens reacted in negative way once before when I said this. We rebuilt the contour banks to prevent soil erosion. Our greatest asset is our topsoil. It has to grow food for thousands of years to come, for generations to come, yet we seem to pay little attention to our soil. Increasing carbon in the soil can be done by simply balancing the magnesium and calcium levels; it usually requires spreading lime and letting Mother Nature do its job. If we were to increase our soil carbon by three per cent over the 450 million hectares of agricultural land in Australia, that would neutralise our CO2 emissions for 100 years—zero. This is what we have to do: concentrate on looking after our land. The more carbon in your soil, the better your soil is. Healthy soil grows healthy food and you have healthy people. This is all a health issue.

Emissions trading schemes are schemes where wealthy people sell fresh air to wealthy people and poor people pay for it. It is as simple as that. That is what emissions trading schemes are. That is what the previous government wanted to do—have the carbon tax and then go to an emissions trading scheme. That puts costs onto businesses and puts costs onto households. We saw the cost of living going up and people paying more for electricity in their households and in their business. Of course, then they had less money to spend down at the local shops and the shops and businesses were doing it tougher, slowing the economy. Of course, lack of infrastructure is an issue. We only have to go to the South Australia's recent history—the state of darkness—to know how much money they spent on infrastructure there, even with the carbon tax put in place and the money they collected.

So I think we need a realistic attitude here. Yes, we are doing our bit—we are doing our bit at a lot lower cost than the previous government. We will meet our targets, and that is for sure. I think we can do a lot more for our environment. What is this whole parliament about, to me? Government is about protecting Australia for the future, for future generations, securing our country, whether it be protecting our environment, protecting our finances, protecting our borders from people coming here, protecting our Defence Force and keeping us safe.

Senator Roberts mentioned Mr Trump. It is amazing how critical so many Australians are of Mr Trump. I ask you to cast your memories back to the Second World War, the Battle of Midway and the Battle of the Coral Sea. That was a turning point in the Second World War. Who was there? The Americans. Do not ever forget that.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Without the Americans in the Second World War, we would not have a parliament of democracy here today, Senator Whish-Wilson; we would be under a Japanese dictatorship. You should remember that when you are throwing criticisms at the Americans. They have been great allies for that long. Our side of this parliament will do our utmost to maintain that strong friendship and relationship with the Americans. That is what you should concentrate on—the fact of things. It is all right to criticise who they elected over there. You may not like their democracy and who they have elected, but the fact is that we owe America an enormous amount for the democracy we enjoy in this place. Sometimes you might think about that before you go shooting your mouth off, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put on record straightaway that I never was taught by the Christian Brothers, though sometimes I think it would be a useful thing to have happened! We have the matter of public importance before us, and certainly the element of it that talks about the disputed theory of climate science is one that we know is true. There is a disputed theory of climate science. We only have to listen to some of the contributions as we have just heard from Senator Williams. There will continue to be dispute around the issue of climate science, as we have heard many times in this place. Those of us who were here during previous parliaments when there were moves to put in place measures around carbon emissions know just how strong this dispute continues to be not only in this parliament but in others. But I believe the level of dispute is lowering. I truly believe that, as a result of years of discussion in this space, there is more understanding more willingness to listen and more acceptance that there are indeed threats to our environment as a result of climate change.

We had the Paris Agreement signed only in the last year. As you would know, Acting Deputy President Back, that was a considerable move forward in terms of international discussion on the issue. Only a few years ago, we had the Copenhagen conference, where again countries from across the world gathered to talk about issues of the science, issues of the threat and issues of the future. At that stage, there was no agreement by the nations. There was lots of talk and there was concern, but no single agreement was signed at Copenhagen. There was a change by the time the Paris agreement was signed by over 190 countries who agreed that there needed to be change and needed to be a response to the real understanding that there are threats to our environment. And an environment is not owned by one state, by one nation or by one region. Our environment is such a vibrant natural feature that it is owned by the world. And the world stood up at the Paris agreement and said there needed to be change. One of the key areas that pushed for change and has continued to be involved in this discussion over many years, never moving their anger, never moving their concern, is the region of the Pacific, our closest neighbours. If you remember, there was a great deal of media around Copenhagen, and again in Paris, about small nation states from Oceania who went to talk about their reality to the other nations of the world.

I hope many people in this place do have the opportunity to talk with the people from Micah, who are visiting the parliament today. At their open meeting outside the parliament—their parliament—this morning, and in their meetings with many of us, they said, of course, that we can have discussions about climate change. Of course they know that parliamentarians here will be part of that discussion. But for them it is not a discussion. For them it is their livelihood. For them it is their future. That was the message that the people of Oceania as a group—Tonga, Samoa, Kiribati, Tuvalu—took to the international conferences. And they turned to us, their nearest neighbour, and asked us to support them in their struggle for the future.

The people of Oceania, the people of the Pacific, are not just standing back and waiting for other people to take action; they meet regularly and talk about the threat to their nations. At the recent Pacific Islands Forum, a number of important issues were passed. Climate was the No. 1 issue at the Pacific Islands Forum. The communique from the Pacific Islands Forum, which came out on 21 November this year, said: 'This week, as the entire world gazed at the super moon from the comfort of their homes, some Pacific islanders evacuated their homes temporarily due to the result of tidal surge. Let there be no doubt about the real impacts of climate change. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of people of the Pacific.' They went on to talk to their neighbours: 'We seek your support in accelerating the implementation of commitments made in the Paris agreement at the COP 22 meetings this week. The Pacific Island Forum members have endorsed the framework for resilient development in the Pacific to ensure coordinated action on a number of the key issues related to climate change and disaster risk management.'

I feel sure that not every single person in the Pacific actually rates climate change as the No. 1 issue for their region. I do not believe that every single leader in the Pacific would say that they absolutely believe in every element of the climate change science. I understand that there continues to be some dispute. But what has been put on record is that, when the leaders of the Pacific nations gathered together, they identified together that they did not have a dispute about the climate change science. They did not have a dispute about the theories around the need to change the way we operate in our environment, in our nation and in our region. They were clear that they understood that there had to be changes made. And the reason they understood that so clearly was exactly what the impact on their part of the world was. We can sometimes feel quite protected and safe. But when you have in your immediate sight the impact of the loss of your land, a change in your water safety and the need to move location because you can no longer live where your parents and grandparents were able to live, that makes it very important and very real to you.

Only a couple of months ago Caritas Australia, with their Pacific groups, put out a document that was circulated to all parliamentarians in this place. It was called Hungry for Justice and Thirsty for Change. It was a state of the environment report for Oceania in 2016. This particular document hears from people from across the Pacific nations talking about what has happened to their environment over recent years. In this particular document a very strong argument was put to us about the immediate impact. There were statements from Tonga, which is an extraordinarily beautiful country—as Senator Fierravanti-Wells knows. And we had a young man from Tonga speak with us this morning. He was from Micah. He was talking about the connection with country and also about the need for strong action to be taken to look at the science and make sure people across the region understood the severity of the situation—in particular, the safety of water in that area, water salinity, coastal erosion and flooding, and the impact on communities having to leave their traditional lands and no longer able to plant the crops that they had always been able to plant.

I do not believe that this discussion will end the debate around climate change. I do not believe it will end the dispute about the science. What I do know is that we will have the opportunity to listen to people from our region, respond to their needs and make the discussions very active and very real so that we understand the impact and what our role will be as one of the 197 countries who have signed up to the Paris agreement. I have not read the communique from Marrakech—I am sure it is around—from the recent meeting that Julie Bishop attended representing Australia. But I know that there were further commitments made there and a re-enforcement of Australia's position.

Senator Roberts, I know that, as you have been a regular correspondent over many years, we will continue to have this discussion. I understand that we have the opportunity to listen to the science and to challenge it—of course we must challenge it—but, having listened to people from the Oceania region, we cannot turn our back on their needs. We need to work together to ensure that this science, whilst disputed, continues to be understood.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, I could not possibly tell you any more about climate change than the CSIRO, NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Met Office in the United Kingdom and the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world. I could not possibly school you any better than Professor Brian Cox did on Q&Aor any better than Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr Alan Finkel have recently done. I could not possibly school you as well as that. Do you know what? When you get the empirical evidence that you so consistently demand, what we get from you is conspiracy theories—pure, simple conspiracy theories.

Senator Roberts believes that Australia ceded its sovereignty to the United Nations 20 years ago. Senator Roberts believes that Australia—and, in fact, global finances—are controlled by the tight-knit international banking sector. I wonder who you think they are, Senator Roberts. I wonder who you mean by that. Presumably you think that NASA is trying to read your thoughts through the fillings in your teeth, that the chemtrails are impacting on your neural pathways or that maybe the lizard people are stealing your thoughts through the special implants in your brain that they put in while you were sleeping one night! It is interesting, because I found this tinfoil hat outside the Senate door that you usually come in through, Senator Roberts. I wonder: if the hat fits, would you like to wear it, Senator Roberts?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I remind all senators that props are not allowed in the Senate. May I further remind you, Senator McKim, that your address must be to the chair, not directly to other senators.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just trying to help Senator Roberts. I thought he might have dropped his hat. Anyway, regardless of whether Senator Roberts needs the tinfoil hat, I look forward to his next motion, perhaps questioning whether the moon landing actually took place or whether Tasmania is really an island! When you close your eyes, Senator Roberts, is it still there? Really, seriously, haven't we all got better things to do than debate the conspiracy theory laden rubbish that you bring into this place?

The real world—not the fantasy world that Senator Roberts lives in—is quite rightly moving to prevent global warming from getting worse even more rapidly. Quite rightly, many of us are doing that. Quite rightly, those moves will always be championed and advanced by the Australian Greens so that we do everything we can to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren the same crack at life that those of us lucky enough to live today have had.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Roberts for bringing this matter before the chamber. It would be interesting to have a debate about something where you did not have the Greens sniggering and carrying on with their normal 'we know better than everyone else' thing. What now passes as debate from the Greens in this chamber seems to be them running around with tinfoil hats. This is a serious subject. You may not agree with the mover of the motion, but the debate should be treated with some seriousness rather than having the childish behaviour we see from the Greens political party—but that is nothing new.

I have dealt with Senator Roberts before he was Senator Roberts, when he was a constituent of mine in Queensland, and we have had some long discussions on this issue. I do not have the expertise and—I always make this clear—I do not have any scientific understanding or background. I have a commonsense approach to different things. But I do know that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. If carbon emissions are the cause of alleged global warming—I try to stay agnostic on that debate—then Australia's emissions of less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions makes Australia a very small player. If remedial action has to be taken then Australia should play its part when everybody else plays their part. When the big emitters like China, America, Russia and the European Union get their emissions down to less than 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions then Australia should step up. What I say now is my own view. I do not necessarily speak for the government in this particular debate.

I had a visit earlier this afternoon from the Micah group. I was delighted to hear from Salama, a young lady from Kiribati who is worried about her island homeland going under water. I feel for her and I said to her that, if there is anything I can do to help, I will be happy to do it. I will speak to Julie Bishop about where our foreign aid goes and whether more can be diverted towards reconstruction and resilience in relation to the changing climate of the world. The changing climate of the world has been happening since mankind came to this earth. As I keep saying—everyone laughs at this—we were once covered in ice, so of course the climate changes. It always has. As I said to Salama, I do not want to understate this, but I know there are other Pacific Islands that have gone under the waves in the last couple of hundred years. It has happened in the Torres Strait and people have had to be moved of these islands. That has been happening. It is not a new happening.

People always say to me—my briefing notes even say so—that the number of days per year over 35 have increased in recent decades and there has been an increase in fire weather. I live in North Queensland and I have lived there for most of my life. People say to me, 'These cyclones are becoming more frequent and they're becoming intense.' So they tell me. Sorry, I have lived there. I have lived through 60 years of cyclones and I know what they are like. People say to me, 'This is the biggest cyclone we've ever had since 1920,' and 'The Brisbane floods were the biggest floods we've ever had because of climate change since 1928.' It is always since some other time. These things have been happening for a long time.

As I say, I have no scientific knowledge—I bow to those who do—and I think Senator Roberts might. I simply work on the basis that if this is the cause for the changing climate, then Australia, which emits less than 1.2 per cent, is doing far more than it needs to. I am pleased the government is involved. There is some money as a result of the Paris Agreement. As I understand it, there is a bit of money put aside, but it will be run by Australia and will come out of the foreign aid budget in any case. It will just be a question of where it is directed. I hope some of it might go to Kiribati to help that island, but as I said to Salama, 'I'm sorry to say this, but nothing Australia does and nothing the world does is going to make a long-term difference to islands like yours. I'm sorry, but somewhere into the future you will have to look at resettlement, as has happened in times gone past.' I repeat that when other countries who emit big amounts of carbon dioxide get down to Australia's level, then Australia should do more.

Notwithstanding that, I do support my government's approach in reducing emissions and reducing particulates going into the atmosphere. I am quite happy about that for reasons other than climate change. As a result of the good work the Turnbull government and, before that, the Abbot government have done, there are a number of initiatives that encourage Australians to look at alternatives to fossil fuel emissions. One of them is the Emissions Reduction Fund which, through using Australian carbon credit units, can mean that beef producers in Australia can get more productivity out of their herds. At the same time, through targeted feeding supplementation through improved feed quality and improved weaning rates, managing the herd age and installing fencing to control herd movements it has actually meant that these beef properties are run more productively, more efficiently and, therefore, more profitably. As a result of that, they increase the opportunities for employment. This is particularly important in northern Australia, where some of the very large beef cattle herds currently operate. The Meat and Livestock Australia analysis found that improved management activities for a herd of 10,000 animals on pastoral lands could generate annual productivity gains of $40,000 to $80,000. These returns are in addition to revenue from the sale of carbon credits. So there is an upside to some of these arrangements that have been made. I am pleased to say that farmers—probably more than the Greens political party and their supporters—understand how important climate change is, acknowledging that the world has always had climate change and that the climate of the world continually changes from what it was years ago.

I thank Senator Roberts for not only this motion but for a number of other things he has raised in the Senate. We are now able to have a debate on this subject without going on with the childish name-calling that we get from the Greens political party. I have made it clear to Senator Roberts privately and now publicly that I do not always necessarily agree with everything he says. I am not quite sure that this is a world bankers' conspiracy. I do not know anything about it, but I do not imagine that is right. But Senator Roberts does have some scientific background that most of the other senators who have participated in this debate simply do not have. Thank you, Senator Roberts, for raising it. Thank you for allowing us in this Senate now to have a rational debate about this. For years that I have been here, if you even suggested that you did not go along with the Greens' political correctness, followed by the Labor Party view that you had to have a carbon tax, you were an absolute pariah. It is this juvenile debate that the Greens and the Labor Party went on with over the last 10 or so years that I am pleased has now come to an end. You can have a rational debate with, it appears, in Senator Roberts' case, someone who has some scientific understanding of the issues for and against it. Thanks very much for bringing this up for debate, Senator Roberts. I do not necessarily agree with you, but thanks for raising it. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 2016 and we should not be devoting an hour of time in this chamber to debating whether climate change is real. We actually should be devoting a month to exploring ways we can address it. Instead, here we are. I want to say that I believe in climate change and so do my Labor colleagues. We believe in it because tens of thousands of qualified scientists over dozens and dozens of years have measured it, experimented and modelled it. Climate change is real.

I know that Senator Roberts keeps on asking people in this chamber to provide empirical evidence. In the words of Mulder and Scully, it is out there—mountains of it. The evidence does not stop being empirical just because you disagree with it.

A 2013 survey of scientific papers found that, of the 4,000 recent papers that expressed a view on climate change, 97 per cent thought that it was real and caused by humans. I know that 4,000 is a lot and I do not expect that anyone here is going to read all of those, but I thought what I could do is help people to start a reading list. Here are the 20 most cited peer-reviewed papers about climate change and its effects, compiled by Thomson Reuters, so that people can get started: 'Ecological responses to recent climate change' by Walther, Post and others in Naturein 2002; 'A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems' by Parmesan and Yohe in Naturein 2003; 'Extinction risk from climate change' by Thomas, Cameron et al in Naturein 2004; 'Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants' by Root and others in Naturein 2003; 'Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model' by Cox and others in Naturein 2000; 'Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs' from an Australian researcher who is very well known, Hoegh-Guldberg, in Marine And Freshwater Researchin 1999; 'Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years' by Crowley in Sciencein 2000; 'Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs' by Hughes and others in Sciencein 2003; 'Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models' by Cramer et al in Global Change Biologyin 2001; 'Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent?' by Hughes in Trends Of Ecological Evolutionin 2000; 'Timing of millennial-scale climate change in Antarctica and Greenland during the last glacial period' by Blunier and Brook in Sciencein 2001; 'Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful?' by Pearson and Dawson in Global Ecology And Biogeographyin 2003; 'Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change' by Thompson and Solomon in Science in 2002; 'Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain' by Pounds, Fogden and Campbell in Nature,back in 1999; 'Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle' by Roeckner and others in Journal Of Climate, back,again, in 1999; 'Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change' by Davis and Shaw in Sciencein 2001; 'Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change' by Parmesan, again, in Annual Review Of Ecological Evolution Studies in 2006; 'Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change acid population growth' by Vorosmarty, Green, Salisbury and Lammers in Sciencein 2000; 'Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes' by Corti, Molteni and Palmer, back in 1999, in Nature; and 'Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic climate change' by Hoerling and Hurrell in Science in 2001.

That is the top 20 that Thomson Reuters identified, but you could read other things. You could read the IPCC reports—and there are quite a few of those—or, if you are worried that it is all a conspiracy by China, the UN, or a 'cabal of international bankers', I have some earlier papers. You can go back to 1896 and find a paper by Arrhenius called 'On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground'. You can go to a paper by Callendar from 1938 called 'The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature', published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. You can go to Phillips in 1956 and read 'The general circulation of the atmosphere: a numerical experiment' or to Manabe and Wetherald and read 'Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity', which was in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in 1967. You can go to a paper from as recently as 1976 called 'Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii' by Keeling, Bacastow and others.

If there is not enough empirical evidence there or in the 4,000 papers that were reviewed in the study that I mentioned earlier, the problem is not with the evidence. The thing is that there is a climate conspiracy—but it is not a conspiracy by the tens of thousands of scientists who have contributed to our current understanding of climate change; it is a conspiracy by climate denialists to muddy the waters of what is now a very clear scientific consensus. Back in 1995, a Republican strategist, Frank Luntz, was encouraging Republican members to 'challenge the science' by 'recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view'. Ten years later, he was still at it, with a 2001 memo that said: 'The scientific debate is closing against us but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.' That was the strategy. Well, he was not the only one to adopt that strategy, and the flood of misinformation has not abated. International organisations like the Heartland Institute actively sow uncertainty about climate change.

We should not allow the debate about climate change in this country to be derailed by misinformation the way that it has been in the United States and elsewhere. We are lucky in this country to have the leaders of both major parties in agreement that climate change is real. The difference, of course, is that the Prime Minister seems unwilling to actually do anything about it. But, for Labor, it is a critical issue and one that we are proud to take a stand on. The policies we took to the last election constitute a real response to climate change. We committed to 50 per cent renewables by 2030 and to funding agencies like ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to get there. We committed to having a plan—a real plan—to support workers, businesses and communities who will bear the brunt of change. There is no doubt that change has costs. Our responsibility is to make sure that those people who bear those costs are not left unsupported and that there is a real plan for their communities and their jobs. We committed to bringing in a domestic emissions trading scheme that will bring Australia in line with our international obligations and drive the long-term transition that our economy needs, because there are opportunities—huge economic opportunities—for a country that makes this transition.

Those opportunities lie in building the technical expertise and the manufacturing capability to build the technologies of the future that will assist not just Australia to decarbonise but in fact the globe. Sadly, that is an opportunity that we seem unable to grasp under this government, because we know that through the hostility to renewables and through the vacillation around climate change policy we have seen a fall in investment in renewable energy in this country. We have seen this country decline in the international rankings as a place that is attractive for people who are seeking to invest in renewable technologies. And it is a great shame, because our researchers, our excellent technologists, have actually led the debate, led the research, yet so many of them have been forced offshore, forced overseas, because they have found that their skills, their knowledge and their vision are not welcome here and are not supported by conservative governments.

This is a huge opportunity for Australia to build an economy that is resilient and sustainable for us. It is an opportunity to build an energy system that is resilient and sustainable. But most of all it is an opportunity to leave an environment for our children that matches the one we have enjoyed, and other senators have spoken about this. But I want my kids to be able to play outside in summer, and should I ever have grandchildren I would like them to be able to do that. I would like to take them to the reef. I would like them to see the wetlands of Kakadu. I would like to take them to the alpine areas to see the animals and plants that live there now because of the unique climate that is there but will not be there under a warming scenario. These are all legacies I would like to leave for my children, and we have the opportunity to leave them. But it takes Australian political leadership to do so. (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a short contribution to this matter of public importance regarding climate change. The Greens are deniers of natural climate change. The average world temperature is about 14.5 degrees, and science shows us that we cannot stop natural climate change; we can only make preparations to survive it. The JLN has climate change policies based on that unescapable fact. Ice-core samples from Antarctica show that about 110,000 years ago the average world temperature was also about 14.5 degrees. And because of natural climate change, which is caused by variations in the earth's orbit around the sun, the average world temperature rose about five degrees very quickly to around 19 degrees. The variation in the earth's orbit then made the average global temperature collapse very quickly, to bounce around five to 10 degrees, causing an ice age that lasted until about 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, when, just like clockwork, the average world temperature changed and warmed and rose very quickly again to 14.5 degrees.

The scientific record shows that no amount of windmills, solar panels, renewable energy targets or Australian pensioners paying over-the-top prices for their electricity will stop the earth's temperature heating up by another four or five degrees if that is what natural cycles dictate. In fact, the Antarctic ice-core samples show that about every 100,000 years the average world temperature quickly rises two to five degrees from today's average of 14.5 degrees without any help from humans burning fossil fuels. Why don't the Greens and other deniers of natural climate change acknowledge these scientific facts? Why won't the Greens acknowledge the fact that if the world temperature did rise two degrees it would not be unusual, extraordinary or beyond the limits compared with scientific records shown in ice-core samples?

The whole Greens political movement would collapse if people no longer felt guilty about demanding cheap, reliable power from their governments. The uninformed Greens cretins who say we can stop world climate change by shutting down our cheap, reliable base load power stations and replacing them with expensive, subsidised, unreliable solar panels and inefficient wind turbines and make our manufacturing industries, families, farmers and pensioners pay for some of the most expensive power in the OECD should be shown the disrespect, contempt and political wilderness that they deserve.

Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak in support of my colleague Senator Roberts in respect of the vital matter of public importance he has raised on climate change. The Greens Left has long argued that the spectre of catastrophic human-caused climate change requires a globalist, UN based response. They have said this for two reasons—firstly, because it is pitifully obvious that a country such as Australia, acting alone, could never do a thing to affect the climate in any measurable way. Even if we accept the hysterical global warming doomsdaying, we account for just 0.33 per cent of the world's population. Even if we were to shut down the whole country, with not so much as a wood fire to warm ourselves in our caves, the difference this would make to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would be entirely counteracted by the rest of the world's action in a matter of months. So, to avoid confronting that reality, the Greens tell us, we need to simply be obedient to the United Nations and cut our emissions, and then everyone else will do the same—as if China and India were ever going to let themselves be led around by the nose the way the Left say that we should let the UN lead us.

Secondly, the radical Greens have argued for global deals and global agreements in a way to reduce the power of individual countries and national institutions and to increase the power of global organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union. The green Left has long found it easier to make inroads among the global elite rather than by convincing the citizens of their own countries, so they have agitated for more and more power to be surrendered to the global organisations. And now with the election of the Trump administration the fantasy of global action has been punctured forever. There will be no global suicide in the name of climate change. The United States will not sacrifice its economic wellbeing. And with such a huge and pivotal country refusing to be part of any such collective— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.