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

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today nine proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75 from Senators Cameron, Dastyari, Gallagher, Hanson, Hinch, McAllister, Siewert, Urquhart and Wong. 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 Siewert:

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

The Turnbull government's spending of $1 billion on Adani's coal line rail that is putting 70,000 tourism jobs along the Great Barrier Reef at risk as well as jeopardising the livelihoods of future generations.

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 shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of this proposal. Let me begin by discussing what is at stake here. We are blessed to have one of the most incredible natural wonders on earth off the coast of Queensland: the Great Barrier Reef. This incredible jewel, this natural wonder, the only living organism that can be seen from space, is a magical underwater world that has brought so much pleasure to people not just here in Australia but right around the world. Indeed, it is a source of wonder and delight and something that we should all feel very privileged to have right here on our doorstep.

Yet here we are, in an age of catastrophic global warming, at a time when we know the window for action is closing, with a proposal for a jobs-destroying, polluting, climate-killing coalmine in Queensland that we know not only will spell disaster for the jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef but, indeed, may mean the end of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. I say to those people who have not seen what is going on right now in Queensland: go and see it with your own eyes. Last year, Senator Larissa Waters and I did that. We went to visit some of those northern reefs, and what you see there is what were once vibrant ecosystems transformed into underwater deserts. You see the corals, which once showed the greens and other incredible hues, completely wiped of all colour and all life and effectively transformed into an underwater desert of a sickly yellow in some parts and a ghostly white in other parts.

Faced with the prospect of losing this incredible natural wonder, something that we are custodians of and should be handing to future generations, we have a government that, instead of acting with urgency, is proposing to destroy the Great Barrier Reef. Today we see evidence of a massive cyclone descending on the Queensland coast. We are going to see more of them if the Carmichael mine goes ahead—more intense cyclones and more extreme weather. That is the cost of global warming. That is a scientific fact.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have members of the coalition disputing what the science is telling us. The consequence of the Carmichael mine going ahead will be more intense cyclones and more extreme weather.

You would think that one thing this government would understand is the notion of jobs. There are 70,000 tourism jobs in Queensland, compared to 1,400 jobs in the mining industry if this project goes ahead. We know what the outcome should be. We are now seeing a second, unparalleled bleaching event further south in Queensland and we know that there is hardly a reef that is not affected between the cities of Townsville and Cairns. If $1 billion of taxpayer money goes towards this mine to build the rail to support digging that coal out of the ground and shipping it overseas—indeed, through the Great Barrier Reef—what this government is doing is scandalous and it will trigger the biggest protest movement of this decade.

We have had a lot of debate about the rule of law, but, if people did not stand up when the Franklin was about to be dammed, we would have lost one of this nation's—indeed, the earth's—most precious wild rivers. It was the brave action of many of those protesters, who stood up in defiance of the law, that helped to save the Franklin. We, together with people from right around the world, will make sure that we again commit to standing against this government and against its proposal to ensure that the Adani mine goes ahead. We say to financiers who are looking at this right now: get ready for the fight of your life because, if you are going to contribute money to this mine, you will be faced with a backlash not just from the Greens but from the entire Australian community.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to speak after Senator Di Natale. Today, Senator Di Natale—we heard it just then and we heard it earlier in question time—continues with this extremist rhetoric about coal and seeking to shut down an entire industry. The nature of that extremist rhetoric was particularly well exposed in question time today, when Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is what he did: he compared coalminers to drug dealers. Coalminers, of course, provide tens of thousands of jobs in this country. They provide billions of dollars in exports. They provide billions of dollars in taxation revenue and energy security for Australians, and, as we export that coal, particularly to countries like India and others—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order about adverse reflection on another senator. Senator Seselja has just explicitly stated that Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is categorically not the case. What he did was make a comment on the lameness of the argument—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, that is not a point of order; that is editorialising. I was listening very carefully to Senator Seselja's comments and I also heard the comments in question time. You are making a debating point, not a point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very sensitive on this point. It was interesting that Senator Di Natale raised that because, when it comes to choosing between coalminers and drug dealers, the Greens choose drug dealers. They want to ban coal and they want to legalise drugs. We have seen it recently in the policies that the Greens have put forward. Senator Di Natale recently put forward a policy that would see the legalisation of drugs in this country, but one thing they want to do is ban coal. So, when it comes to choosing between those two realities, they choose the drug dealers over the coalminers.

We reject the premise of this matter of public importance. The suggestion that you cannot have a coal industry, as we have seen for decades and decades in Queensland, and a growing tourism sector is absolutely false. Let's go to the figures. Let's see how the tourism sector has done under the coalition government. Let's see how it is done in Queensland under the coalition government. There is nothing like facts to respond to the Greens' rhetoric. Let's respond with some facts. Since 2013, the Whitsundays saw an increase of 36 per cent in international visitors and an astonishing increase of 89 per cent increase in visitor spend—an 89 per cent increase! So we have seen a booming tourism sector co-existing with things like coalmines. That has been the case for many, many years. Tropical North Queensland saw an increase of 31 per cent in international visitors and an increase in visitor spend over three years of 34 per cent. These are very encouraging figures. I am sure the Greens do not want to hear them.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, a point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can feel a point of order coming on. I am not sure what it is going to be about.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, if you could take your seat. Senator McKim, a point of order.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, it is a point of order on the matter I raised with you earlier. I have reviewed standing order 193 and I do believe that it is a cut and dried case of a breach of that standing order that Senator Seselja has just engaged in. I would ask you to ask the President to review the tape of both Senator Di Natale's comments in question time this afternoon and Senator Seselja's quite blatantly inaccurate assertions. If there has been a breach, I ask you to request the President to take the appropriate action.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I will refer this as requested to the President. As I said, I listened very carefully to what Senator Seselja said and, in my opinion, it accurately reflected what was said in question time. But if it does not—

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

In my opinion it doesn't.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, you have asked me the question. As I have said already, I will refer it to the President, as you have sought, and the President can take the matter up further.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator McKim wants to adhere to the standing orders, he probably should not be yelling at you as you are giving your ruling. I think a little more respect for the person in the chair would be—

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

How about some truth from you, mate.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely stand by what I said. I stand by it 100 per cent. You will have a chance, no doubt, to come and speak, and you can tell me which part I got wrong. Instead of appealing to the umpire, appealing to procedures, which you have gotten wrong, maybe you could come back and tell me which part of what I said was wrong.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, I just remind you—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator McKim, you are not helping matters. Senator Seselja, I would ask you to refer all issues through the chair. Thank you.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Chair, if Senator McKim had a case, he could make it as a debating point, but why would the Greens start focusing on facts now? Why would they change the habit of a lifetime and start focusing on facts? I have given some facts about the tourism spend, so that debunks a lot of the claim that somehow these industries cannot co-exist; they absolutely can. They have done so for decades. We have seen a massive increase in the tourism spend at a time when we have seen a massive increase in coal exports from Queensland. Let's go through some of those facts. They have co-existed, side by side, over the last 60 years. International tourism to the reef grew from 214,000 in 1999 to 248,000 in 2016, in the same period that coal exports from Queensland grew from around 94 million tonnes to 221 million tonnes. So we have seen the growth of both industries. Isn't that a great thing? Isn't that something we should be celebrating rather than, as the Greens would like to do, kill an industry. That is what they want to do.

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

Talk about coral bleaching.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will talk about the facts in this matter. Senator Whish-Wilson, through you, Chair, may not like those facts. Perhaps if there is another Greens' contribution to this debate they could address the fact that we have seen growing tourism numbers and we have seen a growing amount of coal at the same time.

I want to go to the Supreme Court ruling, which Minister Canavan mentioned today, because again it debunks the Greens' central claim. Their central claim is that, if the Adani coalmine goes ahead, there will be heaps more global emissions, therefore, the reef will suffer and, therefore, tourism will die. That has been debunked by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Queensland said:

… the power stations would burn the same amount of coal and produce at least the same amount of scope 3 emissions whether or not the mine proceeded; if the mine proceeded it would not increase the amount of global greenhouse gases or any environmental impact resulting from those gases …

Again, you have the Supreme Court of Queensland—which is not known as a right-wing organisation—a judicial body, ruling on the facts, looking at the evidence and saying, 'No, actually, the Indian government, on behalf of the Indian people, are going to source coal, and they are going to source coal for their growing population so that hundreds of millions of Indian residents, Indian citizens, can get out of poverty, and so that hundreds of millions of Indians can for the first time perhaps have electricity where they live.' They are going to source that coal. They could source Australia's high quality coal from Queensland or they could source it from other parts of the world. What the Supreme Court found was that, therefore, this will not add to global emissions. But let's for a moment focus on that aspect. This goes to the complete inability of the Greens to have any sort of concern for poverty-stricken people in other parts of the world.

The Indian government is seeking to drag large chunks of their population out of poverty. It is very easy if you are a comfortable green somewhere saying: 'I want to abolish coal. I want to kill the coal industry. I want to stop these exports, even though the Supreme Court has said it is not going to add to global emissions.' You have got such an ideological fixation as a green that you are prepared to ignore what the Indian government is trying to do in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. Why don't we, for just one moment, put ourselves in the shoes of those people who do not have access to some of the basics of life that we take for granted. If the Indian government could do it just through solar and if they could do it just through wind then they may well do that. They do have solar projects and they do have wind projects. But they have made the very rational judgement that the only way in the short term that they are going to drag these people out of poverty is by having base load coal and other sources of base load energy. What the Greens do not seem to care about is how transformative that would be for those individuals, for those families and for those communities. Just for a moment, take off the blinkers and put yourself in those circumstances. The Indian government is right to try and deliver that for their people.

We have an abundance of coal. It is, in many cases, much cleaner than coal from other sources. The Supreme Court said it will not add to the overall greenhouse gas emissions. Yet we will be dragging people out of poverty; creating thousands of jobs here in Australia; and continuing to maintain a critical industry for this nation, which pays billions of dollars every year in taxes, so that we can spend money on things like roads, hospitals and schools and the defence of our nation. But the Greens would throw all of that aside, with no regard for the jobs here in Australia, with no regard for the flow-on impact for our economy, completely disregarding that it will have no environmental impact and absolutely oblivious to the needs of people who could only dream of having the kinds of living standards that we enjoy here in Australia.

I think we should see this for what it is. We should see the callousness of the argument that is made consistently by the Greens when they deal with the Adani issue. The Greens' case does not stack up environmentally, it does not stack-up economically and does not stack up when it comes to having some regard for some of the poorest people in the world (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One point of clarification in relation to Senator McKim's point of order that he raised with me. I wanted to confirm with the Senate that the President will only come back to the Senate if there is a further matter to raise in relation to the issue that Senator McKim raised.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue of protecting the Great Barrier Reef but also ensuring that there are job opportunities for regional Queensland is something that the Labor Party in Queensland has been at the forefront of. Labor has a proud record at both the state and federal level—and a better record than anyone over the last 30 years—of taking action to protect the Reef. But we also understand the importance of economic opportunity for regional Queenslanders, and it is the prism through which the Adani project is being looked at.

I understand Senator Di Natale said that he visited the Reef last year. I visited it with my family as well. It was the first opportunity that I have had to take my kids on that trip. I have also spent plenty of time in regional Queensland talking to people who are suffering unemployment at the moment. I dare say that, whilst Senator Di Natale visited the reef, I doubt he took time to go and talk to the people of Townsville who are suffering under high unemployment.

When you look at the unemployment rate in Townsville, it is at 11.6 per cent, and youth unemployment is at 16.8 per cent. This is of significant concern to me as a Queensland Labor senator, and something that I know is felt particularly in those local communities. The effects of high unemployment, with youth crime and associated social issues, are of concern. When you add falling house prices to that—I am just trying to paint a picture of the economic circumstances in North and Central Queensland—you get a sense of the doom and gloom that people in places like Mackay and Townsville are feeling as a result.

To exemplify the importance of this project, you only have to look at the trip to India, a number of weeks ago, by a group of mayors from that area. I know that Matt Burnett, mayor of Gladstone; Jenny Hill, mayor of Townsville; and Margaret Strelow, mayor of Rockhampton went on that trip. I had the opportunity to talk to the mayor of Rockhampton last week about how the trip went, and she was very excited about how successful it was and the opportunity that that group of mayors had had to put their case to the Adani Group about the importance of that project to regional Queensland.

I know that the state Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was also on that trip. I had the opportunity to speak to her last week about how that trip went. Annastacia is also excited about the opportunity that the Adani project presents for regional Queensland. Speaking from experience, from a Queensland point of view it is very rare to get a group of mayors from a particular region agreeing on anything! It shows how strongly they agree with this project and its economic importance to Central and North Queensland that they were prepared to make that trip and make the case for how important it is for their region that it go ahead.

It is important to note that the jobs and economic opportunities from these sorts of projects are vital to those communities. The state Labor government understands this. They have been very consistent supporters of the project from opposition and now whilst in government. But the consistent message from them has been that this project must operate on its own commercial merits. I want to emphasise the key point there—its own commercial merits. I have seen similar language used by other politicians as well.

The reality is that, when it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, all those opposite see is a boondoggle that they can use to try and play politics and claim credit over local issues. But the sad reality of this is that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund has not contributed one red cent to north Queensland, it has not created one job and it is a distinct failure by the ministers, and those that have been responsible for it, that they have not delivered anything of note to regional Queensland.

They have form in this regard, because what we saw before the 2015 state election was Campbell Newman and Jeff Seeney trying to play politics with public funds by saying that they would privatise the electricity network, ports and other associated government businesses in Queensland, and they would put some of that money into the rail line for Adani. We saw that before the 2015 state election. As we all know, they absolutely failed, and that government got wiped out. What we are seeing is a re-run of that, where Senator Canavan is trying to use that same rhetoric, saying that he is going to use the Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund to fund the rail line. But, as I said, with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, there is plenty of talk, but there is absolutely a lack of action when it comes to using that money.

Let us have a look at the evidence, what we have actually seen, when it comes to what politicians have been saying about the rail line. It is important to note that, post the 2015 state election, Adani issued a statement declaring that the Queensland election result would not influence the company's final decision-making and that the plan to build Adani's biggest coalmine would proceed regardless. When questioned about it, Minister Frydenberg, who was previously the minister responsible, said:

… it "wouldn't be a priority project" for funding under the Northern Australia Infrastructure fund. He also said that Adani was "a commercial operation and it needs to stand on its own two feet".

That was the line from minister Freudenberg before the federal election last year. What has changed? Clearly, the election result and the government's knowing that it is under significant pressure in regional Queensland. It sees this as a lifeline for it. The evidence from the previous state election is that the people of central and North Queensland, whilst I am confident they support this project, are not going to be hoodwinked by the government into believing that only the government that can get this project up. The company has said that it is not reliant on government funding and ministers have previously said that also, so it is a furphy for the government to look at that.

There is another, more recent quote from Adani in regard to the Northern Australia Infrastructure fund loan. The spokesperson said:

It's not critical. We have obviously applied for it because it's available … This is something that governments of all political persuasions have done in the past and I assume will do in the future. It doesn't necessarily mean it's make or break for the project.

It is important to note this when you look at the mandatory criteria written into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund Investment Mandate Direction 2016, which state:

The Project Proponent must demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that financial assistance is necessary to enable the Project to proceed, or to proceed much earlier than it would otherwise.

So even when you look at NAIF's own guidelines you see there is a real failure in how this has proceeded from an Adani point of view, when it is on the record as saying it is not reliant on this government money. I emphasise that not a single dollar has been released from the $5 billion Northern Australia infrastructure fund, despite the development of Northern Australia being a key election promise in 2013. Those opposite talk a big game, but they fail to get any money out the door. It is no wonder that people in central and North Queensland are losing confidence in this government. The Adani project is the only project that has progressed under consideration at the moment. There are apparently five others, but Senator Canavan is claiming commercial in confidence. It may be that all the government sees Adani as being is a way to make one of its flagship funding programs slightly more complete other than the utter failure we have seen so far.

To rub salt into the wounds, two weeks ago the government set up a regional ministerial task force without one Queenslander on it. So at one level the government is saying that it understands regional Queensland, that it understands the importance of this project, but when push comes to shove and we actually see the actions of the government we see none of that follows up, and it leaves a sad tale.

The other aspect from a regional Queensland point of view is the jobs package that the government promised before the last federal election. Here we are, almost 12 months later, and not one cent has been spent in regional Queensland. I mentioned the high unemployment in places like Townsville. We see similar unemployment figures for the Gladstone area. The government has a really sorry tale of delivering on important local projects that it promised in the lead up to the election. We have seen nothing since.

To come back to my main point, Labor stands by its very proud environmental record in Queensland. No-one has done more to protect the reef over the last 30 years, but we also understand the importance of jobs. But it is Adani that has said that this project can stand on its own merits and does not need government support.

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

At every opportunity the Australian Greens present themselves as more extreme, more anti-human, more antiscience, more anti-environment, more homophobic, more anti-Semitic, more anti-economy and antijobs. This motion proves the point. It is extreme. It is fringe dwelling. With this motion the Greens have taken a bridge too far. By coming into this chamber to tell untruths about our Great Barrier Reef being at risk they are trashing the reputation of our home state. I stand in this chamber to defend the reef. It is not in danger. It is healthy, it is stable and it is thriving. Data shows alkalinity, pH values, as randomly varying, naturally. The reef was bleached in 2008 during record cold temperatures and recovered entirely naturally. The Left perpetuates this misrepresentation of the reef, and these lies damage our economy, as tourist operators up and down the coast tell us that tourists think the reef is dead. The only risk to Queensland jobs is the Left.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say to the Greens: your motions actually damage our international reputation. The rot spoken through the Greens motions actually portrays to the world that the reef is damaged beyond repair or should not be visited. I beg the Greens, on behalf of Queenslanders, to stop trashing my home state's reputation.

Arrogantly, the Greens refuse to debate their views, instead they cast their crazy ideas as gospel. Senator Larissa Waters—a so-called Queensland senator—refuses to reply to any request to debate her party's wacky ideas and theories. Just yesterday, the science entertainer Doctor Karl Kruszelnicki refused to debate me on climate science, after a two-hour discussion. He originally agreed but then pulled out. The green movement know they are cornered. Their tricks have run dry. By refusing public discussions they have forfeited. They have lost the climate change debate.

The CSIRO, which disseminates clearly incorrect and fabricated information to journalists, still fails to correct gross errors it has released to the media, which I brought to their attention. The CSIRO refuses to turn up and be kept informed of any evidence that is contrary to the opinions it has formed about climate change. We need debate on the reef, debate on its health and debate on climate, because this science is not settled. We need not suppress opinions that are contrary to what a group of compromised climate academics have been sprouting. Senator Macdonald said we have never had a debate on climate science in this chamber until our party came along, and he is correct. Through debate real facts can be found.

One person who needs assistance with facts is the Greens MP Adam Bandt. He point blank misrepresented and misled Queenslanders in claiming that cyclone Debbie in North Queensland is the result of coal fired power stations. What a laugh. We have had our first death, unfortunately, from Cyclone Debbie. It was a tragic death, and Mr Bandt skips around parliament claiming—wait for it!—the cyclone has been caused by coal fired power stations. It is bizarre, cruel, heartless and dishonest. Who, Mr Bandt, caused the 1880s cyclones? I call out Mr Bandt for telling untruths in a time of tragedy. We Queenslanders always weather storms. We will weather this cyclone and we will do it without puerile lectures from the Greens about closing power stations.

Again, the Greens are seeking to advance their political agenda by damaging the economy of our home state. It is no secret that primary production, in particular mining, is key to our economy. We need coal, which poses no environmental threat, to keep the lights on, the factories working and people employed. Damaging our economy is keen, control-oriented, left-wing ideology. This is the real rift in the Labor Party—ideology. While at a federal level the Labor Party are cosying up to the Greens and are turning their policies decidedly more anti-coal, the reality is the Labor Party state division of Queensland is on a different hymn sheet.

Premier Palaszczuk is running around claiming she support the Adani mine, but at the same time she is desperate to strike a preference deal with the Greens Party. You cannot hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes, Premier Palaszczuk. Either you follow your manifesto and close down coal or you support coalmines and the jobs created. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi: Premier Palaszczuk, you are failing Queenslanders and your fate awaits you at the next state election.

It is Queenslanders who are being sold out by the deals that the Labor Party is creating with the Greens. If Premier Palaszczuk and Mr Shorten were to show they care one little bit about our state, they would place the Greens last on their how-to-vote cards. This motion is the very reason why the Greens must go last. We will call for a return to reality and truth. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. Does it not say a wonderful thing about this chamber that dissident crossbenchers, such as yourself, can chair a debate like this. I am sure you do it very well.

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to hear the contributions of all of the previous speakers, but, just out of an abundance of caution, I have decided it might be helpful to put some facts on the record in a calm and considered manner. The substance of this debate is about an application for a loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build a railway line. An application has been made and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is considering that application. The government has not made a decision, and nor will the government make a decision in this matter, because it is a decision for the infrastructure facility. So those in this debate who have sought to betray the fact that the government has already approved or is about to approve a concessional loan through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility are not correct. It is a matter for NAIF to consider against the rigorous criteria they have to assess all applications for infrastructure development in Northern Australia.

It is worth just spending a moment to think about what the purpose of NAIF is, why it was established and why it is, I think, a very sensible and measured way to northern development. Australians from across the political spectrum have shared a concern that we have not taken advantage of the unique opportunities in Northern Australia for development. For a range of reasons for many years, many opportunities in Northern Australia have not been captured by Australia, and this government's proposal to, in part, deal with that is to establish an infrastructure facility that can fund worthy projects of economic infrastructure in northern Australia. It is not all that different to the infrastructure that governments fund elsewhere in Australia. The roads that we fund, the bridges that we build and the dams that we build are all funded, in part, by government funding. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is just a special vehicle to help ensure that is happening in northern Australia as it should happen.

It is also worth pointing out that sometimes in this debate it is put forward that the potential construction of this railway line from the Galilee Basin is for the Adani coalmine only. But one of the criteria of loans under the NAIF is to ensure that it has multiple purposes and that it cannot just be for the benefit of one company—the applicant in this case. It has to be able to be shared and used by others. Because it is economic infrastructure supported by the taxpayer, it has to be something that is made available generally to those who wish to utilise it. If this is approved and if this is constructed, it will not just be Adani that will benefit from it; other coalmining operations or similar operations in the Galilee Basin will also benefit from it. The Galilee Basin has huge economic potential, which I will come to in a moment.

These loans from the NAIF are made under commercial-like terms. They have to be paid back. Only 50 per cent of the debt can come from NAIF. The other 50 per cent of it has to come from the private sector. That ensures that private sector rigour is brought into the decision making. It is not just going to be a decision of government. It is not just going to be an interjection suggested before a slush fund—or political in its decision making—because private sector financing must also be made available. In my experience, private sector loan makers—banks and other institutions—do not typically put up money just for political purposes, and they do not put up money if they do not expect to get a decent return on it. In effect, these applications have to jump a double hurdle. They have to demonstrate to NAIF that they are worthy economic infrastructure for northern Australia and they have to demonstrate to a private sector partner that it stacks up on economic grounds that there will be a return on investment.

It is worth noting that this application is supported by the Queensland Labor government very strongly, and that this mine has been approved by the Queensland state government and has passed all the federal approvals too. In fact, I doubt there is a mining project in Australia which has been subject to greater difficulties in receiving its permits, not because of anything about the nature of the project itself, but because of the nature of the political opposition to it. Case after case after case has been run by environmental activists who often have no genuine or legitimate connection to the region or the area, but who construct a connection for legal purposes to try and obstruct this coalmine. They have singled it out for particular activism and attack through the legal system, and are taking advantage of the laws as they are today in an attempt to disrupt it, and they have failed. In every instance they have failed. The only thing that they have succeeded in doing is delaying the construction and start-up of this project through their extraordinary legal strategies to disrupt and delay the project, but they have never been successful in any of their legal challenges, nor does it appear that they are likely to be.

I think the truth of this matter is that the Greens are opposed not just to the Adani coalmine and not just to a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan for a Galilee Basin rail project but to coalmining in general. That is their right. That is their view. They are entitled to strongly argue for that case, but they should be honest. This motion should not be about taxpayer financing for a railway. It should not just be about Adani. It should be about coal altogether. It should be about the fact that they believe that no more coalmines should ever be built, no more coal fired power stations should ever be built and no-one should burn coal ever again in the future to generate power. That is an ideological position that they hold; it is one that I do not think is supported by evidence. It is certainly not one that is formed taking into consideration the many nations in the world that still depend on coal-fired electricity, and who will depend on coal-fired electricity for many years to come according to every projection.

The minister, in commenting on this issue in question time earlier today, pointed out that in this century, in just the 17 years we have had in this century so far, there has been a 60 per cent increase in coal consumption. That is an extraordinary statistic when you consider all of the emphasis placed on renewable energy and the growth of renewable energy and the idea that that would somehow displace coal-fired generation. There is no realistic prospect that it will actually displace coal-fired generation for many years to come, so, in the meantime, the coal-fired power stations that exist today and the many more that are being built in countries like China and Japan and India will need to be supplied with coal.

We have a choice before us as a country. Do we want to supply that coal and be the economic beneficiaries of selling our resources? Do we want to supply that coal, which is a higher quality than much of the coal mined elsewhere in the world and which will be mined under much stricter environmental approvals and regulations than anywhere else in the world? Or do we want to surrender that economic opportunity, surrender the jobs and the export income that comes with it? Do we want to surrender the opportunity to ensure that higher quality, better coal is supplied to these coal-fired power stations? Do we want to ensure that they mine in countries with less stringent environmental standards, lower quality coal—ultimately to the detriment of the planet?

Perhaps when the Greens are running the world government, as they aspire to one day do, they will be able to stop coalmining everywhere and they will be able to stop coal-fired power stations everywhere. But in this day and age, all they do is have a few senators here in this chamber in an attempt to influence Australia's politics. So even if they were successful in stopping it in Australia, the reality is they are not going to stop it elsewhere in the world. It will occur; it will continue. It might as well continue to our benefit and to the environment's benefit with high-quality Australian coal.

I want to finish by making one point: we should bear in mind who the ultimate beneficiaries of the coal mine in Australia and of the exported coal are, other than those who will directly benefit from the jobs and investment in Australia. They are the obvious beneficiaries, but the ultimate beneficiaries are the people in countries like India who will be able to access electricity at low costs as a result of this mine. My former colleagues and friends at the Institute of Public Affairs did a report on this issue a number of years ago. It demonstrated that the coal mined and exported from the Adani coal mine alone could bring cheap, reliable, low-cost energy to 82 million Indians. In condemning this mine today, in condemning the infrastructure necessary to facilitate this mine and its construction, you are also condemning 82 million Indians to continue to burn dung and biomass and other low-quality fuels in their homes. You are condemning them to be, as the World Health Organization has found and identified, poisoned by burning those low-quality fuels in their homes when, alternatively, they could be connected to a reliable grid, a reliable energy source, that is much healthier for them, that is much cheaper for them and that is much more reliable for them. That is the choice we face today. There are still hundreds of millions of Indians today, to take one country as an example, who do not have access to reliable baseload low-cost energy. We can be part of the solution in ensuring that they are. We can be part of improving human health, which the World Health Organization has identified, by removing those poor-quality fuels that many countries still rely upon. I think Australia should make that choice. It is a good choice for Australia to make. We benefit from it; the world benefits from it; the poor of the world in particular benefit from it. I urge the Greens to reconsider their ill-conceived opposition to quality low-cost Australian coal.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I share the words that came from Senator Paterson in congratulating you on your ascension to Acting Deputy President. I note that at one point today we were sitting on the same side of the chamber when we voted, and I believe that did as much damage to my reputation as it did to yours.

I find it unbelievable that I would be the one here making an argument to a former advocate from the IPA about what the role of public funds should and should not be. There is a whole host of issues regarding a proposed Adani mine. There is a whole host of environmental issues, there is a whole host of environmental concerns—legitimate concerns I believe. Some of them may be exaggerated at times, but they are legitimate concerns about the possible impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the possible impact on tourism jobs and they need to be properly addressed. Fundamentally though, the bit that needs further scrutiny at this point in time is the role of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the lack of transparency in how it is going about making its decisions. When you are looking at a fund that has been given $8 million, compared to the $23 million that is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's operating figure, it really makes you wonder how and what processes are being undertaken.

The fact is this is a secretive process, this is a process where there has been a complete lack of disclosure, lack of information; how these decisions are being made are not being made in a transparent way. If we are seriously talking about $1 billion of taxpayer funds being put up as a loan for a project to make it commercially viable, the first question you have to ask yourself is: why isn't it commercially viable to begin with? Why is it the private sector is not underwriting and providing these funds? If that is the case, then it needs that intervention. Ask yourself: should we be intervening in areas and policy areas that we do not necessarily want or need to be encouraging?

There is a lack of transparency in how these decisions are being made. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has repeatedly come before Senate estimates and, in a very open and transparent way, has answered legitimate questions that should be asked when taxpayer funds are being put up in these types of projects. When it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, nothing of the kind has taken place. We really run the risk that this just becomes a pork-barrelling exercise for the government to find another way of funding projects, but doing it off budget, off the balance sheet, and doing it in a way that is not realistically feasible to see how this money will ever be repaid. Are we talking about a $1 billion loan or are we talking about a $1 billion investment to a private corporation simply for the purpose of their own project? If that is what we are doing, then let us at least be upfront with the Australian people and let us be upfront in how this decision has been made and how this decision has come about, because I believe that there is a right for people to know.

With the huge concerns over the Adani proposal when it comes to environmental considerations—again, we are not going to have time in this debate or in this chamber now to be able to adequately cover the different debate that is going on around the environmental concerns—surely we can agree that transparency over $1 billion of taxpayer funds is a good place to start. I think the Senate should have and needs to have a much bigger role in getting to the bottom of what potential loan is taking place, especially when you look at the concerning tax arrangements that Adani has used around the world. Frankly, these are things that we should get to the bottom of.

I want to note too that we heard some beautiful words from Senator Malcolm Roberts a little bit earlier. I have to say I was a bit confused, because I thought Senator Roberts had gone on strike. It was exciting to see him say a few words. I just want to say this, because I know the One Nation senators will be listening to this: I completely support their right to take industrial action. I do note, however, that it appears to be a secondary boycott. If the ABCC was being applied to them right now, this would be unprotected action—unprotected action in the industrial sense, not in the other sense—and that the legislation that they themselves have voted on would make the type of action they are taking, the strike that they are on, potentially illegal. We heard from Senator Abetz earlier today: apparently there are some laws that some people—be it Mahatma Gandhi, be it Rosa Parks or be it Pauline Hanson—are prepared to break. I think the secondary boycott provisions are the law that Pauline Hanson has decided she wants to break in the chamber. That is really matter for her. I support the right of trade unionism—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Senator Hanson, thank you.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, if Senator Hanson wants to break the secondary boycott provision, but that is really a matter for her. She did say it was all in the national interest, that she was not going to come here and horse trade. Trade unionism has a role in the place. When she gets a group of four senators together and they decide to go on strike—be it a secondary boycott or not; be it a law that she is breaking or not—that is really just a matter for them. With that, I note that the two following speakers do have a few things they want to say, and I will cede my time to them.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to leave my colleague, Senator Whish-Wilson, to conclude the debate. I have only had the privilege of visiting the Great Barrier Reef once. It was just over a decade ago. I was there with my family, with my kids. They were just entering their teens. They were wide-eyed, amazed at the world. We had an incredible time, just like so many hundreds of thousands of tourists and so many hundreds of thousands of Australians who have visited the reef. It is an incredible, amazing place. Last year, we had extreme destructive coral bleaching, the sort that only happens highly irregularly and very infrequently. Then, this year, the bleaching has occurred again. I hate to think what the reef will look like when my children are in the situation of wanting to take their children to the Great Barrier Reef. Even in a much shorter time period than when my kids have kids, we are going to see the death of this world treasure.

What makes me so angry about this debate is the disregard for the science, the fantasy world that so many of my fellow senators live in and the fact that they can be asserting that total fantasy is fact. There are irrefutable facts that are here that are accepted by the academies of science all over the world, which Senator Roberts, the Liberal Party and government senators are just in complete denial about. We know that there is increasing carbon dioxide that is caused in the atmosphere; it is caused by the burning of coal, gas and oil. We know that that is warming our global atmosphere. It is warming the global temperatures and warming water temperatures, which is causing coral bleaching. The science is very clear. It is also causing bushfires, it is also causing floods, it is also causing sea level rises, it is causing crop failures and it is going to cause irreparable dangers to all of us—to all of our civilisations on this planet and all of the species that we share this planet with—unless we take action. I am extremely concerned about the wellbeing of the people of India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Australia when we are not going to be able to feed ourselves and when our homes are going to be underwater.

We know what we need to do. We have got to stop burning coal, gas and oil. We have absolutely got to stop subsidising the burning of coal, gas and oil, such as is proposed by this government with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. If we have got $1 billion to spend, let us spend it on rapidly transitioning to a clean energy future and to renewable energy. We could go a long way with that. That is what would be giving us a future, that is what would be saving jobs, that is what would be saving the Great Barrier Reef and that is what is in the interests of all us—workers and the rest of the species we share this planet with alike. (Time expired)

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

I reflected today, prior to this, on my first speech in parliament, nearly five years ago. One of the key reasons I wanted to go into the parliament and become a Greens senator was to protect the ocean, focus on marine conservation and clean up the ocean. I refuse to accept that one of the biggest living organisms on this planet, the Great Barrier Reef, is going to be destroyed on our watch. I appreciate that politics, this chamber and global politics, has suffered from a severe outbreak of mass moronity, but I will not accept—for my children's sake and for future generations—that we are just going to roll over and let the coal industry and those too stuck in their ideology not take action on this problem in the Great Barrier Reef.

In the last months I have been chairing a Senate inquiry into warming oceans and the impact that climate change is having on the oceans and our fisheries. Let us state very clearly: it is irrefutable that increasing emissions are driving higher water temperatures and it is irrefutable that higher water temperatures are destroying and impacting our marine ecosystems. My committee, the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, has heard that Tasmania has only recently lost its 10,000-year-old giant kelp ecosystems that used to stretch from Eddystone lighthouse at Eddystone Point at the top of north-east Tasmania all the way down to southern Tasmania. I was contacted by Mick, from the Eaglehawk Dive Centre, last year and he said to me, 'Senator, if you are going to come diving on these giant kelp forests, you had better come soon' Well, unfortunately, I missed the boat. He appeared as a witness at our inquiry only a couple of months ago and he said, 'They are gone. The giant kelp forests are gone.'

Let me tell you about the similarity between giant kelp forests in the south of our country, in the southern oceans, and the Great Barrier Reef. They are not just reefs and seaweed kelp forest; they are cities underwater for marine creatures, for biodiversity. That is where our productivity for our fisheries come from—for rock lobsters, for abalone, for fin-fish. If the reefs die, our fisheries industry goes with them. Let us be really clear about this: it is not just tourism jobs that we are debating here today in this motion. We have been going into scientific evidence about the impact that warming waters are having on our fisheries around the country. The committee still has other states to go to, including to Far North Queensland. A scientist who spoke to the committee at One Tree Island in Queensland has been there for 25 years monitoring ocean temperatures, and the committee was told that we are in unchartered territories, that no-one could have possibly predicted that we would have back-to-back bleaching events. No-one could have predicted that.

And it is not just the bleaching events. It looks bad because the corals look like they have died. It takes a long time for these corals to bounce back. They are severely weakened by their condition. So, when we get a dump of nutrients into the water and we get physical degradation from cyclones and other systems, it makes it a lot harder for the coral to recover—and that is exactly the situation we are facing now. I watched Professor Terry Hughes on 60 Minutes last night. I generally have a policy of not responding to the idiocy of Malcom Roberts, but I will say to Malcolm Roberts that it was actually—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Roberts; thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

Sorry; Senator Roberts.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would also suggest that your description of Senator Roberts is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw.

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

I would dispute that, Acting Deputy President, if I could, because of the context. I did not say that he was an idiot; I said the idiocy of his—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are not mutually exclusive.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Dastyari! Senator Whish-Wilson, I do not mean to be disruptive. I will refer this to the Clerk, just in the interests of not reflecting poorly on another senator. Please continue and I will get some advice.

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

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. Senator Roberts seemed to think that this is a Greens conspiracy theory and that we are out to destroy the tourism industry in Queensland. Well, it was 60 Minutes that did the documentary last night—not the Greens. I would not say that 60 Minutes are exactly an ally to the left and to the conservation movement; yet I have to say that it was actually an excellent program. It nearly brought me to tears watching it last night, I was that saddened by what I saw.

I have been hearing the evidence all around the country of this happening in other parts of Australia. The coral bleaching that we have seen in previous events has also happened in other great reef systems, such as the Caribbean corals off the coast of Western Australia. This is a crisis, and those who deny that we need to take action to prevent this situation getting worse are, in my view, climate criminals. There is other way around that, from my point of view—they are climate criminals.

I have to say that the idea that Senator Canavan can come in here during question time and repeatedly, ad nauseam—with an emphasis on the word 'nausea'—talk about clean coal, which I understand only Clive Palmer is a believer in, as though it is some sort of infomercial for the coal industry, really makes me sick. It makes my stomach turn. I have to be honest that I have found myself in recent weeks getting really angry during question time—as no doubt you have noticed, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. I will try to refrain from interjecting, but this issue, I think, is going to be the most important issue for our generation.

Let me tell you—another comment about Senator Roberts—that you do not need proof to be prudent. The insurance industry was founded on the concept that you do not need proof to be prudent; you need to manage your risks. Climate change, under any analysis, is a severe risk.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do the re-insurers say about climate change?

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

The re-insurers are exactly the same concept. Liberal senators came into the Senate today and talked about the impact on India if we do not burn coal and develop the Adani mine. 60 Minutes talked about the reef and, during the week, Four Corners ran a movie, a short film, that is being shown around the world that was put together by ex-US military generals and admirals. They are acting on climate change. It is a really good documentary. It is going to film festivals all around the world. I suggest to anyone listening that they watch it. It talks about how climate change is acting as the accelerator for global instability and that it is the biggest threat to global security. They talked about the Arab Spring and they gave examples of how the sea level rise predicted could, in Bangladesh alone, displace 20 per cent of their population as climate change refugees. That is 30 million people from Bangladesh going into places like India—where, by the way, they have built the world's first climate wall to keep out refugees. So do not come in here and give us all this nonsense about burning coal being good for people in poor countries. Climate change is the biggest threat to these countries—with extreme weather events and wars over precious resources—and we owe it to these countries to act. This concept that somehow it is about jobs: well, I have been and dived off the Great Barrier Reef, and I have been to dive off lots of reefs around the world, and I know that, based on what Professor Terry Hughes said on 60 Minutes last night, the latest surveys on the middle section of the reef show that damage to the reef from coral bleaching has gone from moderately damaged to severely damaged. There are 70,000 jobs in the tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef. I understand why the tourism industry has not wanted to enter this political debate in the past for fear of talking down their industry and loss of visitations to the Great Barrier Reef. I say to them: 'I understand that, but you are going to have to get engaged and get involved if this proposition is going to be viable into the future.' The reef is still going to continue to be a global tourism attraction. We have to actually act to protect the reef and the marine life that lives in the reef.

These warming waters are damaging marine life and marine ecosystems all around the country. It is an irrefutable fact that if we do not cut down on our emissions then this is going to continue to get worse. And, as a large bald-headed man who was a singer for Midnight Oil once said, 'Sometimes you have to take the hardest line'. We will take the hardest line on any new coal fired power stations, the clean-coal myth and any new coalmines because someone has to stand up for future generations and our marine creatures to make sure we have a planet that is liveable for the next 50 years. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I invite the Deputy President to resume the chair, Senator Whish-Wilson, during that conversation I asked you to reconsider the use of a term that you used. I am advised by the Clerk that it is not unparliamentary. However, there is a standing order that suggests that we should not be reflecting poorly on other senators simply for voicing their opinions. As the chair, that is how I seek to uphold the standing orders. But you have done nothing incorrect. I merely remind senators that this is a debate of substance rather than reflecting on other individual senators.

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

If I could just add to that ruling for the record that I was referring to the senator's arguments.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I perfectly understand that, Senator Whish-Wilson, and you are within your entitlements to do that. I am just trying to maintain as much decorum within the debate as we possibly can.

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

Thank you.