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

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 13 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. 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 Whish-Wilson:

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

'The devastating storms and floods that have occurred in South Asia and the Americas, and the threat posed to Australia's natural resources, call for urgent action on global warming.'

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 clock accordingly.

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

There's no more important time to be reflecting on what a future of climate change looks like than now, when we are seeing such extreme weather events all around the world. It's not a future that any of us want, and we still have time to do something about it if we act. I know you've heard a lot from the Greens on this issue. I will take up Senator Birmingham's challenge from question time last week to actually hear from some climate scientists on this issue. I've been following several. There have been hundreds that have been speaking out on this issue in recent weeks around Hurricane Irma in the US. Mr Jon Foley said:

I'm mad. We climate scientists have been warning people about climate change for decades, and politicians deliberately wasted that time.

Scientists generally aren't political beings; they tend to operate outside of our political sphere, but many scientists are recognising now that science, especially climate science, is increasingly political. They understand that politics has failed to tackle the challenges of climate. It's failed the Great Barrier Reef. Recently, it looks very much like a future of climate change is upon us.

I want to read to you a couple of quotes. The Mayor of Miami—a Republican mayor, may I say—whose citizens were recently evacuated, said, 'If not now, when do we discuss climate change?' He said:

This is the time to talk about climate change. This is the time that the president and the EPA and whoever makes decisions needs to talk about climate change. If this isn't climate change, I don't know what is.

The New York Times recently posted an excellent article. They sought out the views of key climate scientists, many who actually live in Florida. Here's a sample of what some of them had to say. Professor Ben Kirtman, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, said he believes it's more important to be discussing climate change around events like Irma. He said:

It's precisely the conversation that we should be having right now. I'm not sure what’s insensitive about that. It's really important to direct resources and funds to the crisis on the ground at the moment, of course.

He also said that we need to be talking about future consequences. Another scientist, Professor Leonard Berry, a former Director of the Center for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University, said:

Immediately afterward we've got to say 'Come on guys, let's really see if this is a harbinger of the future.' And it clearly is to those of us who have looked even generally at the issue. One should be sensitive, but not stupid.

President Trump, as we know, has derided climate change as a hoax. He's looking to cut significant funding to US climate programs. Another climate scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, said:

We know that as humans, we are all too good at pretending like a risk, even one we know is real, doesn't matter to us.

She wrote:

When we try to warn people about the risks, there's no 'news' hook. No one wants to listen. That's why the time to talk about it is now. The most pernicious and dangerous myth we've bought into when it comes to climate change is not the myth that it isn't real or humans aren't responsible. It's the myth that it doesn't matter to me. And that is exactly the myth that Harvey shatters.

I also have some quotes from Australian scientists that I won't be able to read out now. Climate change is here on us now. We should be discussing this. How are we going to act to prevent more of these damaging storms in the future? By cutting emissions— (Time expired)

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

I too rise to speak on this so-called matter of public importance. But, unlike those opposite, what I would like to do is begin by expressing my deepest condolences to the victims of the recent natural disasters that have been cited, which have tragically claimed the lives of several thousand people and devastated local communities.

I'm extremely proud that Australia has a leading role in international humanitarian responses to disasters, and we play a particularly important role in the Indo-Pacific region in combating the impacts of these natural disasters. Australia will invest another $12.3 million over three years in the World Bank's Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery to help build greater resilience in our region. I would point out that this government has increased Australia's humanitarian aid budget by 18 per cent for this financial year to support neighbouring countries' preparation and responses to these incidents. I'm very proud in particular that our wonderful ADF provides such brilliant support and humanitarian relief following natural disasters overseas.

The natural disasters affecting South Asia and the Americas, which are cited in this so-called MPI, are tragic, and their victims deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and sympathy, as do all victims of other natural disasters that have occurred and continue to occur around the globe. But I've got to say I am utterly appalled that some in this place have sought to conflate and exploit these particular tragedies for their own almost evangelical purposes—and I think that the Spanish inquisitors would have envied their religious zealotry on this issue.

Yes, the climate has always been changing, for over 650,000 years. We've had seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, and for the last 7,000 years we have been in this current climate phase. Does the climate change? Absolutely. Do I think that climate is impacted by human activity? Most probably. But for those opposite to again use these disasters to try and make some political capital is quite appalling.

I know every single person in this place wants to leave the world, and certainly the environment, in a better place than it was when we inherited it, but not at the cost of energy security, affordability and Australian jobs today. We have to be cognisant of our environment and how best to protect it, but it cannot be at the expense of Australians' livelihoods and their standard of living. This chamber and this place cannot be guided by the blind ideological zealotry that those on the crossbenches—in this case the Greens—display.

In contrast, this government has set strong, responsible and achievable emissions reduction targets. We understand that there is a dilemma at play here. We do need—and we on this side absolutely accept the need—to transition to a lower emissions future whilst still providing affordable and secure energy for hardworking, everyday Australians and their families, a concern that those opposite clearly do not have. Rather than being guided by blind ideology and always being on the watch for consequences that are sometimes of biblical proportions—plagues, floods and things that have been predicted for 2,000 or 3,000 years—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Those opposite, when they're talking about this, actually sound like these great evangelical preachers.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order on my left!

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

I rest my case, Mr Acting Deputy President. They can't even allow other people speaking on this issue to be heard in silence. They have to shout us down because they don't like hearing what we think about what they're doing. But, rather than being guided by blind ideology and always, as I said, being on the watchout for consequences of biblical proportions—signs that the world is about to end, plagues, floods, pestilence—those on this side take a much more responsible approach. We do want to improve our environment, we do want to reduce our emissions, but not at the cost of all Australians.

Australia produces just 1.3 per cent of global emissions, as my colleague Senator Macdonald is fond of pointing out in this chamber. We do believe it is important, which is why we've joined the global response to climate change. It is why Australia and this government ratified the Paris Agreement in November 2016. Australia does make a strong contribution to the negotiations and implementations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Sometimes I think that's why those opposite get so, so evangelical about this whole issue—they can't stand the fact that other people actually care about the environment and want to do something, but, again, not at all costs and not to the cost of all Australians, to their jobs and to their livelihoods and affordability. They're always talking about affordability, but the direct implications of their berserk and bizarre policy of having renewable energy at all costs at 12 per cent and increasing it when we don't have the adequate base power is impacting on all Australians. Shame on you for actually using the disasters in other places to—

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

Shame on you for ignoring it!

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

Shame on you, Senator Whish-Wilson!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson! Senator Reynolds, your time has expired.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on this matter of public importance from Senator Whish-Wilson on the devastating storms and floods in South Asia and the Americas and the threat posed to Australia's natural resources. It calls for urgent action on global warming. It is a topic of debate with which we on this side have no issue. We have long stood for urgent action on global warming. It is important for Australian households and businesses and it is vital for people living in areas of our world who face a high frequency of natural disasters. But I do wonder where would this debate be if in 2009, before Senator Whish-Wilson and I were in this place, his predecessors Senator Milne and Senator Bob Brown had supported the original Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Climate change was an urgent policy area in 2009, which is why we introduced the Clean Energy Future package—to provide a mechanism that would ensure prices were affordable, to ensure our electricity infrastructure was reliable and to ensure that we promoted technology that is sustainable, low carbon and, where possible, carbon free.

It is a tragic debate that has plagued this nation for the past decade, and it remains an urgent policy area now in 2017. But, of course, when the Greens did support Labor on climate change action in 2011, the mechanism within the legislation to reduce carbon pollution was almost identical to that in the earlier 2009 bill. With a delay of two years, all that was achieved was the creation of space for Mr Abbott to launch his dangerous, ill-informed scare campaign—a scare campaign that his former senior adviser Peta Credlin admitted this year was all about politics and nothing about economics or the environment. It is important to point out the delay of two years enabled Mr Abbott to take the leadership and commit the next five years to the repealing of the carbon price. However, he failed to replace it with any credible climate change or energy policies after it was repealed. So, when the Greens get up in this place and say we must take urgent action on climate change, I agree, but I remind them of their ideological move in 2009, when they were unable to accept a proposal that would have had the support of all Labor and the majority of the coalition. No, that just wasn't good enough for them. The failure to legislate for the CPRS back then is a big part of the reason we are where we are in this country now, and it set in train the climate change policy calamity of the years to come.

Regardless of the political history, this is a timely matter of public importance. With the destruction we've seen in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, the Caribbean and the southern United States, urgent action is desperately needed both to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to limit climate change itself. In the week that the Turnbull government is seeking to strongarm AGL into selling or keeping open the Liddell power station and in the week that the National Party passed a motion at its national conference to end all subsidies to renewable energy, we're presented with this matter of public importance on urgent action on climate change.

While the wording of this MPI is a little hard to understand, I commend Senator Whish-Wilson for including both the devastating floods in South Asia as well as the hurricane in the Caribbean and southern United States. Too often the debate is focussed on Australia and our immediate allies, when natural disasters know no borders and when millions of people in less developed countries face homelessness, loss of livelihoods and, indeed, loss of life. In The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, Peter Hartcher, wrote an article, 'Five big global crises that got worse while the world watched Hurricane Irma'. Tucked in at No. 5 was climate change. Mr Hartcher wrote: 'Climate change gathers force.' He said that three climate scientists from Scientific Americanwrote: 'The strongest storms are getting stronger.' They said:

... it is not likely to be a coincidence that almost all of the ... hurricanes on record ... have occurred over the past two years.

Critically, it is now possible to confidently attribute certain weather events and natural disasters directly to climate change. Rephrasing that, we can now attribute the incidents of an individual natural disaster to climate change. What does that mean? Simply, it means we need to act. We need to act now. The old saying, 'You can't attribute any single extreme global event to global warming,' is indeed a mark of the past because the science has moved on and, to be frank, the time for debate has expired.

In South Asia, entire villages remain under water and 40 million people are trying desperately to rebuild their lives. Forty million people—that's basically twice our population; two times the population of Australia—have spent over a month with their villages under water, their crop lands destroyed, no access to clean water and nowhere to bury their relatives and friends who have passed away. In the Caribbean, 34 people are known to have passed away. While fewer people are affected than in South Asia, the stories of devastation are similar.

We're not without threat. Our cyclones and wildfires are getting more intense and more frequent, and many of our near neighbours in the Pacific are already facing permanent displacement. There has been no pause in climate change, no slowdown in temperature rises and no reduction in natural disasters, and yet there has been complete inaction from the government. Yes, they went to Paris and they signed up to the Paris agreement. Yes, they maintained that Australia must comply with our international obligations. But they failed to see the huge benefits, both economically and environmentally, that can flow to Australia from having strong action on climate change. They go to the opening of a renewable energy project and pretend to support the workers there, but they offer no support when they come back to Canberra.

The Paris agreement is our world's first comprehensive climate agreement. It's the culmination of decades of negotiations and decades of scientific research. The Paris agreement has three aims: holding the increasing temperatures below two degrees, increasing our ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and improving financing pathways for low greenhouse gas emissions energy development. For Australia to meet our obligations under the Paris agreement, we need a government that is willing to act; a government that's capable of reaching a compromise; a government that puts the planet and people at the forefront; a government that will admit that it was wrong in 2013 when it repealed the carbon price without replacing it with any legal mechanism to ensure that Australia tackles climate change; and a government that will admit that it was wrong in 2013 when it left Australia without a path to help industry, households and businesses reduce emissions. We have a government that won't introduce policies that give Australia a chance of making our contribution to holding the increasing temperatures below two degrees; a government that isn't interested in supporting Australians and the people of our region to adapt to climate change; and a government that is deeply divided over finding ways to finance and build new low-emissions technology and renewable energy technology.

It's time for Mr Turnbull to show some leadership on climate change; stop the cheap, baseless politics made famous by his predecessor, Mr Abbott; pull his rogue junior partner into line; enact a sector-wide energy policy that will ensure that prices are affordable for Australian households and businesses; and ensure we have an energy system that is reliable, sustainable and promotes new low-carbon and carbon-free technologies.

Labor is offering to work with the government to find middle ground here and set a place in the future for a credible low-carbon energy policy—a suite of policies on climate change to ensure that we do our bit to reduce carbon emissions, that we are able to adapt and manage the devastating impacts of the disasters that we know have been caused naturally, and that there are appropriate incentives in place to see the rollout of renewable energy technology. The matter of public importance today is timely, and it's vital that we see this debate both in terms of Australian households and businesses and in terms of the natural disasters around the world, because they are increasing in severity, they are increasing in frequency and they are directly related to climate change. We need leadership from this Prime Minister on what was once a central tenet of his political purpose, leadership from Mr Turnbull that is sorely lacking. We need urgent action on climate change in this country. Labor have consistently said that we will work with the government to achieve a lasting solution, but we need the government to come to the table and take this matter seriously.

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

It seems that the mantra of the Greens party is 'never let a natural disaster go to waste'. While disaster footage beams into our living rooms on the 24/7 media cycle, they make sure that it comes with the general complaints of: 'See, I told you so! The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are imminent unless all you little people out there change your ways, repent and live a life of green virtue and subsistence.' In times gone by, it was the bloke with the sandwich board on the corner that was caricatured in all the movies saying, 'The end is nigh!' and it was because of his religious conviction. Now we've got a religious conviction of a different form, and it resides within the Greens. When hurricanes form or hit, they blame it on global warming. When bushfires strike, they blame it on global warming. When there's too little rain or snow, they blame it on global warming. When there's too much rain or snow, they blame it on global warming. But they won't explain why the Bureau of Meteorology makes temperature records disappear to suit the mantra that has been emanating from the politically correct for far too long. They have record hot, record cold, record dry, record wet—it doesn't matter, because it's all the responsibility of mankind.

The only real threat to Australia's plentiful natural resources is the Greens and their growing band of useful zealots. At every turn, they try to prevent us from digging up our vast coal, gas and uranium resources. When we're lucky enough to bring them to the surface, we're not allowed to use them in this country, according to the Greens; we have to send them off overseas for someone else to use. That only prevents us, including the elderly and the infirm, from using warmth in winter and accessing cool in summer.

The latest mad green changes, rushed through parliament yesterday with the assent of the few Libs and Nats who bothered to even know what they were voting on, will begin to phase out the engines we typically use to boat, to fish, to dirtbike, to mow or to blow leaves with. This is the green agenda coming to life in this place. These crazy, obsessive busybodies are a threat to not just our natural resources but, increasingly, our enjoyment and our way of life. There seems to be no stopping the madness and zealotry of this Greens ideology, which seems to harbour and incubate most effectively within five to 10 kilometres of our larger central business districts and, increasingly, in our school system. These are the real threats to our resources and our very existence. They should be ashamed of their misuse and abuse of natural disasters, which have a real and catastrophic effect on many individuals, for their base political games. This place deserves better. Australia deserves better.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The storms and floods in South Asia and the Americas have devastated and displaced millions of people. We extend our condolences to the victims, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. The impacts of hurricanes Irma, Jose and Katia continue to be felt in Mexico, the Caribbean and the United States, compounded of course by the 8.1 magnitude earthquake that struck Mexico. In South Asia, heavy rain during the monsoon season has resulted in widespread and significant flooding and landslides across Nepal, Bangladesh and India.

The Australian government has responded by providing $2 million to the international relief effort, including $1 million through our humanitarian partnership with Australian non-government organisations and $1 million through the World Food Programme. Our assistance will deliver emergency shelter, food, clean water and health care for those who have been affected by the disaster. Our contribution to the World Food Programme will enable it give assistance to almost 6,000 children under the age of five and over 1,500 pregnant and nursing mothers for moderate and acute malnutrition in the worst-affected areas. In addition to this support, Australia is providing essential hygiene supplies and vital health services to over 6,000 women and girls. Australia commends the government of Nepal for its leadership in coordinating response efforts across the country.

As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I want to say that the Australian government is committed to supporting nations in our region to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters, and to be able to do this themselves to the greatest extent possible. So I say to Senator Urquhart: can you please get your facts correct before you make wrong assertions? Of course, why let the facts get in the way of spin and a few lies!

In our region, the Australian government is working very hard. We live in one of the most disaster-prone areas of the world. Seven out of 10 of the most disaster-prone countries are in our region. So we are working in a whole range of different ways, especially across the Pacific, to build the important resilience that communities need to meet the next disaster. And that includes helping remote Pacific communities diversify their crops to help them respond better following natural disasters. It includes providing scholarships and education, supporting our NGO partners and deploying technical assistance through mechanisms such as the Australian Civilian Corps.

The Australian government has also launched a new $50 million Australian humanitarian partnership to assist Pacific countries and communities better prepare for and manage disasters. Support for strengthening resilience in the Pacific includes: $33 million over five years in climate and weather services; $17 million over seven years in disaster and climate risk governance; and $2.3 million over two years to assist countries to better access and manage global climate finance, including with the focus on the Green Climate Fund. In a challenging budget environment, we have increased our humanitarian funding by $60 million to almost $400 million, which includes an increase of $20 million in the emergency fund up to $150 million and an allocation of $32.2 million to strengthen Australia and our region's preparedness to respond to disasters.

During a response, we work closely with governments and partners to ensure our efforts meet their needs and supports local action. Australia was also the first and one of the largest supporters when Tropical Cyclone Pam devastated Vanuatu in March 2015. It caused 11 deaths, impacted almost 200,000 people and resulted in $600 million in damage. In the wake of Pam, we committed a $50 million package of assistance, which included: an initial $15 million for immediate relief and early recovery; a further $35 million to support longer term recovery and reconstruction, including aiding economic recovery and repairing and rebuilding critical infrastructure and restoring health and education facilities.

Australia was also the largest contributor to the response to Tropical Cyclone Winston, which hit Fiji in February 2016, causing 44 deaths and impacting over half a million people. Our $35 million assistance package included an initial recovery of immediate relief of $15 million. The rest of it will support longer term recovery and reconstruction to rebuild schools, repair and rebuild health facilities, restore water and sanitation services, and rebuild and repair damaged markets and accommodation facilities for vendors—75 per cent of whom are women.

We are investing over $100 million through bilateral and global partnerships for disaster risk reduction programs. In 2017-18, we will invest $200 million to support the government's five-year $1 billion commitment to addressing climate change. This will support developing countries' climate actions to, most especially, build resilience. Additionally, at last year's Pacific Islands Forum meeting Prime Minister Turnbull announced $300 million over four years for building climate resilience in the Pacific. We are also pleased to support Fiji as part of its COP23 Presidency with a contribution of $6 million—again, demonstrating our commitment to the framework for resilience building and building partnerships in our region.

Irrespective of what one's views are on the issue of climate change, the reality is that in our region we need to deal with the next cyclone; the next climate event which will have catastrophic consequences. The Abbott government committed Australia to a 26 to 28 per cent target as part of our commitments under the Paris agreement, in accordance with a domestic agenda, and the Turnbull government is continuing to work to meet these targets. Our focus is on building practical, day-to-day resilience building.

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

Sometimes I wonder what it will take for the climate fundamentalists on the hard right of the coalition to realise that they've got this wrong. When exactly will it be that the penny drops that they have messed this up, and not just a little bit but in a really big way? I wonder this because I am genuinely curious about what more they need in terms of proof of human-induced climate change. Is it scientific proof that they need? For decades now, we've had scientific consensus about the nature and causes of climate change.

James L Powell, Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming that were published in 2013-14 and, of those, only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause. Maybe scientific evidence isn't enough. Maybe the hard right don't really trust the boffins. Maybe what the hard right need to hear is consensus amongst the hard-nosed element of the business community. Well, the Australian business community is pretty much united in its view that climate change is real and we need to act. Let's have a look at what BHP says—the favourite of the coalition. They state:

Our position on climate change

We accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable.

That's very promising. What else do they say? They talk about their approach and say: 'We believe an effective policy framework should include a complementary set of measures, including a price on carbon, support for low-emissions technology and measures to build resilience.

BHP was one of a whole range of companies, NGOs and community groups that came out this year in support of an EIS, which is Labor's preferred policy. But, as you can see from the debate this year, calls to action from the business community aren't actually enough. They are not enough to move the hard right of the coalition. Maybe they are men who like to see things with their own two eyes. Maybe they don't want to trust models and projections. Maybe they will believe we need to act when we see the effects of climate change happening in the real world. Well, we are there already. We are starting to see the physical phenomena that were predicted by the scientific models. We are seeing melting sea ice. We are seeing an increased incidence of natural disasters, perhaps like having two of the most powerful storms on record hit the US in just two weeks. We are seeing higher than average temperatures consistently and many more severe heat events. All of that leaves you wondering what exactly would be the standard of proof required. Where is there left to go? Will these people only accept the need for action on climate if the sea is lapping at their door? By that stage, it will be too late. All of it would be comic if it weren't sad. The Liberal and National parties have hijacked this country's climate policy and they've stopped us taking real and necessary action. That inaction has costs.

We've talked a lot about energy in this chamber recently. In part, that is because four years of inaction is starting to bite. You can only get away with not acting on things for so long. Eventually the cracks start to show. The government's refusal to have a real policy on energy didn't bring things to a crashing halt right away—not straightaway—but it did cause a slowdown in investment. Four years later, in the government's fifth year in office, we can see the costs that come with that: ageing infrastructure, higher power bills, higher emissions. We are fast approaching a similar point with the physical risks of climate change. This won't happen all at once, because it never does. But, slowly and gradually, we will be seeing events like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma occurring more and more frequently. The government are doing nothing about it. They have no plan, no credible policy and, seemingly, no-one cares.

The government might not recognise the risk, but business does. It is becoming standard for big Australian companies to have policies that manage climate risk, and that's because they recognise that the physical effects of climate change pose real risks to their businesses. What does one of Australia's very, very big banks, Westpac, say about it? They say:

Despite the commitment to limit global warming to two degrees, climate change will still cause shifts in weather patterns and increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters. Communities may experience weather events that they are unfamiliar with or for which they are not prepared.

They've got a whole policy about adjusting their business model to deal with the reality of a warming world and what it will do to their market. Telstra, the biggest telecommunications company in Australia, says:

Increased frequency and severity of extreme weather can damage and disrupt our infrastructure and operations.

This, in turn, can affect customer service and have wider financial, health and safety implications. We are committed to better understanding the risks posed by climate change to our infrastructure and people, and identifying action to strengthen the climate change resilience within our business.

In the last little while, there's been a sort of allegation that AGL is only taking the decisions it's taking because it has been infiltrated by a single person who once had a relationship with the Labor Party. But, when you look at the range of actions being taken by the largest businesses in Australia, you see a consistency in their approach, which is to recognise that climate change is real and to recognise that it has very real and worrying impacts on business models and to start to work out how to respond to that.

Transurban, a big manager of transport infrastructure across the country, conducted a series of climate change risk assessments for many of their major projects to assess the potential impacts of a range of climate change scenarios, looking at 2040, 2070 and 2090. The risks they were interested in included: the effect of potential extreme weather events; indirect risks such as the increased risk of power supply interruptions due to heatwaves; and the effect on the expected lifetime of infrastructure due to increased temperatures, heatwaves, rainfall and storm surges. If you manage a whole lot of kit and you manage stuff that is made of concrete, you need to start thinking about what it will mean to have very, very hot days. You need to start thinking about whether that infrastructure is designed to cope with very, very heavy rainfall events which produce much larger levels of run-off than anyone ever predicted when they were building transport infrastructure just a decade ago.

One of the most exposed sectors, however, is the insurance sector. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, warns that over time the adverse effects of climate change could threaten economic resilience and financial stability, and insurers are currently at the forefront. ClimateWise is a coalition of 29 insurers. It includes the industry's biggest names: Allianz, Swiss Re, Zurich and Lloyds. Last year, they issued a report looking at the impact of climate change on their industry, and the outlook isn't good. The report said—and these are big numbers:

Since the 1950s, the frequency of weather-related catastrophes, such as windstorms and floods, has increased six-fold. As climate-related risks occur more often and predictably, previously insurable assets are becoming uninsurable, or those already underinsured further compromised.

These are serious warnings from people who are in the business of assessing risk, and they are telling us that we have a problem. But no-one on the other side of the chamber is listening. The chairman of the Global General Insurance at Aviva said the insurance industry's role as society's risk manager is under threat. He said:

Our sector will struggle to reduce this protection gap if our response is limited to avoiding, rather than managing, society's exposure to climate risk.

People, we have a problem. The complacency with which the coalition approach this issue is extraordinary. It's not just the environment groups, it's not just the opposition, it's not just the scientists warning them; it is business. Business is telling them that it is time to act, but, constrained by the coalition's hard-right partners, they are failing to do so.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise with enormous pride to say of the Greens' MPI today: what a flog. The Greens have no understanding, let alone any deep understanding, because they rely on opinions, not data. I'll say it again: the Greens have no understanding, let alone any deep understanding, because they rely on opinions, not data. That is why the Greens cannot withstand scrutiny.

Consider recent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and North America. Senator Whish-Wilson's recent claims have been dishonest. Firstly, I want to honour the sad loss of life in the North Atlantic. But, then, I want to say the following facts. In the 10 years from 2007 to 2016, there were 10 hurricanes in the North Atlantic-North America area. In the 10 years from 1950 to 1959, there were 18—almost double. In the 10 years from 1910 to 1919, there were 21—slightly more than double the latest 10 years. And in the 10 years from 1880 to 1889, there were 27 hurricanes in that region—almost three times the current level.

Let's consider the hurricanes that actually make landfall. In the last 12 years, there were none—zip, zero. Strong land-falling cyclones are still declining over the last 120 years even after cyclone Irma. That is why NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the UN IPCC itself—that corrupt body—in its latest reports all admit that hurricane activity is decreasing.

Let's look at something else. The Greens don't seem to be worried about deaths. Deaths per year per million population in the USA have deceased from almost nine per million people in 1900 to almost two in 1920 and to almost zero in 2010. They've gone from almost nine deaths per million people per year in 1900 to almost zero in 2010. These are facts—hard, measured data. North America's largest hurricane tragedy was in the Galveston hurricane where thousands died.

Similarly, the empirical evidence shows that there is no change in rainfall or flooding frequency, flooding severity or flooding duration. The floods in Brisbane in the 1890s were greater by far than the floods in any recent period in Brisbane. Drought severity, frequency and duration are lower now than in the past. Snowfall shows no changes. Temperature shows no changes—and I will come back to that. Ocean alkalinity shows no changes—that is the pH level. It's alkaline not acidic, as alarmists like to claim. Ocean alkalinity shows complete uniformity. Sea levels show nothing unusual. Polar ice caps are increasing in the Arctic and fluctuating naturally in the Arctic. There are no changes occurring in climate.

So consider the Greens' implicit warming claimed in their MPI—their last two words were 'global warming'. Let's consider temperatures. In the last 22 years—that's more than half the satellite record, and that's known to be by far the most accurate record for measuring tropospheric, atmospheric temperatures—more than half the temperature records in satellite measurements have shown no warming; no warming at all. In the last 160 years, the longest temperature trend was from the 1930s to 1976—40 years of, wait for it, cooling. And that was at a time when humans increased markedly their production of carbon dioxide. But it cooled. In the 1880s and 1890s in Australia, they were warmer than today; fact. The medieval warming period was warmer by far than today globally. The Roman warming period, 1,000 years or so before the medieval warming period, was warmer again. So there is no warming. In the absence of warming, we heard the claims of 'global warming' morph to 'global climate change'. And now we hear the term 'extreme weather'.

The CSIRO has made three presentations to us since I entered the Senate, and we have torn apart every one of them. I will be speaking more to that in the near future. The CSIRO cannot, in response to our request, prove anything unprecedented in climate. What's more, in the first of their presentations they admitted there is no danger. More to come from that. But I want to get through and discuss the ramifications of this. What the Greens are claiming by distorting the science is anti-human. The reality is that as a result of hydrocarbon fuels and human creativity we have built levies and dams—until the Greens arrived. We can't build them any more in Australia. We have better building codes and better zoning, and we are dropping subsidies for insurance. The data shows that human fatalities have decreased and are continuing to decrease. That's the reality. The fact is that ignorance and deceptions kill. And the poor in India and the poor in Australia pay. That is why the Greens' position is anti-human. I am fiercely pro-human. That's why I devoted nine years to understanding the science, getting the empirical scientific evidence and understanding cause and effect. That is why I remain pro-human.

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

I want to start my contribution by remembering and grieving for the 1,200 or more people killed by the floods in South Asia and well over 100 by hurricanes Harvey and Irma in the Caribbean and in the US. We have to remember that this debate is about people. We have to remember we are talking about and legislating for people—their lives and wellbeing—and the health and wellbeing of our planet and all of the species that we share our planet with.

That said, can I just share some facts with you—some real facts. The floods in South Asia are the region's worst floods for 40 years, with a metre of rain falling over some areas in the space of days. There are 40 million people affected in Nepal, India and Bangladesh. Hurricane Harvey was a one-in-25,000-year storm. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are going to cost in clean-up about $100 billion each.

The next fact is that there is absolutely no doubt that the intensity of these storms and the frequency of intense storms are a clear signal of global warming. The science is crystal clear. This is what we experience with 1.3 degrees of warming, and we are on track to four degrees of warming. As Bill McKibben said so eloquently in The Guardian yesterday:

Maybe it was too much to expect that scientists' warnings would really move people. ... Maybe it's like all the health warnings that you should eat fewer chips and drink less soda, which, to judge by belt-size, not many of us pay much mind. Until, maybe, you go to the doctor and he says: "Whoa, you're in trouble." Not "keep eating junk and some day you'll be in trouble", but: "You're in trouble right now, today. As in, it looks to me like you've already had a small stroke or two."

We are in trouble. These hurricanes and storms tell us so, let alone in Australia the death of the Great Barrier Reef and that the climate of Australia's wheat-growing areas is heating to the climate of the central deserts. We ignore this climate catastrophe at our peril.

But our government has no plan. They just want to prop up the clunker of a coalmine—they are falling over themselves to subsidise the Adani coalmine, because the private sector won't touch it because coalmining is an outdated, destructive, dying industry. Then they belittle and ridicule anybody who dares to call out the truth.

Labor, on climate-destroying coal, are sitting on the fence. They need to rule out support for the Adani coalmine. They can't have it both ways. They can't be concerned about global warming on the one hand and wave through the development of the biggest coalmine in Australia's history on the other.

I remain optimistic. We're going to kick this science-denying government out of office and we can swiftly move to a clean future for us all. (Time expired)

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

I join this debate and echo the words of Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I express my concern and sorrow to those who have been affected by disasters recently and across time immemorial. I'm disappointed that the Greens would use these human tragedies to try to make some cheap political points, as they continue to do.

It's interesting to observe these debates. I don't always agree with Senator Roberts. His view is his own view, but is, it appears to me, a more scientific view than that of anyone else who speaks in these particular discussions. But what I'm interested in is this. When someone like Senator Roberts has a different view from Senator Rice, Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Whish-Wilson, they're treated with disdain and giggling fits and the putting-down of anyone who doesn't happen to follow their ideology. Senator Roberts made some valid points. He quotes the facts of cyclones. I saw this years ago. He has actually said when the cyclones hit, and yet the Greens would tell you that this is a new phenomenon. I remember when Yasi hit the Greens said, 'This is the worst cyclone to hit Australia since 1917.' Now Senator Rice says, 'These are the worst floods to hit South-East Asia for a long time'—40 years. What happened before those 40 years? There were floods of that magnitude and there have been at all occasions. Certainly, with the media and social media the way it is, we're more aware of these disasters when they happen. Senator Roberts gives the facts. The Greens will never dispute those because they can't. They just try to belittle the deliverer of the message.

I never enter into the debate of whether human activity is causing climate change. The climate is, of course, changing. There's no doubt about that; no-one can deny that. I never enter that debate because I don't have that scientific knowledge, but neither does anyone else in this room, and neither does everyone else at the UBC—the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation, which used to be called the ABC. They don't have the facts either; they don't have the scientific knowledge. They just mouth the platitudes of others who have a particular agenda, and the Greens are amongst them. The Greens could not tell you about the science themselves; they just mouth the platitudes that someone has told them. I continue to ask them and they never answer me.

Australia is doing its bit. We're reducing our emissions and we help with disaster resilience—not climate resilience; disaster resilience—particularly in the Pacific. Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. If the world's emission of carbon is what's causing climate change—which it is, according to the Greens—then I ask the Greens: why are you so determined to destroy Australia's industry and our standard of living by even further reducing the emissions of carbon?

Senator Rice interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Rice!

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

I've asked them time and time to tell me scientifically what impact Australia's emission of carbon has on the changing climate of the world. They never answer that question, because they can't. So I asked the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, what would happen if Australia reduced its emissions by 1.2 per cent, which is the total of Australia's emissions.

Senator Rice interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, I have let you get away with a little bit but it's gone on for a while now and I ask you to cease, please.

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

Thank you for the protection, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I don't need protection from the likes of Senator Rice. This is the typical Greens' thing. If you don't agree with them, they will deride you, giggle like schoolgirls and try to shout you down.

I keep raising the point that they won't tell me what impact 1.2 per cent will have on the changing climate of the world—but Dr Finkel did. I asked Dr Finkel: if we shut Australia down, if we reduce Australia's emissions by 1.2 per cent, what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world? Dr Finkel said—and it's on Hansard'virtually none'. The Greens are in here every day saying, 'Cut Australia's jobs; do away with manufacturing; do away with motor vehicles; do away with everything that has a carbon emission because it's going to kill the Barrier Reef,' yet Dr Finkel says that it will have virtually no impact on the changing climate of the world. The Greens bring lie, after lie, after lie to this debate—as they do with everything. We just heard a Greens senator say that the Barrier Reef is dead. That is a direct and outright lie. The Barrier Reef is not dead; it is brilliant. There are parts of it in some condition, but the Barrier Reef continues.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

Senator Macdonald is misleading the chamber. No Greens senator said that the Barrier Reef is dead. I ask you to reflect on Hansard and call Senator Macdonald up for lying.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, that is a debating point; there is no point of order.

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

Senator Rice clearly said in her presentation—and Hansard will show this—'That's why the Barrier Reef is dead.' It is not dead, but the Greens would have you believe that and so would the UBC—what used to be the ABC—all the GetUp! people and all the left-wing groups of that type.

This debate needs a reality check. Unfortunately, you will never get it from the Greens. They can't tell you anything about the science, because they simply don't know. They just mouth the platitudes and the particular thing they heard from some left-wing group at some time in the past. It needs a reality check. Start answering those questions that Senator Roberts puts to you. I don't know whether he has the knowledge, but he has the facts on the cyclones and the floods. They're not new; they've happened all the time through the world's evolution, and they will continue to happen. They are a natural impact. Even if you are a believer in man's inducement of climate change, what Australia emits will have virtually no impact. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate by reflecting on the new-found socialism of the Turnbull government. Here I am standing in this place to reflect on Fidel Frydenberg, Castro Canavan and Malcolm the Marxist—

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and their new-found faith in socialising energy production.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young—

A government senator interjecting—

Don't make it any worse. Senator Hanson-Young, no longer ago than question time, we had a similar incident, and I would ask that you refer to members of this chamber and the other by their proper title.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, Mr Acting Deputy President. The coalition used to claim to be the party of market forces but, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, they have embraced socialism. They have introduced export controls on gas; they want to spend $1 billion of taxpayer money subsidising the Adani coalmine; they want to use taxpayers' money to build and bail out old coal-fired power stations; and, of course, they have run a mile from market-based mechanisms for pricing carbon, which even the Prime Minister once crossed the floor to support. The one thing the energy industry says it wants is certainty, but, far from certainty, all it has from this government is chaos—all the coalition has given the industry is chaos.

Let's take a closer look. It started with former Prime Minister John Howard, who gave us the Renewable Energy Target in 1997, but he raged against the price on carbon right up until 2006. As the 2007 election approached, John Howard supported an ETS, but post election the Liberals dumped it—for a while, at least, until Brendan Nelson unambiguously supported pricing carbon. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, of course, supported an ETS right up until—well, then he didn't. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, forever the contrarian, even supported a price on carbon just because Malcolm Turnbull didn't, but, soon after he became opposition leader, Tony Abbott opposed all carbon pricing and admitted he was just a bit of a weathervane. Then, as Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, after ripping up the carbon price, gave us the Renewable Energy Target, which we still have today. The coalition has been all over the shop when it comes to climate policy and energy policy, but where have they settled?

They have settled for socialism. They will outsource health and education spending—all those essential services—but they want to insource the construction and maintenance of coal-fired power stations. They are socialists. We now see those in the National Party have become the coal communists. For years I have sat here and been lectured about the inefficiency of the public sector by the coalition in this place, and here we have Fidel Frydenberg and Castro Canavan— (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.