Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable;

(b) the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger; and

(c) renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power;

(2) recognises that the:

(a) decisions we make now concerning environment, climate and energy policy will have lasting and profound affects for the future; and

(b) transition to a low carbon economy wil1 provide significant opportunities for regional development; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) commit to:

(i) utilising the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for investments that deliver real benefits to communities in Northern Australia, now and into the future; and

(ii) a considered and integrated energy policy in Northern Queensland that actively supports the transition to a low carbon economy; and

(b) recommit to protecting Australia' s marine resources, like the Great Barrier Reef, from modern and evolving threats, to ensure their economic benefits can be borne by future generations.

In recent months the debate about climate change has once again consumed many occupants of this building. We should absolutely debate the best ways to address, respond and adapt to our changing climate, but the time to debate the very existence of human-induced climate change has well passed. Without courageous action taken right now, my two young boys or their children won't have the time to debate the existence of climate change; they'll be too busy dealing with the disastrous consequences.

There will be more environmental disasters, droughts, cyclones, floods or the destruction of Australia's greatest treasure, the Great Barrier Reef. There'll be more economic and community shocks like those still being felt in Central and Northern Queensland, following tropical cyclones Debbie and Marcia. There'll be more displaced people, particularly from our own region, where many island communities will be forced to seek sanctuary from rising oceans.

It genuinely saddens me to have to say this, but it is the reality. The Prime Minister has failed to unshackle himself from the climate deniers in his own party and those floating on the Senate crossbench. He's failed to address climate change, even though we know that he once believed passionately in it. History does not remember kindly good people who are defined by inaction. Labor is ready and willing to work with the coalition government to create a sustainable environment and energy plan for Australia. We've been leading this policy area in the parliament since the crossbench destruction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme nearly 10 years ago in the Senate. Back on the day when I saw two Liberal senators cross the floor, we actually saw the member for Wentworth vote for Labor's CPRS. Let's get back to those times when Labor and Liberal had a bipartisan consensus about the imperatives to act on climate change for the sake of future generations. Let's get this done.

If the Turnbull government is not prepared to work with Labor in opposition, a Labor government will be ready with credible policies for immediate implementation once elected. The case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government repealed the carbon tax we have seen more pollution and higher electricity bills—a real double whammy, especially for Australian manufacturers. Labor understands that building the energy capability of the future means more renewables and less coal-fired generation. In fact, renewables in combination with storage is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power.

Without certainty on public policy in this space, we cannot and will not attract the economic environment required for investment. Labor has just announced more new policies to boost renewable energy generation and storage, create new jobs and put downward pressure on power prices. We will modernise the energy market rules to give more power to consumers and create renewable energy zones, as recommended by the Turnbull government's own Chief Scientist. This will drive investment and jobs in the sector. We will change the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment benchmark so it can invest in more generation and storage projects.

Our transition to a low-carbon economy will provide significant opportunities for regional development. We have the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to support this—to create future-proof critical infrastructure for our regions. That is what the fund is for. It is certainly not for lining the pockets of the huge multinational Adani corporation. The NAIF was announced more than two years ago and we are still waiting for the government to allocate a single dollar from the $5 billion fund to build job-generating infrastructure in northern Australia.

The only matter before the Commonwealth, before federal Labor and the federal government, is whether or not taxpayers should loan $1 billion through the NAIF to this huge multinational company, Adani. My federal Labor colleagues and I, especially shadow minister Butler, are steadfastly opposed to taxpayers' money being given to a multinational company to fund their private sector operation. The Adani project will ultimately live or die on its own, but it certainly has a lot of work to do to convince my fellow Queenslanders and Australians that it will meet its environmental obligations, already signed off by the federal government, and, very importantly, that it also stacks up economically.

Instead of a handout to a billionaire, Labor has committed to use that $1 billion to fund long overdue tourism infrastructure projects. These local Australian businesses employ locals and bring so much to the Queensland economy through the growing tourism market, both domestically and internationally. It is critically important to act on climate change to protect the reef and ensure that its wonder can be enjoyed by locals and tourists and my grandchildren long into the future.

It is also critically important to ensure that our energy market respects the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. No country on this earth will be immune from climate change—big or small, mountainous or flat, ocean frontage or landlocked, it does not matter. It is the government's responsibility to act now. To do otherwise would demonstrate complete moral and political cowardice.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you visit my Parliament House office you will see a wide range of products made on the Northern Beaches. One of these is a red grill made by Roband, a leading commercial finance manufacturer in Cromer. Roband's energy costs have risen by more than 50 per cent over the past year. For any business, this is a massive cost. But, in a tightly competitive market, where made in Australia is competing against cheap, overseas imports, this is disastrous. Australia, which once boasted some of the cheapest energy, now has some of the most expensive energy. While debates around the existence of climate change are fading into history, the real and substantive issue around the family kitchen table is how to pay the quarterly energy bill or whether we can afford to put the heater or air conditioner on. The bottom line is that renewable energy can only flourish when the public have faith and trust in the market to deliver affordable and reliable energy.

The experience last summer in South Australia saw blackouts become the norm. While I am sure that this was of benefit to the Australian film industry, as many people headed to the cinema, that hardly counts as a long-term solution. This was not market failure; this was regulatory failure. In an advanced economy, keeping the lights on cannot be a question dependent on public pleas for moderation or on the shutting down of large energy users in industry.

Of course, chief among the policy failures has been the separatist, go-it-alone approach by various state governments who, by legislating their own renewable energy targets, have put politics and ideology ahead of families and lower prices. More detrimental than this are the economically damaging, reckless, unscientific and irrational moratoriums on gas development in Victoria, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland, which have driven up wholesale gas prices at a time when gas-powered generation is vital to the energy sector to provide synchronous, stable generation capacity as coal generation capacity declines. For the states which are floating on centuries' worth of gas to be shunting responsibility to Canberra, demanding export restrictions and price controls, clearly indicates the absurdity of any party that takes up this position on energy. Innovation and technological development is rapidly lowering the cost curve for new renewable plants. While mature technologies have plateaued, the cost of wind and solar photovoltaic generation has more than halved. The missing link that enables renewables to provide truly reliable, dispatchable power is storage technology which smooths variability.

Jay Weatherill can hold as many Hollywood-style press conferences as he likes to boast about a 100-megawatt lithium-ion battery—but the Turnbull government's Snowy Hydro 2.0 will produce, in one hour, 20 times that amount and can deliver it constantly for almost a week. As the largest pumped-hydro scheme in the Southern Hemisphere, it will create over 5,000 jobs during construction and will spur investment in new renewable technologies. This is why the Turnbull government's approach to energy stands in strong contrast to that of Labor and the Greens. Not only did Julia Gillard's carbon tax wreak havoc on our economy, but her state comrades with their ideological obsessions against natural gas and existing coal generation are creating a climate of malaise where investment has stalled.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asked about New South Wales. Ian Macdonald was very good at starting new coalmines; it's just that you had to be a former union official to get the licence. The Finkel report presents a—

Opposition members interjecting—

You still want to ask more questions? Labor has more questions on coalmines in New South Wales. Please, come forward! The Finkel report presents a road map for reducing prices by providing certainty to regulation that enables providers to make new investments, increasing supply and bringing down prices. The Turnbull government has made important and significant commitments at the Paris climate accord that will see our emissions reduce over time as part of an international agreement. This is critical, because Australia only produces— (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to, first of all, record my thanks to my colleague the member for Moreton for putting this particular issue on the agenda. I just want to take a bit of time to go through the points that the member for Moreton has made in his motion to the House, and talk about why I think they are so significant. I also want to report to the House on some very significant activity in my own electorate on these very issues in the few weeks during which we have been away from this place.

The member for Moreton's motion, first of all, notes that the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable. I find it extraordinary that we actually have to make such a statement in this place at this time. But, given some of the national debate that's going on, it is clear that we do still need to—sadly—reaffirm that climate change is real and that human activity is a significant contributor to it.

I have been in this place for various iterations of this debate but I'm very conscious that at the end of the Howard government era we actually were moving towards a consensus in this country across the political spectrum about those two issues—that climate change was real and that humans were contributing to it. Indeed, at the end of the Howard era, former Prime Minister Howard had moved to a position that said that, as a nation, we had an international responsibility to take action on climate change. Not only that, there was an agreement that there was great benefit to this country in moving towards more sustainable development and more sustainable energy options so that we, with the ingenuity and the natural resources that we had, would actually become world leaders in responding to climate change. Well, sadly, that bus has well and truly passed us. Now we are actually far behind the pack internationally in terms of these issues.

The member for Moreton's second point is that the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger. That is absolutely the case. As I report some of the conversations that happen in my community, members will see why I believe that is the case. Thirdly, renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power.

What is really sad in this space—and it's where we find ourselves in the political debate at this point in time—is that we're actually led by a Prime Minister who used to have very deep and, we were led to believe, very sincere beliefs in the importance of this policy area. The current Prime Minister wasn't the Prime Minister at the time, but he crossed the floor to support Labor in taking action on climate change. In fact, he made comments that he would never lead a government that wasn't dedicated to action on climate change. Now we see a government mired in indecision, floundering on the policy front and doing things like getting our Chief Scientist to go and do a report and then—apparently this week—being in convulsions about whether they are actually going to take action on it.

In my area, people care very deeply about these issues. I met with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition branch from Wollongong. They brought to me a petition that they had been collecting around the issue of the Adani coalmine. We had a talk about that. I made it very clear to them that Labor is very strongly of the view—and our position is—that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund should not be used to provide $1 billion to Adani. We are absolutely determined that that will be the case. Quite a group of young people came along to talk to me. I just want to acknowledge those young people, because they're very dedicated. They were Amy Fairall, Sarah Munelly, Mitch Grande, Liv Panozzo and Maddy Yerbury. I thank them for talking to me and for presenting their petition.

Last week, the Wollongong Climate Action Network had a forum on climate change organised by Tom Hunt and the team. Over 200 people attended that evening. We heard from a range of professors and doctors from the university across bushfires, marine biology, atmospheric science, urban planning, building and energy. All talked about the need to take action and to become a country that takes its responsibilities to the international community, as well as to our local community, on climate change seriously.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion coming from the member for Moreton, who has clearly bought into the loony left's position on climate change and renewables, unfortunately suffers from an eternal lack of idea—completely void of reality, unfortunately. It is difficult, given the bland repetition of all of the usual motherhood statements and mantras, and with the usual lack of specifics, to get a handle on exactly what it is that the member for Moreton is actually asking for. It is very difficult—beyond, of course, his loyal abidance with Labor rhetoric.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that this motion is the twin of an earlier motion put by the member for Griffith, but she at least told the chamber what she wanted, as nonsensical as it was: a big, new clean energy target and the end of the Adani coalmine. If we do these things, so it seems to the Left, then the Great Barrier Reef will be saved and, along the way, the planet will also be saved. Hallelujah! Apparently it's all that simple, but, as we know, the energy debate indeed is not that simple. Picking up one of the elements of the member for Moreton's motion, dealing with storage, demonstrates why the massive challenges we confront in relation to energy are anything but simple and why Labor's position is, yet again, so opportunistic.

Storage of renewable power has now become a central part of Labor's threadbare position; it never used to be. This is all very new for Labor. Previously, for Labor, wind and solar were standalone propositions—omnipotent, in fact. They were the perfect energy alternative—but, sadly, they're not. At least that particular penny has finally dropped for Labor. In countries where renewables constitute a significant part of the energy mix, desperate measures are underway, as we speak, to try to boost conventional backup to counter their intermittency and unreliability. That's as true in the UK as it is in Germany, in the US and in Australia—particularly in South Australia. Wind and solar have universally failed, in this regard, to deliver reliable power; to do so, they demand fast backup on hand all the time—24/7.

Storage in batteries has become Labor's plan B for wind and solar backup, based almost entirely on the South Australian Labor government's experimental construction of a 100-megawatt battery storage system at the Hornsdale Wind Farm, with a price tag for the taxpayer that's still top secret. Labor, both in Adelaide and Canberra, want to believe that this battery is the answer to keeping South Australia's lights on, in the face of the grave threat to grid security posed by an overreliance on wind this summer, but it's not. You only have to look at what Jay Weatherill is doing with the remainder of the half-billion-dollar-plus panic package he's desperately putting in place to see where the real grunt in the effort to keep the lights on and the air conditioners running in South Australia for the next two summers is actually coming from. Do you know what it is? Diesel. Next to the dusty desalination plant at Lonsdale, in the old GMH factory at Elizabeth, he's installing 276 megawatts of diesel generators—nine diesel units. How that squares with the platitudes and the call for immediate action from the member for Moreton is anyone's guess.

This motion, unfortunately, seems to be more mindless nonsense from the Labor Party. They simply cannot face the reality when it comes to meaningful, sensible, responsible action on climate change or the delivery of secure and affordable power. As we know, the Turnbull government is getting on with business. We are putting the reliability, security and affordability of energy at the top of our agenda—that's for families across Australia and for businesses across Australia. It does no family or business any good to have these sorts of foolish motions debated in this chamber.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton, my great friend, for raising this motion which brings together the issues of the problem of getting acceptance of the science by some members of the coalition and the challenges and opportunities presented to rural and regional Australia. It's interesting, too, that we're doing this debate in the shadow of the comments by the member for Warringah, which were treated with the derision that they deserved. They were bizarre. We know that the member's had a varying array of positions on this issue over the years, but, within the one speech, he was breaking a new record: on the one hand denying climate change was happening but on the other hand saying, 'But it's going to be good for you.' He said, 'Fewer people die in the heat than they do in the cold.' We know that, with climate change, people expire not only in extreme heat but in extreme weather conditions. Of course this is leaving aside the huge numbers of people who are badly affected, health-wise, by the toxic emissions from fossil fuels. It's why many European countries, China and India are all committing to getting off fossil fuel powered vehicles by either 2025 or 2040 and why the UK is shutting down its coal-fired power. The proportion of coal-fired power it is now generating has dropped to a tiny percentage.

All I'm asking the coalition to do on this is read their own Finkel review. I've read all 212 pages of it. It's their report; he's their Chief Scientist. In the report, they highlighted the fact that households would save $90 a year on their electricity bills, or up to $1,000 over the decade to 2030, by implementing a clean energy target. The Finkel review said that there were things that had to be done at the six-month mark, the 12-month mark and the three-year mark. At the zero-month mark—that is, in last June—it said we needed an immediate decision on a clean energy target. That was because we needed to get the investment flowing on the capacity we need to prop up the system after four years of neglect. The plug was pulled on the investment flow that was happening prior to that.

The benefits of that investment flow land principally in regional Australia. This was another highlight in the Finkel review. The benefit of distributed energy resources offered a huge opportunity for rural and regional areas. We could save $16 billion on transmission costs. It also highlighted that there would be $400 of savings per year for rural and regional businesses and for domestic users of electricity—this is in the Finkel review. I'm not making this up. You wanted me to cite specifics; I'm citing them. Just read your own report.

The Finkel review highlighted the benefits from the point of view of costs for consumers, but we also know about the potential economic benefits. The real projection of jobs for Adani is vastly overshadowed by the potential jobs in renewable energy for rural and regional Australia. If you want to see specifics on that, I point you to the Climate Institute's study on the potential job and economic benefits for rural and regional Australia of investment in renewable energy in particular. They said it would create something like 34,000 new jobs by 2030. But there are also the benefits to our farmers. The Carbon Farming Initiative—which was part of our other policy back in 2013—was going to provide enormous benefits to farmers from activities like getting brokerage on reforestation or partial reforestation of their properties, which they could have traded in, and we were setting up a regime to approve methodologies on other opportunities in boosting farm economy.

We also know from the recent ANU study that there are up to 22,000 sites suitable for pumped hydro across rural and regional Australia. There are at least 8,600 sites in New South Wales and 1,770 sites in Queensland. These sites would provide, overwhelmingly, what we need to back up our renewable energy transition. We also hear the coalition talk about Snowy Hydro 2.0. I'll keep telling the community and the public that the coalition had nothing to do with this project. The Snowy Hydro team, under the leadership of Paul Broad, made the submission for the feasibility money in February this year, months before Malcolm Turnbull discovered it and came along and photobombed it. That money came from ARENA, a body that the coalition tried to destroy. The government provided no money for the feasibility study, which was an independent process under ARENA, and the financing for the construction—Snowy Hydro tell me—will be raised by them. It will not be provided by the government, because the business case will stand up. This project has been on the books for 30 years of development. It would have been further advanced by now if we had kept the policy framework that propped up that investment.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to begin by saying that I have reservations about the way some of this motion has been worded. A problem can come from that wording because, I think, it necessarily leads to some misrepresentations in the debate around the science of climate change and the economics of climate change, in making sure that we can properly address the issue. For starters, the motion starts with the words 'notes that the scientific consensus'. This is not a pedantic point. Science doesn't work on the basis of consensus. 'Consensus' is political language, not scientific language. I don't think using political language is a sensible way to have a dialogue and a conversation about scientific matters. In the end, the logic of science for climate change is quite straightforward. There is a natural greenhouse effect that's caused by the capturing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, you will get a warming effect. Humans are contributing more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, so you will get a warming effect. Once you go beyond the fundamental physics of it, it becomes much more speculative in terms of modelling and different trajectories. When you talk about using the political language of consensus, you actually hamper the discussion and the debate and not in a constructive way.

The second point that I raise is a concern with (1)(c), which talks about the role of renewable energy. It says:

renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power ...

That is a political statement as well. It actually doesn't reflect market practice. In some circumstances, that can be right; in lots of other circumstances, it can't, whether it's centralised or decentralised. The heart of this motion, which is designed to do nothing more than support the political objectives of the opposition, is fundamentally flawed. I want to make it clear: in some circumstances, renewable energy with battery storage can be economical and competitive and beat all other alternatives, but that isn't universally the case. At the heart of this motion is political language and political dialogue to try to trap discussion, when we're supposed to be having a sensible discussion about how we're going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as part of a package of delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and, critically, to Australian businesses as well so we can continue to be internationally competitive and drive the jobs growth that this country needs. This sort of language does nothing to engender that as a process.

We're going through a transition in the energy market. Natural tension, sovereign risk and carbon risk come as a consequence of international commitments that the federal government has signed up to and as a consequence of public concerns around the environment, around what people will reasonably pay on their household bills and the expectations, particularly of people on lower incomes and fixed incomes, of reliable and affordable power. It requires a multitude of solutions to make sure we can provide the energy that is the core source of our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. To label it as solving it through renewable energy misleads and deceives the public and doesn't improve the outcomes for their lifestyle because we know full well that we will continue to rely on fossil fuels as part of our core baseload reliable energy mix. That's going to continue into the future, beyond any announcements made on energy policy in the next couple of days or even the potential of a future Labor government. We know full well that coal and particularly gas play an important part during peak periods. In addition to that, renewables have an important place.

I'm a great optimist about the role of renewable energy in the market. In fact, I wrote papers about the opportunity of renewable energy and why we have to encourage it and incentivise it, dating back to the early 2000s. In the end, this technology, as it matures, particularly with battery storage, provides the opportunity for energy generation, particularly decentralised energy generation, across our great country, harnessing the potential of the earth's natural forces. So I'm a great optimist about it, but I'm also not naive. I'm also not disconnected from reality and I say that it can serve some purposes but not others. It can't power to the volume you need for aluminium smelters and it can't be used to the extent necessary for many mining projects to extract the energy that we need for other purposes. So we have to look at the policy setting holistically, which recognises the challenge we have in delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and Australian industry. We also have to make sure that it's anchored in the reality of how we generate energy to deliver it to the people and set that against the backdrop of an honest discussion around the science of climate change, making sure that we're doing actions proportionate to what is appropriate for this country in the future.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to support the motion moved by the member for Moreton, because it is critical that this parliament and, indeed, the world act on climate change. We know that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record. We know that heatwaves are starting earlier. Tragically, we know that storms, hurricanes and cyclones are becoming more frequent and intense. We know that the Great Barrier Reef has had two bleaching events over the last 18 months. We know that we've just had, as a country, the warmest winter on record; average maximum temperatures around Australia reached nearly two degrees Celsius above average. The nation also experienced our second driest June on record. Indeed, more than 260 heat and low-rainfall records were broken during the winter months. Australia's average winter temperatures have increased by around one degree Celsius since 1910. Last summer, Sydney had its hottest summer on record, with a mean temperature 2.8 degrees Celsius above average; Brisbane had its hottest summer on record, with a mean temperature 1.7 degrees above average; Canberra had its hottest summer on record, with daytime temperatures and recorded temperatures of at least 35 degrees Celsius on 18 days. Adelaide experienced its hottest Christmas Day in 70 years, at 41.3 degrees Celsius. Moree in regional New South Wales experienced 54 consecutive days of temperatures 35 degrees Celsius or above, a record for the state.

When you have all of that evidence on top of the scientists telling us that we need to act on anthropogenic climate change—climate change caused by human activity—then I find it extraordinary that you wouldn't act, even if you question all of it, under the precautionary principle, for the same reason that you take out insurance. And yet where the government's at was exemplified by the person who appears to be leading it on climate change, Tony Abbott, who went to London to argue that higher temperatures might even be beneficial because far more people die in cold snaps. It was an extraordinarily arrogant statement to make. And what the science tells us isn't that every extreme weather event—like Hurricane Katrina or the disaster in Puerto Rico or the increased number of cyclones that we've seen in North Queensland—is because of climate change. What you can say, though, is that, when you have them occurring more often, with the intensity being stronger, then there's something going on here.

That is why this motion is so important. It calls for action. It points out that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility shouldn't be used to subsidise a venture such as Adani, that that is a distortion in the market, that it is an intervention, that it is an admission that the project doesn't stack up commercially. That's what that is. We know that the future is in renewables, like the Kidston project in the old Kidston Gold mine or like the Kennedy Energy Park or like the pumped hydro I visited with the member for Kennedy. There are 537,000 solar panels in the first stage of the Kidston project—an exciting project that will produce jobs and provide 24-hour supply because of the pumped hydro. Australia's future is in renewables.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to respond to this motion on climate change, because we need to dispel one of the worst entrenched myths and accept a fundamental truth. The myth of a 97 per cent consensus was widely and thoroughly debunked long ago. The figure came from a research paper so discredited that it should stand as an example for how science should not be conducted. The paper classified published research according to alleged support for anthropogenic global warming. But, when contacted, researchers confirmed their papers did not support the warming theory and were falsely classified. Associate Professor Dr Nir J Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said:

Nope ... it is not an accurate representation.

He also said, and this is particularly telling:

Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.

There was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. More recently, the consensus around cholesterol and heart disease was forced to change. Many parents would know that consensus on the treatment of nose bleeds changed. When confronted with data refuting their theory, some climate scientists have failed to change that theory—beyond changing its name from global warming to climate change.

That brings me to the second point of this motion, that 'the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger'. We are told by activist scientists that we have 10 years to act to avoid catastrophic climate change. But, actually, we were being told 10 years ago that we only had 10 years to act. In 2009, Australia's then Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, infamously warned that the planet had just five years to avoid disastrous global warming. Ten years before that, we were told we had only 10 years to act to avoid catastrophic global warming. And nearly 30 years before that, we were being warned of an impending ice age.

The difference is this: when scientists in the 1970s were confronted with data that did not support their impending ice age theory, they changed their theory. The drive to protect a false theory was evident in the 'climategate' emails where scientists were advised to fudge results to ensure they complied with the acceptable way of thinking. And that is not an isolated case. Dr Judith Curry, a world-renowned and academically honoured climatologist and former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, described how she had been the subject of attack by climate alarmists because she questioned the consensus and its use as a tool. Dr Curry says she was 'thrown out of the tribe' for suggesting climate science needed greater transparency. She said:

On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think it's a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.

That balance is prohibited from the discussion while the railroaded science of alarmism is driving much of public policy around the world. The result is the false belief that, if some nations, in particular, butchered their own economy to meet the Paris agreement, everything would be all right.

Dr Curry and many others have recently pointed out the folly of staying in the Paris agreement. Even if every country met its Paris commitment, the difference would be negligible. But the economic damage would be a major setback for humanity. Two of the most highly respected economic reformers in Australia also advised pulling out of Paris last week. Keating government advisor, Fred Hilmer, and the inaugural Productivity Commission chairman, Gary Banks, advised dumping the Paris agreement and offered a sobering assessment of renewables. Professor Banks was quoted as sympathising with Australians who were 'bemused' about rising power bills amid claims of a low-cost, renewable-energy future. He offered this reminder of a fundamental truth:

The notion that there's a trade-off, that we can't have it all, that there's no free lunch, that's not been made clear to the public. In fact when you look at it, we've ruled out all the least-cost ways of transitioning to a low-emission economy … we've ruled out nuclear and essentially ruled out gas too.

It's time that we as a nation accept that climate science has been railroaded and is far from settled. It's time that we accepted that renewable energies do come at a cost, at a real cost—a cost that actually costs jobs and a cost that impacts on the poorest of Australians through rising electricity prices. If that real cost of renewables became transparent, I guarantee you one thing: that people would be demanding an exit from the Paris agreement.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.