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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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