Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:34): It is great to speak after Senator Di Natale. Today, Senator Di Natale—we heard it just then and we heard it earlier in question time—continues with this extremist rhetoric about coal and seeking to shut down an entire industry. The nature of that extremist rhetoric was particularly well exposed in question time today, when Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is what he did: he compared coalminers to drug dealers. Coalminers, of course, provide tens of thousands of jobs in this country. They provide billions of dollars in exports. They provide billions of dollars in taxation revenue and energy security for Australians, and, as we export that coal, particularly to countries like India and others— Senator McKim: Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order about adverse reflection on another senator. Senator Seselja has just explicitly stated that Senator Di Natale compared coalminers to drug dealers. That is categorically not the case. What he did was make a comment on the lameness of the argument— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ): Senator McKim, that is not a point of order; that is editorialising. I was listening very carefully to Senator Seselja's comments and I also heard the comments in question time. You are making a debating point, not a point of order. Senator SESELJA: They are very sensitive on this point. It was interesting that Senator Di Natale raised that because, when it comes to choosing between coalminers and drug dealers, the Greens choose drug dealers. They want to ban coal and they want to legalise drugs. We have seen it recently in the policies that the Greens have put forward. Senator Di Natale recently put forward a policy that would see the legalisation of drugs in this country, but one thing they want to do is ban coal. So, when it comes to choosing between those two realities, they choose the drug dealers over the coalminers. We reject the premise of this matter of public importance. The suggestion that you cannot have a coal industry, as we have seen for decades and decades in Queensland, and a growing tourism sector is absolutely false. Let's go to the figures. Let's see how the tourism sector has done under the coalition government. Let's see how it is done in Queensland under the coalition government. There is nothing like facts to respond to the Greens' rhetoric. Let's respond with some facts. Since 2013, the Whitsundays saw an increase of 36 per cent in international visitors and an astonishing increase of 89 per cent increase in visitor spend—an 89 per cent increase! So we have seen a booming tourism sector co-existing with things like coalmines. That has been the case for many, many years. Tropical North Queensland saw an increase of 31 per cent in international visitors and an increase in visitor spend over three years of 34 per cent. These are very encouraging figures. I am sure the Greens do not want to hear them. Senator McKim: Madam Acting Deputy President, a point of order. Senator SESELJA: I can feel a point of order coming on. I am not sure what it is going to be about. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ): Senator Seselja, if you could take your seat. Senator McKim, a point of order. Senator McKim: Madam Acting Deputy President, it is a point of order on the matter I raised with you earlier. I have reviewed standing order 193 and I do believe that it is a cut and dried case of a breach of that standing order that Senator Seselja has just engaged in. I would ask you to ask the President to review the tape of both Senator Di Natale's comments in question time this afternoon and Senator Seselja's quite blatantly inaccurate assertions. If there has been a breach, I ask you to request the President to take the appropriate action. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I will refer this as requested to the President. As I said, I listened very carefully to what Senator Seselja said and, in my opinion, it accurately reflected what was said in question time. But if it does not— Senator McKim: In my opinion it doesn't. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, you have asked me the question. As I have said already, I will refer it to the President, as you have sought, and the President can take the matter up further. Senator SESELJA: If Senator McKim wants to adhere to the standing orders, he probably should not be yelling at you as you are giving your ruling. I think a little more respect for the person in the chair would be— Senator McKim: How about some truth from you, mate. Senator SESELJA: I absolutely stand by what I said. I stand by it 100 per cent. You will have a chance, no doubt, to come and speak, and you can tell me which part I got wrong. Instead of appealing to the umpire, appealing to procedures, which you have gotten wrong, maybe you could come back and tell me which part of what I said was wrong. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Seselja, I just remind you— Senator McKim interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, you are not helping matters. Senator Seselja, I would ask you to refer all issues through the chair. Thank you. Senator SESELJA: Through you, Chair, if Senator McKim had a case, he could make it as a debating point, but why would the Greens start focusing on facts now? Why would they change the habit of a lifetime and start focusing on facts? I have given some facts about the tourism spend, so that debunks a lot of the claim that somehow these industries cannot co-exist; they absolutely can. They have done so for decades. We have seen a massive increase in the tourism spend at a time when we have seen a massive increase in coal exports from Queensland. Let's go through some of those facts. They have co-existed, side by side, over the last 60 years. International tourism to the reef grew from 214,000 in 1999 to 248,000 in 2016, in the same period that coal exports from Queensland grew from around 94 million tonnes to 221 million tonnes. So we have seen the growth of both industries. Isn't that a great thing? Isn't that something we should be celebrating rather than, as the Greens would like to do, kill an industry. That is what they want to do. Senator Whish-Wilson: Talk about coral bleaching. Senator SESELJA: I will talk about the facts in this matter. Senator Whish-Wilson, through you, Chair, may not like those facts. Perhaps if there is another Greens' contribution to this debate they could address the fact that we have seen growing tourism numbers and we have seen a growing amount of coal at the same time. I want to go to the Supreme Court ruling, which Minister Canavan mentioned today, because again it debunks the Greens' central claim. Their central claim is that, if the Adani coalmine goes ahead, there will be heaps more global emissions, therefore, the reef will suffer and, therefore, tourism will die. That has been debunked by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Queensland said: … the power stations would burn the same amount of coal and produce at least the same amount of scope 3 emissions whether or not the mine proceeded; if the mine proceeded it would not increase the amount of global greenhouse gases or any environmental impact resulting from those gases … Again, you have the Supreme Court of Queensland—which is not known as a right-wing organisation—a judicial body, ruling on the facts, looking at the evidence and saying, 'No, actually, the Indian government, on behalf of the Indian people, are going to source coal, and they are going to source coal for their growing population so that hundreds of millions of Indian residents, Indian citizens, can get out of poverty, and so that hundreds of millions of Indians can for the first time perhaps have electricity where they live.' They are going to source that coal. They could source Australia's high quality coal from Queensland or they could source it from other parts of the world. What the Supreme Court found was that, therefore, this will not add to global emissions. But let's for a moment focus on that aspect. This goes to the complete inability of the Greens to have any sort of concern for poverty-stricken people in other parts of the world. The Indian government is seeking to drag large chunks of their population out of poverty. It is very easy if you are a comfortable green somewhere saying: 'I want to abolish coal. I want to kill the coal industry. I want to stop these exports, even though the Supreme Court has said it is not going to add to global emissions.' You have got such an ideological fixation as a green that you are prepared to ignore what the Indian government is trying to do in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. Why don't we, for just one moment, put ourselves in the shoes of those people who do not have access to some of the basics of life that we take for granted. If the Indian government could do it just through solar and if they could do it just through wind then they may well do that. They do have solar projects and they do have wind projects. But they have made the very rational judgement that the only way in the short term that they are going to drag these people out of poverty is by having base load coal and other sources of base load energy. What the Greens do not seem to care about is how transformative that would be for those individuals, for those families and for those communities. Just for a moment, take off the blinkers and put yourself in those circumstances. The Indian government is right to try and deliver that for their people. We have an abundance of coal. It is, in many cases, much cleaner than coal from other sources. The Supreme Court said it will not add to the overall greenhouse gas emissions. Yet we will be dragging people out of poverty; creating thousands of jobs here in Australia; and continuing to maintain a critical industry for this nation, which pays billions of dollars every year in taxes, so that we can spend money on things like roads, hospitals and schools and the defence of our nation. But the Greens would throw all of that aside, with no regard for the jobs here in Australia, with no regard for the flow-on impact for our economy, completely disregarding that it will have no environmental impact and absolutely oblivious to the needs of people who could only dream of having the kinds of living standards that we enjoy here in Australia. I think we should see this for what it is. We should see the callousness of the argument that is made consistently by the Greens when they deal with the Adani issue. The Greens' case does not stack up environmentally, it does not stack-up economically and does not stack up when it comes to having some regard for some of the poorest people in the world— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ): One point of clarification in relation to Senator McKim's point of order that he raised with me. I wanted to confirm with the Senate that the President will only come back to the Senate if there is a further matter to raise in relation to the issue that Senator McKim raised.