Rob Oakeshott brings on a vote on climate science
From Hansard:
Mr Oakshott: Yesterday was a
significant step forward. We finally have on the record both party leaders in
this chamber in a bipartisan way expressing full confidence in the science
community of Australia and their accepted advice on man-made climate change. At
times it has been like pulling teeth—and I fully respect that, within the ranks
of both major parties there are differing views—but it is important, if we are
going to establish certainty for the future of policy and an economic debate
that hangs off those foundations of acceptance of the very best advice from the
very best scientists in this country, that this House, regardless of who has
the government benches, accepts with confidence the advice that man-made
climate change is real.
Both party leaders
yesterday confirmed their belief in man-made climate change science. But I do
raise with some hesitation some taunts that were made during events of
yesterday from colleagues around me. When I did raise the opportunity for both
leaders to answer the question around the science, two different members threw
up the words, 'Ask us when we are in government!' and 'Wait and see when we are
in government!' I hope that is not the position held by colleagues in this
chamber. I hope that everyone is being fair dinkum about their belief in the
science and the science community, their agreements around the minimum targets
that have been agreed upon by 2020 and that everyone is being fair dinkum about
the different views on economic responses that are coming forward.
Personally, I am
sick of public servants and science being picked on, denied and accused, often
when they are not in positions to defend themselves—and all for political
expediency. Most, if not all, the people in the science community are lifelong
committed scientists doing the very best they can in the most objective way
they can and falling wherever the facts and the evidence take them. It is not
the role of any of us to accuse them of cons or conspiracies but to accept the
advice from the vast majority of scientists—the very best we have in the
field—and to listen to it, so that when they say, 'Australia, we have a
problem,' we should listen very closely to that and then respond.
In my view, we
have spent way too much time pretending that the science of climate change is
in dispute. We have spent way too much time pretending that the science of
climate change is not bipartisan. As we saw clearly in this chamber yesterday
in the middle of question time, the Prime Minister and the alternate Prime Minister
reached bipartisan agreement on the climate science. By all means, we are going
to have a wrestle over economic policy and the response, but there is
bipartisanship on the science itself.
So, for anyone
wanting to vote sceptically at the ballot box in four months time, I think
there is only one option, and that would be the party of my friend next to
me—if he were here, my imaginary friend—Bob Katter's Australia Party...
It is wrong to
accuse scientists, including a former Australian of the Year only five years
ago, of being con artists and wrapped up in some global conspiracy. It is
wrong. That should not be Australia in 2013. By all means, argue the toss over
policy but, when we go the man, when we go the personality, that is a step too
far.
Again I see
sneering from the front bench from senior shadow ministers—shaking their heads
at a very simple point being made obviously cuts deep.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT:
You can whisper it all you like but, in the end you are going to be asked
to vote in confidence for the science of man-made climate change. I would ask
you all to consider your positions.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT:
Again we have further interjections. This should be a fairly simple point
that should not have to be made in this chamber. But it is obviously cutting
deep into the heart of a position that is being taken to the ballot box—to
'repeal the carbon tax' without telling the full story. That is not a repeal
policy, it is a replacement policy. It is a replacement of something that is
going to cost taxpayers more.
A true liberal
believes in markets. A shadow minister for the environment would arguably
believe in markets. We can get into the economics of that on the back of this
debate, but we are talking now about the science and seeing who votes where,
who abstains, who has the courage of their convictions—if they have run around
electorates saying that this is all a global conspiracy—and seeing how closely
linked they are to talkback radio hosts and to billionaires who are sceptical.
Let us see how people vote and whether they trust the advice that has been
given to them from the vast majority of the very best scientists in Australia...
So here is the
test—I do not need the full time—we either vote for it or vote against it. We
can hear about all this carbon tax repeal stuff without talking about a
replacement plan all you like. But, in the end, the test of this vote is
nothing beyond whether you confirm, with confidence from this House, that the
science community is right: that Australia has a problem. Let us see where the
bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice
in the science community. Let us stop picking on them, accusing them of being
part of a global conspiracy and being part of a con. The advice is real and the
question for the House today is whether or not we accept it.
In : Politics
Tags: "rob oakeshott" "climate science" "climate change denial"