Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I hope Hansard has recorded that. I hope Hansard has recorded a senior shadow minister in a rage about bipartisanship on climate science, a position confirmed by their leader yesterday—today there is shaking of heads, rants and interjections. The position of party leaders is clearly not settled within party rooms. That is exactly why I think it is important for this House to call the bluff and see where some bums land when we actually have a vote in confidence on the science community and on the science of man-made climate change. It is real in our minds or it is not. We accept the science or we do not. It is time we actually tested that on the floor of the House and then we will have our arguments around how we respond to that science.

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—

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—

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.

See this speech in context