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

And, again, we have an interjection, saying, 'Good grief!' I look forward to this vote. On the back of this vote we can then start having a sensible discussion about the replacement policy, which is somehow going to cost less and do more than a market-based approach and which is somehow going to deny the very best of economic advice. It is one that I look forward to on the back of this vote.

The most offensive part of this debate to date is the policy process itself that is being challenged—not about climate science but how we as policymakers develop policy. When it is best delivered in all its forms, surely, regardless of where you start in this chamber, you rely heavily on the very best advice you can find. You rely on the experts in the field. We are kidding ourselves if we run around this chamber, saying, 'We know everything about everything; we are the absolute experts on all topics.' We are not. We are jack-of-all-trades and, in most cases, masters of none. We are generalists in the work that we do but, if we invest in the policy process, we have plenty of resources in the field and expert advice. We rely on that. Sure, we test it on the way through and challenge it but, in the end, if it is solid we do what we can in this chamber to turn that good advice into actual law and legislation. The offensive part of this debate to date is that that has been lost.

The very best scientists are saying: Australia, we have a problem. They are saying that there is clear evidence of man-made contribution to climate change and climate science. That seems to be denied by too many. At the next level, beyond this vote, we then listen to the very best economists in the field to find a response. We can do nothing. We can say: 'It's all a hoax and a con' and leave it as a risk for future generations. That is one of the options that is a risk too far for this chamber, if we accept the science.

We could choose another path, which is not actually what we did—that is, to introduce a tax bill through this chamber that is akin to increasing the GST, putting a direct cost on consumers and then using that money to kick money to clean up pollution. That is another model for introducing a carbon tax. Your leader, who was on YouTube talking about carbon tax as a real option, is the only one in this chamber I heard actually talk about a carbon tax as a model that could be a response.

The third option, Shadow Minister, is a market-based response, as per a very good PhD that everyone talks about.

See this speech in context