Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a massive disconnect between the weather we are experiencing—drought in Queensland, bushfires in New South Wales, wild winds in Victoria, to say nothing of the typhoons in the Philippines, India and Japan—and the steps being taken by the Liberal government to bring action on climate change to a halt: disbanding the Climate Commission, defunding the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, not sending a minister to attend the climate change negotiations in Poland and, in the bills now before the House, endeavouring to put an end to a price on carbon. At the very time when the signals from our climate are that we need to take more action to combat extreme weather, not less, it is extremely and deeply irresponsible of the Liberal government to abandon measures which are reducing carbon emissions.

I have noticed that people who draw attention to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events—floods, droughts, bushfires and storms—are subject to accusations of seeking to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. This is pathetic nonsense. When an accident happens on a country road and the local MP demands that the road be improved, I do not assume that they are trying to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. I assume that they want to make the road safer and to make the world safer. We do not assume that people who demand investigations into plane crashes or recalls of cars or trucks following crashes are seeking to profit from the tragedy and misery of others. If a chairlift or a Ferris wheel causes an accident we do not assume that people who demand action are seeking to profit from the accident. We assume that they want to prevent repeats and to make the world safer.

The climate change minister, when in opposition, pursued the issue of deaths associated with the installation of roofing insulation with great vigour. Indeed, he is still doing it—the government intends to have an inquiry into the administration of the scheme. I do not assume that he is doing this for political advantage or seeking to profit from a tragedy. So it is with extreme weather events. Members opposite cannot have it both ways, on the one hand demanding inquiries into the roofing insulation deaths and on the other hand accusing people who make the link between extreme weather events and our carbon emissions of doing so for political advantage or seeking to profit from a tragedy. It is just not right to leave to our children and grandchildren a legacy of bushfires, droughts, floods and storms, and people who point out the increasing frequency and severity of these events and the reasons for them are doing us all a service.

People who have been critical of the UN and Australian scientists who blew the whistle on extreme weather events usually have little scientific credibility and a vested interest to protect. I saw that the Institute of Public Affairs claimed that linking the New South Wales bushfires was a 'pretty wild assertion'. The Institute of Public Affairs has no science to back this up. Reputable climate scientists have been explaining for years how increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere creates the conditions for more frequent and extreme bushfires and their incessant attempts to run interference on action to stop climate change makes pretty clear that they are acting as a mouthpiece for corporations with a vested interest in dragging the chain on this issue. If this is not so, why is it that the Institute of Public Affairs constantly refuses to disclose its funding sources? It is time they came clean about their funding sources.

And as for John Howard declaring himself to be 'agnostic' about the climate science, this is quite amazing. You can be agnostic about religious matters, but you do not have the luxury of being agnostic about science. What will we get next: Liberals who are agnostic about whether smoking causes lung cancer or about whether the earth is round? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If you had the opportunity to go to 100 doctors for a check-up and 98 of them said you were at risk of diabetes and should take certain precautions and two of them you were fine and you had nothing to worry about, would you listen to the two? And yet this is the approach of former Prime Minister Howard and way too many Liberal MPs.

That climate change will load the dice in favour of more intense disasters is well established. The following information has been supplied to me by climate change author and activist David Spratt.

See this speech in context