Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The notice paper mentions the 2015 budget. The simple fact is she may have been referring, for instance, to efficiency savings made by the CSIRO of their own volition. She is a member of a party that made a number of structural adjustments, and it started under previous Labor governments. Think about it. The evidence is that Labor's government of over six years was bookended by budget slashes to CSIRO funding. Under the Labor Party in 2008, $63.4 million was cut from CSIRO. In the 2013 budget, there was a so-called efficiency dividend on CSIRO, which once again led to budget cuts. The CSIRO told the ABC Fact Check program that its decision to put a freeze on hiring, and contract renewals, with regard to the 2014 budget, was entirely made by the CSIRO.

The member appears to be out of line with her own party when it comes to Defence spending, for example. She has lauded the United States for using its Department of Defense to put money into research. Good concept, and I happen to agree with the member. The only problem is the Labor government cut Defence spending to the lowest level, measured as a percentage of GDP, since 1937.

The member of the Perth also seems to conflate the issue of science funding with the funding for the Lomborg centre, which she actually admitted in her speech was to do with the economics and cost-benefit analyses. Quite frankly, the reason for closure of that centre—or for the UWA not going ahead with it—was that certain academics raised a stink. Quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for the view expressed by those to shut it down. The so-called academics would have been well placed, in fact, to have been involved in an inquisition in the past. It is an absolute disgrace. The interesting thing is that those who complained about it were social scientists and those in the arts, not hard sciences, not mathematics. Would they have been so concerned if it had been an Al Gore centre? No doubt they would have welcomed that charlatan with open arms.

In UWA Vice-Chancellor Paul Johnson's statement announcing his university's abandonment of the program, he referred to the duty of tertiary institutions to actively encourage an exploration of new ideas, challenge established thinking and pose the difficult 'what if' questions. He cited UWA's commitment to the open exchange of ideas and thought, and fostering the values of openness, honesty, tolerance, fairness, trust and responsibility.

Do you want to see what the Dark Ages were like? Have a look at the group who would fight the Enlightenment. Any view contrary to their belief—and I stress belief—is to be stopped at all costs. My partner, Trudy, was a classic example of that. She did a PhD at UWA and, boy, you should have seen the academics' reaction to her PhD thesis, because—terrible!—it was done from the realist perspective. This is so far from the Tallentyre precis of Voltaire's philosophy—his attitude was: 'I may hate what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.' Universities are heading back to a time when only the prescribed, correct version would be countenanced. Any others were to be defined as heretics. I fear that these academics lack the courage to seek office— (Time expired)

See this speech in context