Senate debates
Monday, 30 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
12:14 pm
Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I shall engage with you later on on a personal basis if you do not understand these two, Senator. The impact on this country of getting it wrong is horrific. Therefore, we must act.
There are another two issues. First of all: do we have time? Is it life threatening? The answer is no. Does the minister want to introduce it on 1 January? The answer is no. Therefore, time is on our side; it is not against us. The second question is: do we have sufficient information to look at all these amendments? We have not had that time. We have the opportunity to get it.
There is information required in two areas. The first is in the science. We could have argued up until some time ago that the science was not decided and that there were as many for as there were against. Only in the last week and a half have we had the acknowledgment of a complete fraud out of the Climate Research Unit at Hadley. I have spoken to the people in regard to this. I understand that the director, Dr Philip Jones, has not refuted that range of emails that have now been circulated round the world and that show clearly that the data that has come out of that institution has been filtered, doctored, changed or poorly reviewed. Why does it matter? Because it is the outcome from Hadley upon which the IPCC has based so much of its science. That is now questionable.
We have some scientists in this particular chamber. There are six of us who have some qualifications in the sciences: Senator Hurley, our President, Senator Siewert, Senator Brown, Senator Eggleston and I—six out of 76 have some scientific tertiary training. Why aren’t all six of us standing up here and saying, ‘If the science is in question then we must do no more until such time as it’s resolved’? We have not even heard that. The science is not resolved. Up until a week and a half ago, there were two groups of credible scientists who were arguing this. If the accusation of Hadley fraud is correct, it now seems as though we have a situation that has to be addressed. The second issue that we need information on apart from the science is the economics, and the economics is not decided.
No comments