Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try not to take the whole 10 minutes because I can see Senator Sherry chafing at the bit as he has had such a bad week. In fact, the other side has completely had a bad week. It has been a shocking week for the government and they want to get out of the chamber very quickly and catch the plane to get away from this place. I am sorry to delay you another five minutes.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s called democracy. That’s what it’s called. I am entitled to stand up and speak in the adjournment debate. There is a vacancy here and I am getting yelled down by Labor from having my own right to be able to stand up and speak. What I have to say they probably will not like and the interjections will start again.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, ignore the interjections.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

However, I am going to exercise my right, Senator Sherry.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, continue. You are entitled to speak, Senator McGauran. That has been established.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has given me the clearance. I am entitled to speak. You wouldn’t think so from the other side’s comments.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on my right will be quiet, please.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, through you: you wouldn’t think so from the other side’s comments, but that is the game they play here—belittle, ridicule, keep you from speaking, intimidation.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, just address your comments to me.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not be intimidated, nor will anyone else from this side, from speaking on the issue of the week that they have not addressed well at all—and, again, that probably explains why they are trying to get out of here as quickly as they can—climate change.

My intention in raising this issue, if the other side can just hear me out, is just to walk through the science of it calmly and quietly, because we have to bring credibility and honesty to this issue so that we can have a rigorous debate. For so long, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong—once dubbed ‘the high priestess of climate change’ by Senator Bushby, who is in the chamber—has taken absolutely extremist positions. She was always pointing the figure at this side, calling us a bunch of sceptics and a bunch of know-nothings, but the point is that the whole tide, particularly over the summer, has turned against the government. They have got problems and Senator Wong has got problems.

What really prompted me to jump up was that on Wednesday we had a debate on a matter of public importance. For those listening on radio, this is a very crucial and important debate that we have in the Senate from time to time. It is rigorous and it is an exchange of policy based on research where credibility is expected from those in the debate. It is expected in any debate, but particularly in that debate, which is very focused on the issue of the day. I listened to that debate intently. I heard the presenters from the other side. They were Senator Cameron—I say that with an emphasis because we all know what Senator Cameron is like in any debate—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A great contributor.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘A great contributor,’ says the Labor interjector. Senator McLucas also spoke, and both of them addressed the climate change issue. The debate was on the policies of the respective parties. Fair enough! Let us have that debate. I more than welcome the debate. Quite frankly, I would more than welcome having an election on it. But both Cameron and McLucas saw fit to introduce the old argument—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, you should refer to them by their correct titles. They are senators. They are entitled to their correct title.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Senator McLucas and Senator Cameron both introduced the science of the issue into their contributions to the debate. I do not know what they were doing over the summer, whether they are just in denial or whether they seek to misrepresent things—I do not know what it is—but what they said about the science is utterly wrong and misleading and must be corrected. I am not the only one saying this. The British government’s Chief Scientific Adviser has been saying that we now have to have a bit of honesty in this debate on the science. He said:

The impact of global warming—

had—

… been exaggerated by some of the scientists and there—

was—

… an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change.

Australia’s Chief Scientist told the Australian newspaper that she supported the British Chief Scientific Adviser; that we ought to have more honesty in this debate—at least a little more research that is not coming from the other side. Senator McLucas spent some time in her contribution to the debate on climate change policies talking about the Great Barrier Reef. She said that it was bleaching and she claimed that we would not have a Great Barrier Reef if the current conditions continued. That has been utterly debunked. Moreover, the very day she made that speech it was debunked in the Australian newspaper by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which reported that mass coral bleaching was ‘unlikely this summer’, had not occurred the previous summer and that they could not see it into the future. That is my summary of the matter. Time does not permit me to go through the whole article laying down the science. The Great Barrier Reef is not in danger.

We all know that Senator Cameron will say anything at any time, but what was he doing? He raised the issue of the melting glaciers. We know that was debunked. That was clearly debunked over the summer, so much so that the IPCC, which ran on this issue, has issued an apology on the matter. Yet those two leading speakers for the government raised two questions of science—icons, if you like, of the climate change debate—in their speeches and expected to get away with it. They expected those listening to believe that these are still issues on the agenda. But the glaciers in the Himalayas are not melting, certainly not by 2035; nor is the Great Barrier Reef under threat from climate change. And so it goes on, as we all know, with the debunking of the so-called science.

The claim that the Amazon would be reduced by 40 per cent under current climate change conditions by 2035 has also been debunked. There has been another IPCC withdrawal on that issue. It is the same with the sea levels. I could go on and on, but time does not permit me. I have the science on these matters and it is accepted. Senator Cameron mentioned in his contribution to the debate that the Antarctic is melting, but it is not. Our own Curtin University of Technology has proved that. I have material here as high as this ceiling to debunk any of these claims coming from the other side.

The point is that Minister Penny Wong comes in here along with those who support her—that is, all of those from the other side—ridiculing the science that we put forward. It is not so much that they support her; it is more that they just will not speak out. But it is all coming out now. I am challenging the extremism that comes from the government. The evidence is highly credible, and it is coming from scientists of great credibility.

Take the sea-level issue. Kevin Rudd says 200,000 houses on the eastern seaboard of Australia are in danger of being swamped. That is backed up by the New South Wales government, so it sounds more like a good idea for a coastal tax from them. That is their claim: the eastern seaboard is in danger of being swamped, probably by 2035. But that is debunked. Who has debunked it? I can tell you: someone a bit more credible than Kevin Rudd and the New South Wales government.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you will refer to people by their correct titles.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd—it is hard to believe, isn’t it?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone more creditable is Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish geologist and the former president of the sea-level commission—it is surprising there is one, but he is the leading scientist on the matter. The real point is: do your research, Senators Cameron and McLucas. Senator Sherry, force your speakers to do their research. Have a bit of credibility, have a bit of honesty and be aware that the climate change scare tactics and extremism that they bring into the chamber are in complete tatters.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators that legislation committees will meet from 9 am on Monday, 8 February for the consideration of additional estimates.