Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition have run their campaign against this legislation from day one as a campaign of misinformation and fear. What is concerning is that this is a serious matter and, as I listen to members opposite tonight make their contributions in this debate, they are continuing with that campaign of misinformation and fear.

I want to refer to a couple of comments that have been made only in the last hour or so. The member for Higgins made a reference to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency which implied that this legislation is based on some kind of socialist or communist agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue relating to carbon science is one that has been accepted by conservative governments around the world. I referred earlier to the comments of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dating back 22 years. In addition, you can look around at what is happening in the world right now. Angela Merkel from Germany, David Cameron from the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy from France, John Key from New Zealand—

Mr Husic interjecting—

The opposition would have us believe that they are all socialists. The reality is that they are conservative governments that have accepted the science, as did the coalition's own leaders—John Howard, Brendan Nelson and the member for Wentworth. The reality is that the carbon science on this issue is absolutely clear. If time permits, I will come back to that in a moment.

What is equally disturbing are the constant implied attacks on the scientific community not only of this country but around the world. I want to refer to some of the rhetoric we have heard from the member for Riverina and the member for Higgins, who bring into this chamber stories of people they have spoken to and their concerns about the implications of this legislation. They do not talk about their alternative policy, which would cost them 2½ times as much. They do not talk about the fact that it would impact on their livelihoods and on their businesses 2½ times as much. They do not tell them that their policy would reward the large polluters. They do not tell them that their policy would not achieve the five per cent emission reduction target by 2020, which they have committed to, and they do not tell them that their policy is entirely reliant on 60 per cent of the carbon being sequestered into our soils—which they know is unachievable. If they are going to criticise our policy while committing to an emissions reduction target and pretending that they accept the science on global emissions, they should at least be honest enough to compare the two policies when talking to the people that approach them.

I come back to the issue of questioning and challenging the scientific community. Quite frankly, it does disturb me, because I have spoken to countless scientists both from this country and from overseas and I have yet to find one scientist working in the climate science field today that does not accept the science. I have yet to find one academy of science that refutes the science. I have yet to find one national government that refutes the science. It seems to me that, if members are going to come into this place and question the science, they ought to be honest about their position rather than say, 'We question the science, but we will commit to a five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.' That is the height of hypocrisy. You cannot have it both ways. Either accept one position or the other.

The reality is that this country has benefited over the years from the work of our scientific community. We have benefited in incredible ways. We accept their advice and their opinions when it suits us, but we reject it and pretend that they are part of some conspiracy when we do not like the advice that they are providing. Quite frankly, that is not only absurd but an insult to the good men and women of this country and around the world who are genuinely concerned about this issue, who in some cases have devoted their lives to researching this issue and who know that we ought to be acting, and the sooner we start the easier our task will become. They also know that if we do not act—and, yes, we have to act in conjunction with other countries—the consequences for the planet and for future generations will be absolutely disastrous.

See this speech in context