Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll say at the outset that I loved science as a kid. Growing up, one of my favourite possessions, and I had to get a few of them, was the old chemistry set. I used to run out of the coloured ones, and mum would doggedly go down to the shop and get another one or the replacement bits. I studied a Bachelor of Science at Monash University; I have a chemistry degree—not that I was that good, because I was otherwise occupied. My staff know that school visits to science labs can take longer than anticipated because I get a little bit stuck playing with the kids and the chemistry sets. I'm a proud nerd.

I think it's fair to say that science has transformed civilisations and societies for centuries. The tradition of reason, which emerged over many centuries and which we today have inherited—the scientific method, if you like—trumped religious tyranny and absolutism or various forms of superstition (I'm not equating the two) and has led to a much better world.

Science and research are critical, as the member for Curtin just said, to our current and future prosperity in so many areas, be it health, medical research, energy, agriculture, manufacturing, defence or just everyday living. We certainly punch above our weight—that overused phrase in Australia—in the global rankings, compared to our population. There is no doubt about it.

When it comes to the motion, I'd say that it's fine as far as it goes and that it's a worthy debate to have. Who could disagree with the platitudes that National Science Week is a great opportunity and highlights the importance of sparking an interest in science and STEM and that people participate in it? That's fine, as far as it goes. The last bit of the motion is curious—it 'notes the government's ongoing investment'. But, as always, you need to look at what's not said; you need to look at the invisible ink. The motion does not admit the government's cut of 10 per cent in real terms—$1.1 billion over five years—to investment in science and research. It doesn't talk about that; that's not said. It doesn't talk about the government's slashing of 1,300 jobs from the CSIRO; that's not said. And it doesn't talk about the government's trashing of the tradition and importance of fundamental research—basic research, research that our brightest scientists can just do, following their inclination and intuition, and discover wonderful things—and the importance of that basic research in underpinning applied research and work with industry. The motion doesn't admit that that's what this government has done. In that regard, it's the height of hypocrisy. The government as a whole, in so many areas—and I don't mean some individual members; indeed, those opposite, particularly the members for Higgins and Curtin, break the mould for the government—actually hate science. They reject science, and we have to say that actions speak louder than words.

Science means looking at evidence; it means looking at facts to inform conclusions, exposing your reasoning to peer review and changing your mind when the facts change. But the Liberals ignore and denigrate expert scientific evidence on the largest global issues—in particular, I'd say climate change and energy. Only the Liberals could pretend to love science but have a climate change policy where emissions actually rise year-on-year, and then pretend that's not the case.

For many opposite, climate change is not a matter of science. The language of belief clouds the debate. We should not have a language of belief: 'I don't believe in climate change'. Look at the evidence; at least have some evidence to back up this language of belief. But, really, as we know, it's all about politics. It's a peculiar Australian disease that the conservatives in this country have in rejecting the science of climate change. It doesn't happen in the UK. Despite Brexit and the chaos that Boris is causing, they are actually on board with the rest of the world about climate change. The government's hostility to science comes from the hard Right ideologues, and they're out of step with Australians. Those are not views held by the majority of Australians.

Part of valuing science is that you can't pick and choose your facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said—I just googled it, because it's an often used quote and I couldn't remember who said it:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

The ultimate tinfoil hatter, the member for Hughes—we called him that once in the Federation Chamber and he said, 'I proudly wear my tinfoil hat'—rejects 99 per cent of the world's peer reviewed scientists and instead follows the crackpots on Sky News After Dark, where he seems very comfortable.

I will read out a quote from the Prime Minister:

… there are those who would seek to manipulate science and use it against their fellow human beings for their own nefarious and evil purposes.

Well said, Prime Minister! It sounds like a comment on your own government when it comes to climate change and energy policy.

In closing, the invisible ink bits in this motion—the bits that are not said and the bits that the government doesn't like to talk about—are their $1.1 billion cuts to science, their cuts to CSIRO jobs and their cuts to university research funding. In the midyear financial update it was $328 million and then four months later it had gone up to $345 million in cuts. There have been cuts to the Australian Research Council and $3.9 billion in cuts to the Education Investment Fund. Actions speak louder than words. National Science Week is good to stimulate public awareness and interest in science, but the government has to do its bit and stop cutting research funding to science.

See this speech in context