Grievance Debate

Climate Change

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (15:18): I rise today to talk about the issue of climate change and what I see as the problem with it. I am sure that is getting everyone excited. I did want to get everyone's attention, but no, I am not a climate change denier, or even a sceptic. Indeed, I look at it like this. I am not a scientist. Apart from the science I learnt at high school and the bits and pieces of knowledge I have picked up along the way since then, I am not at all educated about matters in the realm of science generally. I know some basic physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on, but I am certainly not equipped to assess the validity or otherwise of arguments put with regard to scientific matters, just as I am not equipped to assess matters of medicine.

When I go to my doctor, I put my trust in him as someone who has studied the relevant literature, who can understand and assess it. I rely on him and the vast bulk of those involved in Western medicine to be able to assess—for me and for others—the likely diagnosis and best options for treatment. I know that in many parts of our community there are people who reject Western medicine, some just gently looking for other, more natural responses to the body's aches and pains, but some with a passionate zeal that borders on hysteria.

Some of those people, for instance, will try to bombard you with so-called scientific evidence that immunisation is a terrible thing, or that fluoridisation of water is poisoning our population. This is despite the fact that immunisation has saved literally millions of lives worldwide, that the risks of an adverse reaction are microscopically low, and that fluoride—a natural substance found in rocks, air, soil, plants and water—has been overwhelmingly shown to protect teeth against decay. The scientific evidence shows a huge population benefit from the addition of very small amounts of fluoride to the water.

These zealots often proffer literature on the topic as proof of their fervent beliefs, but as I already noted, I have neither the time nor the inclination to develop the necessary level of knowledge—of the subject matter or of the scientific method and its assessment—which would allow me to make any rational assessment of these proffered arguments for or against the particular topic. Instead, I choose to rely on my doctor and on all the other doctors who have devoted their lives to studying, understanding and working with Western medicine because the overwhelming balance of the evidence and the outcomes supports their hundreds of years of work.

The same reasoning applies to my attitude to climate change. There are many people out there who are wanting me to read their proffered articles about why climate change is a hoax. I have neither the time nor, more importantly, the expertise, to dispute whatever assertions they put to me. But I do know that the overwhelming preponderance of opinion in what one could generally describe as the scientific community says that our climate is changing, and that it is at least in part due to human activity.

So, without the benefit of any detailed study, knowledge or understanding, it seems to me that the safest bet is to go with what is clearly the vast majority of opinion. There are, I think, two other reasons to lean in favour of climate change. Before that term was even in regular use, I had formed the view that we owed it to our children and grandchildren to try to leave this earth a little better than we found it, rather than depleted and ravaged, and also—even if it did turn out to be wrong—surely we are better off taking the precautionary approach.

After saying all of that, what is the problem with climate change? It is simply this: I do not like being told what I have to think. Those of you who know me even slightly may know that I do not like being told what to think, and that is where in my view the climate change advocates (for want of a better term) have made their fundamental mistake.

They insist that I accept climate change and that I do not question it in any way. If I do, I will be labelled as some sort of heretic, and there is something in my nature that makes me suspicious of any organisation, creed, doctrine—whatever you want to call it—that will not let me question; that says, 'If you so much as raise an eyebrow, you will be pilloried, ostracised, criticised, and made a pariah.'

Instead of letting the preponderance of opinion speak for itself, the so-called 'debate' has been hijacked to the point where anyone even trying to bring things back to a rational discussion, as I am today, is likely to be seen as some sort of radical.

The SPEAKER: I will call the Treasurer, but I find it remarkable that the Treasurer would enter a grievance debate. I thought grievances were about the redress of grievances and that ministers were supposed to listen to them. But since the Treasurer seems to have a grievance, I will give him 5 minutes.