Senator LEES (Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats)(1.13 p.m.) —Last week in this place, we witnessed an unjustified and undignified attack on one of Australia's eminent economists. The Democrats are well aware that, when a government lacking leadership is in disarray and it flounders, it resorts to underhand and dishonest attacks on parties and individuals. Indeed, with this government, it is becoming more and more obvious that if one dares to disagree—whether an individual or an organisation—the first thing that you usually face is defunding. If they cannot get you that way, then it is simply dismissal or denigration.

But what we witnessed in here last week during one of the question times was one of Mr Howard's greenhouse henchmen—the fossil fuel apostle, Senator Warwick Parer—struggling to justify this government's foolish climate change position. Senator Parer, who is incapable of attacking the strong arguments against the federal government's shoddy greenhouse record, used parliamentary privilege to attack one of his government's eminent critics on this issue. But Senator Parer did not or could not attack this man's economics; he attacked his spirituality. Senator Parer vilified Dr Clive Hamilton, Executive Director of the Australian Institute. Why? Because, like many Australians, Dr Hamilton believes that the government's greenhouse gas stance is irresponsible and built on shonky research and shonky figures.

Dr Clive Hamilton is not one of the Howard style economists—those who believe in the quick buck mentality and who would happily pummel everything and anything in their way—whether it is the environment or people—for a short-term economic gain. Rather, Dr Hamilton sees economics in terms of the big picture. He recognises that jeopar dising the environment to fill a few fossil fuel pockets is not the sort of mentality which will secure the planet for future generations, and this is where Senator Parer has a problem.

For the benefit of senators who may not be aware of Dr Hamilton's expertise, I will fill you in from his CV. Dr Hamilton is founder and Executive Director of the Australia Institute, a non-profit public policy research centre. He is a visiting fellow at the ANU and an adjunct professor at Sydney's University of Technology.

Dr Hamilton, who is trained in maths and economics, has filled a number of positions and they include: senior executive in the Prime Minister's portfolio as head of research in the Federal Resource Assessment Commission; senior economist in the Federal Bureau of Industry Economics; senior economic adviser to the government of Indonesia; and Director of the Graduate Program at the National Centre for Development Studies at the Australian National University. He has served as a member of the United Nations Group of Experts on Least Developed Countries and, this year, Dr Hamilton addressed delegates at climate change negotiations in Bonn. He has been invited to act as a keynote speaker at many prestigious conferences. He has published four books, and is a widely experienced and respected lecturer.

Underlying all of Dr Hamilton's work has been the credo of the Australia Institute, and that is:

. . . to promote a more just, sustainable and peaceful society through research, publication and vigorous participation in public debate.

The aim of the institute is to restore a balance between economic efficiency and considerations of the community, environment and ethics. I think that honourable senators will agree that Dr Hamilton's curriculum vitae is exemplary.

In the midst of his manic diatribe last week, Senator Parer offered Australians his own guidance on who we should believe on the issue of greenhouse gas economics. He suggested that the public listen to ABARE, the apologist for all polluting industries, whose macro-economic modelling has been bucketed by all and sundry—and I am talking about nationally as well as internationally.

Was Senator Parer seriously telling people to listen to ABARE, whose chief, Brian Fisher, last year, told the Royal Institute of International Affairs that allowing small island states of the Pacific to be inundated with rising sea levels—and for us then to be involved in relocating their populations—while industrial nations did nothing about greenhouse, may be the most economically efficient way of dealing with climate change? Was he seriously telling people to accept the ABARE models, which use wildly fanciful bases for their assumptions, such as a nonsensical $900 a tonne carbon tax? These are models which, I must say, are now being investigated by the federal ombudsman and, as we all know, are substantially funded by the fossil fuel industries.

No. I think people would much rather consider Dr Hamilton's reasonable, rational and responsible economics. So let us look at some of the other people that Senator Parer considers the public should be listening to instead of Dr Hamilton. There is the good senator himself. Senator Parer is a former coal industry chief, who thought gas was not a fossil fuel, a resources minister who shrugged off the greenhouse effect numerous times, and who laughed off rainfall changes as being helpful to farmers. These are comments which show not only how frivolous he thinks the debate is but how little he knows about climate change.

While the rest of the world is working towards a solution, Senator Parer still does not seem to believe that there actually is a problem. Indeed, he is on the record as saying that greenhouse issues will be forgotten in 10 years.

Perhaps Senator Parer would like people to listen to his other colleagues. There is Senator Ian Macdonald, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment—and I am look at Hansard of 26 November 1996—who had to be reminded by Senator Kernot about the difference between the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps we should listen to that international giant, Mr Alexander Downer—if we are going to talk about personalities, we should mention that he has even been photographed wearing fishnet stockings—who is telling the rest of the world, seriously, that Australia should be allowed to boost its greenhouse gas emissions. What a position to take off to the international conference in Japan at the end of the year. When the rest of the world is sitting around the table looking at how we can come to terms with this problem, and constructively deal with it, we have a minister who is seriously suggesting that we go to that conference with the basic premise that we, Australia, want to be out of step with everybody else and boost emissions.

What about some of the other people your government endorsed at the recent so-called `Pre-Eminent International Conference on Climate Change'? There was US Senator Malcolm Wallop—who makes Pauline Hanson look like a moderate—and US Senator Chuck Hagel. I will give some of the background of both of them. Before his political career, Malcolm Wallop jointly ventured oil and gas development projects in Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming. The efforts of these men to derail global greenhouse undertakings in the United States are very well documented. Are these the people that Senator Parer is seriously asking us to put ahead of Dr Hamilton? Really, Senator, I would argue that the credentials on your side of this debate are seriously lacking. Disreputable models and disruptive advisers do not add up to good greenhouse policy.

Senator Parer also has—I hope, like most of us—now seen a statement by professional economists on climate change. Like Dr Clive Hamilton, these economists are arguing that Australia has to do something. I seek leave to incorporate a statement by professional economists on climate change. It is a one-page statement accompanied by three pages of names.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

A STATEMENT BY PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

1. A report by over 2000 distinguished international scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that `the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate'. As economists we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social and geopolitical risks and that preventive steps are justified.

2. Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for which the benefits outweigh the costs. Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve Australian productivity in the long term.

3. The economic modelling studies on which the Government is relying to assess the impacts of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions overestimate the costs and underestimate the benefits of reducing emissions.

4. Economic instruments—such as carbon taxes and trading of emission permits within and between countries—will be an important part of a comprehensive climate change policy. `Joint implementation' policies, in which Australian firms carry out emission-reduction investments in developing countries, can also play a significant role. Revenues raised from taxes or the sale of permits can be used to reduce the budget deficit or to lower existing taxes.

5. Developing countries will need to take measures to reduce significantly their greenhouse gas emissions in due course. But since OECD countries are responsible for over 80% of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and are in a stronger economic position to reduce their emissions, they should take the lead in cutting emissions.

6. An appropriate equity and efficiency principle for the distribution of the emissions reductions is one where countries which are responsible for high per capita emissions and which are more wealthy should do more to reduce their emissions.

7. Withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change could seriously harm Australia's long-term economic and diplomatic interests. It would be damaging to our longer-term economic interests if Australia became locked into a fossil-fuel based economic structure while the rest of the world shifts to low-emission energy sources over the next decades.

Signed by 131 professional economists

Signatories to the Professional Economists' Statement on Climate Change

All signatories signed in their personal capacities only.

*   These signatories made amendments to the statement before signing.

Senator LEES —As we can see from these names, they come from all states. They come from virtually every university in the country—the University of New England, New South Wales, Wollongong, Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney, Queensland, La Trobe, ANU, Flinders et cetera. Surely, these are the people who we should be listening to. I also think that most Australians would prefer to listen to the 2,500 eminent scientists and experts rather than the nonsensical position of some of those intimately involved in the coal and fossil fuel industries.

The last point I wish to raise is my deep regret and disappointment that the Senate, a place which should be seen as unprejudiced and open minded, has been the venue for Senator Parer's attack on an individual's most private and personal aspect: their spirituality.

The Democrats and, I dare say, members of Senator Parer's own party and others in this place, absolutely abhor this kind of attack. Whether individuals choose to meditate, seek guidance from a higher being or act on their dreams is totally up to them. It should not be up to Senator Parer or anyone else to deride them. It should not be up to Senator Parer or anyone else to treat anyone in such a disrespectful lmanner, for any aspect of their spirituality.

I ask Senator Parer to exorcise some of the clearly evident demons of his own before he goes searching for those in others. I ask him and his colleagues to stop the greenhouse nonsense; stop peddling the mistruths and the half-truths; stop listening to a couple of industries; and start doing what is in the best interests of all Australians. Stop the name calling, sit down and, before it is too late, seriously look at Australia's best interests as well as our best interests as a global citizen.