Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:34): The motion that is before the House, moved by the member for Lyne, aims to do away with the first part of the argument that sometimes makes its way back and forth through the media and elsewhere in terms of determining what is the view of this House on the science itself. And it accepts that there has been a secondary debate, where one side of the House finds itself backing a market and the other side of the House takes a different view, but this is where we deal upfront with the starting principle of the science of climate change itself. There is no doubt in the discussion of responding to climate change and carbon trading as a method that the debate in the public arena has been mixed up with a debate about whether we are responding to anything that is real. The references here go to the different scientific work that has been done generally. I will now talk very specifically about some work that is done by Australian scientists. As part of the role of the environment minister of this country you look after the Antarctic Division. I will never forget— Mr Hunt: You don't have any flights! Mr BURKE: I even offered for the shadow minister to go. The work of our scientists down there is extraordinary and the work that they do with ice cores is probably some of the most telling work that exists in dealing with the science of climate change. Effectively, these ice cores are time capsules for the history of our planet. The depth at which they are found tells us how old they are. The quality of the water particles within them tells us about the temperature of the period and the snowflakes, as they have fallen, have trapped tiny little bubbles which give us an exact time capsule record of what the atmosphere was like at the time. The story is a simple one and found consistently with ice core records across the globe. It is this: that at the same time that the industrial revolution occurred, the level of carbon in the atmosphere massively increased, by proportion to what would have been natural levels and, at the same time, an increase in temperature. The science of climate change is that simple. People say, 'There have been other periods in our history; you can go to geological records and there were other periods when the globe has got warm.' That is true—it is true that there have been other times when the globe has got warm, but we are talking about a spike, unprecedented, that has coincided exactly with an increase in pollution going into the atmosphere. I also, on this, refer to an argument offered by some sceptics where they say, 'Actually, carbon dioxide is a completely natural gas.' Most forms of pollution occur, in some way or other, naturally. They are called 'pollution' when you get them in massive concentrations beyond what would occur naturally. That is why we refer to 'carbon pollution'. That is why we refer to carbon dioxide being a pollutant when it is occurring at levels that would not ordinarily be natural. What about when you have an oil spill and you have oil going into the ocean? Oil itself occurs naturally, but the spill means that you get an environmental outcome which would otherwise be unprecedented. In the same way, the fact that carbon dioxide occurs naturally does not change for one minute the fact that we are dealing with a form of pollution when we are dealing with it in these sorts of levels. There have been a number of members of this House who have chosen, on different occasions, in interviews and elsewhere, and quite publicly, some of them, to have a view that is quite contrary to the contents of this resolution. I hope they vote in accordance and consistent with those views when this comes to a vote in a few moments time. I am noticing a few of them currently are absenting themselves from the chamber, and I will see whether they are here— Mr Hunt: How many are there over there? Mr Ruddock: I can only count one. Mr BURKE: I do not think those opposite understand that, when we are talking about sceptics, you do not find them on this side of the chamber at all. But over there, you could go to the different members, such as the member for Tangney; you could go to the people who have said that the solution to climate change is to use giant shadecloth as a way of dealing with it. People on the other side of the chamber have referred to it as a hoax or have referred to the science of climate change using the term 'crap'. Those opposite—I will go for the full 20 if that is what you want— Mr Morrison: Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I note the lack of government members on that side of the chamber, and I draw your attention to the state of the House. The bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Mr Vasta! The member for Bonner will return to the chamber. The member for Bonner was in the chamber. You cannot leave during a count for a quorum. (Quorum formed) Mr BURKE: And, as to those who come in, I just hope that the member for Tangney comes in during the discussion of this. I just hope that those who have gone out into the electorate and who have said that they do oppose the science of climate change have the courage to stand in this parliament and vote the way they say. There are those who have been so brave on talkback radio—who have had all the bravery in the world in being willing to say that they are opposed to the science and that they reckon all of this is rubbish and some global conspiracy. I say to those members of parliament: 'Walk in now,' because now is their chance. Now is their chance to let it be known whether or not they are going to vote the way of their official party platform, or whether they have any integrity in the views that they put out there publicly, because there will be a moment where this is put to a vote on the voices and there are no sceptics on this side of the House. There is no-one on this side of the House who would be voting no. But we will only divide if the sceptics on that side have the courage to be in the room for the vote. It is only if they have the courage to come in and put voice within the parliament to what they have been willing to say outside the parliament that will determine whether or not we have the division. And that is something that they will not be able to hide behind anymore. I welcome the fact that the member for Lyne has brought this debate on. I welcome the fact that, much to the surprise of many members of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition decided to grant leave to have this. I welcome the fact that we are able to have the discussion upfront on the science of climate change. To those members of parliament who, up until now, have sought to hide within the parliament but make all sorts of extraordinary claims outside the parliament, I say: if you believe that there is anything that backs up the global conspiracy theory on the science of climate change, walk into this chamber now.