National Science Week
13 August 2026
Motion
Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur (11:29 am) without notice:
That this house:
(a) celebrates National Science Week on 15 to 23 August 2026, as an opportunity to promote a culture of curiosity, discovery, evidence-based decision-making and collaboration, and to inspire the next generation of Western Australians to pursue careers in STEM;
(b) recognises the significant contribution of Western Australian scientists, researchers, innovators, educators, students and industry leaders in advancing knowledge, strengthening our economy and addressing our state’s challenges and opportunities, and the importance of connecting the scientific community with elected representatives to inform evidence-based policy and decision-making; and
(c) encourages members from all sides of the Parliament to engage with members of Western Australia's science and research community.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (11:52 am) : Sorry I am jumping in. Normally the opposition gets one opportunity to speak to government motions, so I actually appreciate the motion moved today by Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur. It is absolutely the case, though, that every good scientist is a cynic at heart; otherwise, you would simply believe the information that has been sent to you, but it should be tested, retested and retested. Then, eventually, when you have tested it so much that you cannot find a problem with it, you can accept that it is probably accurate—until somebody else tests it in a different way and disproves your theory!
The joy of science is that it is an ever-ongoing process. I might start with this. On occasions I have probably been described as an intellectual snob, and I know that that is probably reasonably accurate, but the focus I have in science and reality, I think, is critical to the future of Western Australia. Every year that goes by, I feel a bit more like a dinosaur, because science progresses to the point where the things that I thought I knew are no longer the things that I know. The rate of scientific advance is absolutely frightening, and if Western Australia does not keep up, we will have enormous problems. This is a good motion to remind members that we actually need to have some faith in the process of science and the people who conduct it.
Australia is a funny spot, right? We have this tall poppy syndrome. If you go to America and perform well in academia, conduct research and discover things, you are generally highly respected, but if you go around Australia, the most common comment is usually, "Oh, well, you're no better than anybody else, so stop grandstanding." We actually need, to some degree, to celebrate the scientific successes that we have managed. We have done some brilliant stuff; Western Australia has done some brilliant stuff—sometimes stuff that is a bit out of the box. We only have to look at something like, for example, ulcers in humans, involving self-experimentation; that is a bit different.
Western Australia does some very good things, but we need to promote that and celebrate that, and we are not very good at that. That has happened to the point where, in my various preselections over the years, I have had a guy called Peter running around the South West saying, "We don't want anyone that sounds too intelligent." I said, "Well, okay; that's a really interesting concept to put forward." I am not going to comment on how successful he has been in the Liberal Party! But the reality is that we do get that. It is a bit of our national character, and we need to be careful not to do it.
I am very disinclined to give offence to anybody, but I remember the debate on the State Development Bill last year when I rather colourfully described the Greens and One Nation voting together as an "unholy alliance". I mean, the vote is the vote; it is written into the Hansard. We know what that is. But some of my colleagues and people in the community sent me a caricature that One Nation put out on social media. I have to say, I am not a big follower of social media. I do not really care. There are probably many caricatures of me out there, you know—short, squat and grumpy—but I do not give a damn.
Hon Dan Caddy : That makes two of us!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : If I ever see ones of Hon Dan Caddy, I will let him know!
One thing that came through in this caricature was, "Steve Thomas believes in climate change". I thought, "Well, okay." It was supposed to be ridicule, but if I have examined this in detail over many years, which I have, since the early 2000s, and have spoken about it in Parliament since the early 2000s, and put it into a Liberal environment policy back in about 2006 or 2007, and if I have been researching it for 20-odd years and discovered that my research looks like this, then I am happy to be labelled. I actually was not offended by the social media thing, because I went there and I said, "Look, I look at the science. I'm not going to explain my position on climate change or net carbon neutral or any of those things; it's on the record. It's been in the Hansard."
Hon Stephen Dawson : You've been incredibly consistent!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Yes, I am consistent in my views. That is one of the secrets members should learn: talk about what you know about, not about what you do not. That is one of the great secrets of Parliament and being out there.
I do not mind, but we have to get past this knocking of science as something to be derided. We should not put it on a Holy Grail level either, because I have to say there are plenty of scientific studies out there that, in my view, are a complete waste of time. I possibly am something of an intellectual snob. Call me Sheldon, but I think a lot of those sociology experiments are probably there so somebody could fill in some time rather than actually deliver research that is of benefit to anybody. However, there is very good research getting done out there, and they are doing it in Western Australia in areas of great interest.
The research in energy boggles my mind. It is not an area I am trained in, but I have spent 20 years researching it and where we are going with alternative storage models. I met with somebody this week who has a brand-new one coming on. This stuff just keeps coming out and it is almost a full-time job trying to keep up with it; there is so much out there. I think that is what a lot of people find, and an issue for the Parliament is that we can get overwhelmed with the amount of good science that is out there, and you can absolutely struggle with it.
I want to give members probably the greatest secret of science. I am sure Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur will agree with this—well, I hope so—in the end.
The secret to researching and reading science is to look for as much peer agreement as you can possibly get. The problem with the internet is that anything you want to put forward as a proposition will be supported by somebody, whether or not they have any qualifications whatsoever, and it is easy to make up your own qualifications. They are about as useful as the average dating profile, I suspect; people just make stuff up. Funnily enough, people make stuff up—would you believe it? Yes, I am looking at the member, but I am not actually going to say anything!
It is the case that people make stuff up, but when we get a consistency of views across a broad range of scientists, if it is valid science and science that matters, there will be some people within that scientific group who can test the conclusions that somebody has come to. Those conclusions should always be contested and should always be tested. Then, ultimately, you will form a view—hopefully not a view that changes the outcome for Western Australia—based on consistent understanding and either the support or non-support of the majority of scientists and educated people in these areas. We should never assume that science is absolute and the pontification of a particular scientist is accurate because we, as scientists, do not. We should never do it. As soon as we start doing it, we should be pensioned off and put in the dinosaur patch, which is where I am rapidly heading! We have to test it. We have to work through it. When we get an overall opinion, it is likely to be reasonably close to the truth, but in 10 years' time, it will most likely be adjusted and rearranged and put forward as something different. When we stop learning, we are in God's waiting room; we are waiting to die. Things change, but we need to have faith in our science community.
I agree that Peter Klinken was an excellent Chief Scientist. He has now been replaced. We have had a few excellent Chief Scientists in a row. I went to a number of events where he spoke, and his passion was outstanding. I think he is an excellent fellow and he understands how we need to apply science to the wider community, and it is tricky. The first thing we have to get past is the tall poppy syndrome that we do not like scientists or educated people, but if someone can play football really well and are in the Dockers at the moment, they are king of the world.
Hon Dan Caddy : You'd have to play really, really well to be in the Dockers at the moment.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Really? I heard it was a raffle.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : They are doing all right this year. Anybody who is a West Coast Eagles supporter right now is still struggling a bit, so I am happy to see the co-WA team do well.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : It is okay. You do not have to hate the other side. Good luck to them as the finals come along.
It is the challenge before us, and I think the motion today is a step in that direction. I support the motion. I think it is a good motion. It identifies the need for us to value science, and that we ultimately have to value scientists and the processes by which they get there, even when, occasionally, they get it wrong and it ultimately needs to be corrected. I mean, our universities are starting to struggle to compete on a world stage. If we go to Israel, the US, Japan and other countries around the world, we see they are so advanced in science and we are struggling to keep up.
