beliefs on climate change<\/a>, the Stolen Generation and nuclear energy. I was determined not to be confrontational about these well-known stances.<\/p>\nI was reassured, in making the appointment for our interview, when his very personable policy adviser Sean Conway noted that Dr Jensen had read my scene-setter piece and thought it quite balanced. On attending the interview, however, I noted that Conway was determined to sit in and wondered about his role.<\/p>\n
Jensen:<\/b>\u00a0 I tend to say things at doorstops which are not the scripted message. Things that I think are important I will say.<\/p>\n
Hall: <\/b>Wouldn\u2019t it be nice if all politicians could say what they actually think, rather than have to toe the party line?<\/p>\n
Conway: <\/b>\u00a0Guinevere, I note the way you look at the adviser in this situation.<\/p>\n
Jensen<\/b>:\u00a0 The thing is, it is a matter of nuancing stuff and being aware that not everything is worth the fight. I have had a different view to my party on a few things and I have gone out and said it, because I think that they are things that are important. I\u2019ve got differences with other things where, \u2018Is it a big enough thing to make a stand and fight over? No.\u2019<\/p>\n
Hall: <\/b>\u00a0An example, if 90 per cent of people in your electorate supported same-sex marriage and your party is opposed, what do you do, who are you representing?\u201d<\/p>\n
Jensen: <\/b>\u00a0It\u2019s actually quite complicated because you are voted in as a member of that party and that is where a lot of your votes have come from. The other thing is the view of your electors on any specific issue. Then there are your thoughts on it. What we have is a representative democracy where I am representing the electorate and being paid hopefully to be thinking of issues a little bit more deeply than most of my electorate are. I am not saying that in a denigrating way. This is my job. They have jobs and they can\u2019t afford to spend the amount of time that I have got thinking about various issues. I may have a different view to them, but maybe I have a certain amount of information where the electorate doesn\u2019t have access to this information or haven\u2019t had time to think through the issue.<\/p>\n
On the gay marriage thing, I am personally opposed to it, as well as it being a party position. If you had asked me 20 years ago I would have been in favour of it. It concerns me of the implications you have on the structure of your society.<\/p>\n
The same thing on climate change.\u00a0 If you had asked me 15 years ago I would have accepted the consensus position. But \u2026 before I got into politics, I came across this website by a guy who has since passed on, where some of the stuff he had there was wrong, but I thought he is asking some really interesting questions. When I went and started looking through that with my background as a scientist, the more I thought this is really not adding up \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
(When the interview began, I was determined not to go with a rendition of Dr Jensen\u2019s pet subject of climate change. It seemed to be a very well-practised speech and my eyes started to glaze over. I was determined to butt in and get back to the questions that I had prepared. He is very passionate – interspersed with names and articles that I have no idea about, he blinded me with science!<\/i><\/p>\n
![\"pic\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/nofibs.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/pic.jpg?resize=500%2C418\")
<\/p>\n