John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There can no longer be any question that a leader of a political party should have at least a basic understanding of the science behind the many complex problems that confront today's policymakers. On Tuesday during question time, the member for Lyne sought clarification on the climate change science policy positions of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Of course, the standing orders do not permit the Leader of the Opposition to respond at that time, but yesterday, during a motion put by the member for Lyne, the opposition hid behind the mechanisms while expecting all to believe the bald-faced assertions that they really accept and embrace climate change science. But where was the Leader of the Opposition?

It is quite apparent that the Leader of the Opposition is running away at the speed of light—dare I say—from fully accepting the science on climate change. Why? That is an important question that goes unanswered by the Leader of the Opposition. Does he fully understand the science? Or is he ignoring it simply for political expediency?

We can ignore the science and continue to believe that the earth is flat or we can accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that says quite the opposite. The overwhelming science supports that there are man-made impacts on climate change and yet the Leader of the Opposition prefers to duck and dive when it comes to global warming and climate change—simple political expediency. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly distinguished himself as a person who, as we witnessed in this place this week, is being dragged, kicking and screaming to the issue of climate change.

In any case, the Leader of the Opposition's inability to understand the details of science based issues is not a recent development. Even during the time that he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, he managed to make a number of misguided policy decisions that he was subsequently forced to reverse following an outcry from health scientists and the medical profession. In particular, during the bird flu crisis in 2005 the then Minister for Health and Ageing, against the best expert advice, locked up supplies of antiviral drugs, despite the policy being condemned by, amongst others, Graeme Laver, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics at the Australian National University. Professor Laver said at the time:

Just imagine if your child gets sick. You know it's bird flu, you know there's a drug available. You know Tony Abbott has it locked up. You want it now and you can't get it. This is totally absurd. The drug should be available for everyone.

Of course, following the inevitable outcry, the then Minister for Health and Ageing abruptly dumped his previous policy and piously announced:

In order to try to reassure the public that no favourites are being played here … I have said to the public I will not be making anti-virals available to me and that if we have a pre-pandemic vaccine I would be the last person in Australia to be given it.

As we know, far more by luck than by skilled management from the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the bird flu pandemic did not materialise. Yet the risk remains of an outbreak of a serious life-threatening disease, as does the chance that such a disaster could be compounded by an Abbott government, led by a person who has demonstrated his ambivalence towards the science and advice of experts.

There is no longer any doubt that global warming and climate change are occurring and are being driven by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is being produced by large-scale burning of fossil fuels. That is the soundly based advice of climate scientists and other experts all around the world. Yet, if you ask the Leader of the Opposition if he understands the evidence that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, he would tell you that:

… whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.

Or he might tell you:

The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger …

That last statement was made in 2009. By that time the proposition that carbon dioxide was driving global warming—far from being, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, 'crap'—was building on more than a century of understanding and measurements and was beyond any reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, with all the evidence that the detailed calculations and anecdotal evidence from older people who have seen changes such as more severe droughts, heat waves and bushfires that can be strongly attributed to the effects of global warming, we must ensure that the Leader of the Opposition joins the battle against global warming and climate change in the spirit of bipartisanship for the future of our generations.

See this speech in context