Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Can the minister advise the Senate on how long scientists have been examining climate change? Can the minister outline the latest evidence that climate change is occurring? Is it the case that climate change is slowing down or accelerating? Can the minister advise the Senate, in particular, on what is happening in the world’s oceans? Can minister update the Senate on the melting of the Arctic ice caps? Can the minister advise the Senate on the particular significance of the melting of the Arctic ice caps?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lundy for her question and for her interest in the science of climate change. Discussion on the link between global warming and carbon pollution in fact began in the 1890s. The fact is that mainstream science has been establishing the link for over 20 years. Those opposite might like to be aware that, globally, 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2008. Just last week, we saw the release of the Copenhagen synthesis report. This report represents the most significant update of climate science since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report in 2007. If senators in this chamber want to have a look at it, this report does make for disturbing reading. What it tells us is that climate change is happening faster and having an even bigger impact than we previously thought. The report confirms that the ocean has warmed significantly in recent years and current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50 per cent greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC. I will repeat that: current estimates indicate that—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you should listen to this, Senator Bernardi. I know that you need some convincing on the science of this issue. Current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50 per cent greater than had previously been reported by the IPCC. One of the most dramatic developments since the last IPCC report is the rapid reduction in the area of Arctic sea ice in summer. The IPCC had predicted the loss of significant amounts of Arctic sea ice, but in both 2007 and 2008 almost two million square kilometres more Arctic sea ice was lost than in previous years. Two million square kilometres—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How are those polar bears up there doing, Penny?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Bernardi, I will take that interjection because I think that is an interjection that just reminds us that those opposite simply do not believe that climate change has— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that update on the science and ask: isn’t it the case that it has been the commonly held view in Australia for some time that carbon pollution—or, as it is sometimes called, greenhouse gases—is what is causing climate change? Wasn’t it in fact the previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who said that there is ‘no doubt’ that greenhouse gases are having an adverse effect on the environment? Has there been any recent suggestion that Mr Howard was wrong in making that claim?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is extraordinary is that the suggestion he might have been wrong seems to be coming from the people who were once his strongest supporters. It was John Howard who finally, in the face of the evidence, did confirm that global warming, or climate change, was occurring and that carbon pollution was contributing to it. So it is somewhat bizarre, one would have thought, that those opposite, some of them his strongest supporters—and I note their heads are down now—are no longer out there backing the Howard legacy. I thought Senators Minchin, Bernardi and Abetz were those who were the diehard Howard legacy defenders—but not on the issue of climate change, only on the issue of Work Choices.

I note that the current Leader of the Opposition reinforced this point in a speech to the Sydney Institute, where he said:

… climate change is a fact, not a theory.

He did not check with Senator Minchin before he said that. This is the same Mr Turnbull who on Friday said, ‘It would be smug on the part of the climate change lobby to say that the science is beyond doubt.’ Isn’t that extraordinary! What an extraordinary— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I again thank the minister for her answer. Can the minister outline to the Senate what the new report referred to in her first answer concludes? What does the report say about whether we need to take action on climate change and how soon that action should take place? Minister, does the report include advice about the ways in which we can turn climate change around? Finally, can the minister advise the Senate on whether there may be something missing from our response to climate change?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report to which I was referring concludes:

If ambitious mitigation goals are to be achieved, then emissions reductions programmes and carbon pricing should be implemented as quickly as possible, and within stable policy frameworks.

That is what we are trying to do. We are being stymied by those opposite. The key to tackling climate change is to create these price signals, with long-term expectation and long-term certainty. Again: those opposite stand in the way of that. Most importantly, this report confirms that ‘inaction is inexcusable’ and that we already have the tools needed to tackle climate change. The chair of the team who wrote the report, Professor Katherine Richardson, said at the launch:

Society has all the tools necessary to respond to climate change. The major ingredient missing is political will.

The professor really could be talking about those opposite, because what is missing in this debate is political will on that side to act on climate change. (Time expired)