Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline to the Senate the importance of taking a science-based approach when seeking to tackle climate change? What are the alternatives to taking a science-based approach to this challenge?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not about me.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, interjections are disorderly. That was almost completely disorderly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government that does believe that you make decisions based on good evidence and good science. The reality is that climate scientists are telling governments all around the world that carbon pollution is contributing to climate change. Senators might like to know that 2010 was the warmest year on record and equal warmest were 2005 and 1998.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what record?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is about time for you to start interjecting here, Senator Bernardi. The decade 2001-10 was the warmest decade on record. The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have advised that, if we do not reduce our carbon pollution, average temperatures could increase by 2.2 to over 5 degrees Celsius by 2080 as compared with 1990.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unsurprised by the interjections, because those on the other side are led by someone who does not believe climate change is real. In this chamber the opposition is dominated by individuals who do not believe climate change is real. We have on one side the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the world’s respected climate scientists—but no, on the other side, the opposition know different. We know that Mr Abbott’s approach is somewhat confusing. It seems to change depending on who he is speaking to. On 14 March Mr Abbott said:

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

He also said:

I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here.

Then two days later Mr Abbott said:

... climate change is real. Mankind does contribute to it.

And today Mr Abbott goes and addresses a rally which has signs such as ‘Carbon dioxide is not pollution. I love CO2’ and ‘CO2 is a harmless trace gas, you fraudulent criminals’. People are entitled to express those views—we disagree with them—but these are the sorts of views that the opposition is now lining up behind. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate any scientific basis that might exist for refusing to take action on climate change?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The glaciers are not melting.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash’s interjection just demonstrates the sort of ideas, or lack of ideas, on that side of the chamber. They are led by a man who changes his mind depending on the audience. I think we saw that today when a man who wants to be the Prime Minister of this country is out in front of a rally that has signs such as the ones I read out, signs referring to genocide and signs such as ‘Pauline knew 10 years ago’. Those on the other side ought to be ashamed of themselves that they are allowing their leader to go out there and play to that audience. You should hang your heads in shame. And some of you are.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Why is scientific evidence so important to the government—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, resume your seat. If senators wish to carry on this debate, carry it on after question time in the time to take note of answers, but not now.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, I cannot even give you the call because there is a debate going on across the front of the chamber here. It will need to cease.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President, something I think needs to be withdrawn. A comment was just made that that audience was apparently a representation of the Ku Klux Klan.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not heard any such comments in this chamber and if there were quiet at the other end of the chamber I might have a chance to hear some of the comments instead of the interjections that do take place. Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, why is scientific evidence so important to the government in determining the appropriate policy response to tackling climate change? And I would like the opportunity to be able to listen to the answer.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, continue with your question.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, would you like me to commence again?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, just hold on. Senator Xenophon gets one question a week. I do not think it is very fair if people keep interjecting on both sides and wind down the clock for Senator Xenophon, who gets that one opportunity a week. I think if people have differences of opinion on issues in question time they can go outside and debate them outside. Continue, Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I had completed my question. I was asking: why is scientific evidence so important to the government in determining the appropriate policy for tackling climate change. And I would like to be able to hear the answer.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The science is important and, notwithstanding the efforts of those on the other side to try and drown out the scientific evidence, the reality is the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The question really should be: what is the proper policy response to deal with the risk, not just for this generation but for subsequent generations, and how to make that transition in the most economically efficient way. One of the sad things about the Leader of the Opposition is that if you read his comments—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only one? I’m sure you’ve got a long list!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you are very sensitive about this, Senator Abetz. If you read his comments it is quite clear that he comes to this issue not on the basis of conviction but only on the basis of opportunism. Mr Abbott said in April 2010:

I don’t think my assessment of the science or of the policies ever changed that much. I think all that really changed was my assessment of the politics of the issue.

Never a truer word. (Time expired)