Adam Bandt was rebuked for mentioning the elephant in the room but policymakers can no longer credibly look away

We need to talk about bushfires and climate change – if not now, when?

According to a creeping conservative political correctness, it is allegedly improper to discuss the link between climate change and the increased risk of devastating bushfires like the ones still burning across New South Wales.

Columnists start by attacking suggestions such as those made in an article written for the Guardian by the Greens deputy leader, Adam Bandt, that by repealing the carbon tax, Tony Abbott is failing to protect the Australian people from climate change risk. Then they move quickly to the accusation that it amounts to politicising a disaster to discuss the connection between climate change and bushfire at all.

But report after report has pointed to climate change increasing the likelihood of conditions that pose the greatest risk for fire.

In its 2011 report The Critical Decade, the recently abolished Climate Commission discussed the link between climate change and increased bushfire risk in a sober and careful manner.

“Extreme events that are closely related to temperature are also showing changes consistent with what is expected,” it said. “The intensity and seasonality of large bushfires in south-east Australia appears to be changing, with climate change a possible contributing factor.”

Leaks of the second report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be released next year show that it warns that Australia’s very high and extreme fire danger days will increase by up to 30% by 2020, and up to 100% by 2050.

A 2007 study, commissioned by the Climate Institute from the Bushfire CRC, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research found a general trend towards more fire weather over the past 30 years, due both to natural variation and human-induced climate change.

And the former rural fire services commissioner Phil Koperberg says this kind of fire emergency in October is unprecedented.

"It's not the worst, but it is the earliest. We have never had this in October," Koperberg said. "This is a feature of slowly evolving climate. We have always had fires, but not of this nature, and not at this time of year, and not accompanied by the record-breaking heat we've had," he told the Australian.

Of course, as an emergency rages, politicians need to focus on fighting the fires and helping those whose lives have been devastated.

But surely, if there is credible reason to believe that human-induced climate change is increasing the likelihood or frequency of these fire disasters, those same politicians have a duty to understand that risk and explain how they are doing everything possible to contribute to global efforts to address it.

Bandt’s attack is based on his firm belief the Abbott government is not. Calling Abbott a “climate criminal” – as he did at a press conference – was over the top, but demanding an explanation of the Coalition’s climate policy, beyond its determination to “axe the tax”, is not.

Given the enormous doubts raised by recent studies, the Coalition needs to explain how Direct Action will work and how it could possibly achieve a higher target than the minimum 5% emission reduction.

Abbott has presented Direct Action as a static, finite, contained, pain-free, nothing-much-to-see-here response – with a specific, capped amount of money and a timeframe confined to the next seven years.

In fact, the Coalition has repeatedly insisted that Direct Action measures “make sense anyway” even if climate change did not exist – “sensible” things such as planting trees. But a 5% reduction is the bare minimum Australia has to do in response to evolving global efforts to face up to a growing problem. It has probably already been superseded as a 2020 target, and Australia will certainly be required to do much more after that date.

Questioned on the subject on the ABC on Monday morning, environment minister Greg Hunt declined to be drawn – in part because he didn’t want to “politicise” the fires while they were still being fought.

But he also appeared to suggest that the prevalence of fires was not out of the ordinary, that fire activity in recent years was within the bounds of normal, and that any future discussion of the link between climate change and fires would be something for other people.

“We’ve had well over 200 years of bushfires since European settlement. It’s a feature in the history of Australia … I will let others in time debate the issue of severity but right now the focus has to be on those affected and those fighting the fires and I know there have been some attempts by some to politicise it. I don’t think that’s the right thing to do … I do think we look at this in the long term in the context of Australia’s history and what we need to be preparing for in the future.”

Given all the reports, and all the evidence, the environment minister is surely exactly the right person to discuss and debate the extent to which the warming and changing climate is contributing to increasing risks including bushfire risk, the extent to which the Australian government is prepared to contribute to global efforts to combat it, and the way its domestic policy will work.

Discussing the link, the risks and the proper response is not improper. It is essential.