Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement by the chairman of BlueScope Steel this week:

I am critical of the selective use of Chinese data to imply that they are phasing out coal and we are not.

This is patently false and misleading and should not be allowed to drive our domestic debate.

I ask the Prime Minister, why is she insisting on introducing a carbon tax that will close down industry, cost jobs, increase the cost of living and give our trade competitors an unfair advantage based on misleading information?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question, and let me assure the member I am all for the facts in this debate. In fact, one of the sharpest contrasts between the government and the opposition in this debate is: we are dealing with the facts; you are dealing with fear. We accept the climate change science; you do not. We accept the advice of economists that the most efficient way to act is to price carbon; you do not. We accept the collection of data from around the world about how other economies are moving, including China, and we have asked the Productivity Commission to report on that very fact; and I have got no doubt whatsoever when the Productivity Commission comes out with its work, then over there on the opposition benches they will distort it, they will misquote and they will go on a campaign of misleading to fit with their fear campaign, which is drawing them closer and closer to the extremes of Australian politics.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister has been speaking for one minute and she has not addressed China or the quote from the chairman of BlueScope Steel about her misleading statements. I would direct her to answer the question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey could also look at the second and concluding aspects of his question. We now get into this debate about whether things are relevant or directly relevant, and there was the expression ‘relevant to part’. I believe we are left with that it can be directly relevant to part as well. So far the Prime Minister’s response, whilst overly debating, is still directly relevant to the second part. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much in directing my attention to the second part of the question that the member asked me. The second part of the question would lead people to conclude that somehow having a price on carbon, advocating a price on carbon, does not mean that you care about Australian jobs. Well, let me quote a statement from someone who had the aspiration to have ‘the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme anywhere in the world’. Would the member assert that the person who said that did not care about Australian jobs? Then let me go on and quote words by the same person, who said:

No great challenge has ever yielded to fear or guilt. Nor will this one.

And then went on to say—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. How is this in any way related to the question?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his place. I am listening to the answer, but when a question concludes with ‘why is she insisting on the introduction of a carbon tax that will—‘ and adds argument, I think that I am obliged to listen carefully to where this is going. But the Prime Minister knows that she needs to be directly relevant, and the Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Those words that I used, ‘the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme anywhere in the world’ are the words of former Prime Minister John Howard. In saying those words, why was John Howard then insisting on a price on carbon the way I am insisting on one now? I would suggest it is because we went through exactly the same thought processes, which is: climate change is real. I believe John Howard accepted the science.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You sit behind a climate change denier. John Howard asked for a comprehensive report from Peter Shergold about the best way of pricing carbon. When he received it he read it and responded to it rationally—something that the opposition is now incapable of: reading, thinking and responding rationally—and, having done that, he determined that the best way forward for this country was an emissions trading scheme. He said the nation should price carbon. I believe the nation should price carbon, and that is why we will bring legislation to the Australian parliament to do just that.

I understand the member opposite will follow the Leader of the Opposition in a fear campaign, but I suspect in his heart of hearts he is actually one of the members sitting over there who watched with dismay yesterday. I wonder when he got his Liberal ticket—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will bring her answer to a conclusion.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

excited as he was on that first day to join the Liberal Party, that he ever foresaw it would come to this.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, let me tell you something about John—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I am now completely aware that because so many people talk and yell they do not listen. I said, ‘The Prime Minister will conclude her answer’—and the yells continued. The Prime Minister has the call and I have invited her to conclude her answer.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In conclusion, pricing carbon is about future prosperity for the economy. That is why I am insisting on it. John Howard understood that, and he was a Liberal leader who would not have shared a platform with Pauline Hanson.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: quite apart from being in defiance of your ruling, the Prime Minister’s final statement was offensive and untrue. I would respectfully ask you to require her to withdraw.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he has a grievance with the statement made and the veracity of it there are other forms of the House that he might choose to use at the appropriate time.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to my point of order; I understand your admonition, but it would assist the House greatly if the Prime Minister would not make statements which she knows to be untrue. That statement with which she closed her answer she knows to be untrue; she should not make it, and if she wants to complain about placards—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Champion interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield is warned, yet again. The Leader of the Opposition may be overgeneralising, but he has been allowed to make a point. He has made that point, and we will now proceed.