Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Prime Minister. Why is it vital to be guided by the facts and evidence when it comes to tackling climate change and reducing smoking rates? How is the government undertaking an evidence based approach to these challenges?

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

I thank the member for Calwell for her question on the very important topic of using facts and evidence to design policies. The Australian people can be reassured that this government is acting on the basis of the facts and the evidence rather than peddling fear as we see this negative opposition do. On climate change, the scientific evidence is in and it is beyond doubt. The science tells us that human emissions of greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide being the most important, have been the primary trigger of climate change since at least the 1950s. The science tells us that current carbon emissions are 37 per cent larger than they were in the 1990s. The science is telling us to act and we are determined to act.

When we turn to the question of cigarette smoking, the science is also unbelievably clear. Smoking kills over 15,000 Australians per year. It is the leading cause of cancer and we do know from scientific studies that plain paper packaging will make a difference. We have accepted the evidence.

But on the other side we see a complete denial of the evidence. They would rather peddle fear than deal with the facts and deal with the evidence. We know that Senator Nick Minchin has been out leading the sceptics within the opposition denying the science of climate change and we know that the opposition is refusing to accept the scientific studies which show the way in which plain packaging will make a difference. I would say to those opposite, and particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, that they should not continue to oppose effective action on climate change and they should not oppose further action to reduce smoking rates in our society.

The confusion on the opposition side knows no bounds. We actually increased the excise on smoking because the science told us that it would reduce smoking rates. That was clear. And at one point, the shadow minister for health agreed with us. Indeed, he was agreeing with us as recently as 24 May—that is, this week he was agreeing with us. He was saying that he proposed, along with the Leader of the Opposition, an increase of $2 billion in excise because pricing works. But then the Leader of the Opposition actually unravelled that support for an excise increase when he spoke—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is possible the member for Calwell might have asked the wrong question, but that is not an excuse for the Prime Minister to try to cover two questions in the one answer. What she is now saying has absolutely nothing to do with the question she was asked.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The opposition may believe there is an element of parallel universe going on here, but I simply say to them that, if they had actually listened, they would have heard that both climate change and smoking were mentioned in the question by the member for Calwell. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question.

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

I thank the opposition for so visibly demonstrating my point in the last few minutes: they do not listen. They did not listen to the question, they do not listen to the scientists, they do not absorb any facts—they just do not care. The little shambles we just saw over there, where they were joking about whether smoking causes climate change, should cause Australians to recoil in horror, because what it means is that the opposition could not care less about either. They do not care about climate change; they are sceptics. They do not care about smoking; they are too big on the drip from big tobacco to take anything about smoking seriously.

Maybe the smoke that they care about is the smoke that shows there is a fire of division over there in the opposition. We have the division on display at the end of this week: the Leader of the Opposition versus the shadow Treasurer; the Leader of the Opposition versus the member for Wentworth; the Leader of the Opposition versus the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; and the famous five who have been singled out for criticism by the Chief Opposition Whip. They are a divided opposition who are incapable of taking in facts and evidence and incapable of designing a policy for the nation's future. (Time expired)