Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that for now households will not be paying the carbon tax on petrol for the family car. Is it not true that while the family car might be exempt for now trucks will not? So while driving the car to the grocery store might not cost more for now, filling it with groceries most certainly will because almost every item on the grocery shelf needs electricity to process it and fuel in the trucks to get it there, all of which will be hit by the carbon tax. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to punish forgotten families with her carbon tax when they are already doing it tough?

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

I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. On the question of petrol for families and small businesses, and light commercial vehicles, I said 'now and into the future' petrol will not be covered by the carbon pricing scheme—now or in the future. The member for Hasluck might want to note that point because that is not what he said in his question but that is what I said in this parliament and outside: 'now and into the future'—and I am referring to that part of the question that dealt with household petrol.

On other issues associated with carbon pricing, the member for Hasluck should wait, as should the opposition in general, to see the full scheme. To date, in guessing what the scheme has in it, the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition have gone out and misled the community, and not told them the truth. For months and months and months, the Leader of the Opposition has been saying to anyone who would listen, including in this parliament, that petrol would go up by 6.5c—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're blaming us for your change of mind.

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

The member for Flinders! The member for Hasluck on a point of order.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. I want to know the impact—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not sit down, Leader of the House. I want to know the details—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The Leader of the House and the member for Hasluck will both resume their places! The member for Hasluck has the call on a point of order.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. I asked a question about trucks and the cost—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The member for Hasluck will resume his seat and the Leader of the House will resume his seat. The point of order is whether or not the response is directly relevant as required by the standing orders and, as I have said before, that is not the preferred improvement that I would have liked to the standing orders. What we are seeing now is debate in the responses. But, as I have said before, the debate might be considered directly relevant. The Prime Minister has the call and she knows the requirements of the standing orders.

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

I was asked a question where on more than one occasion the member for Hasluck said, 'In relation to the Prime Minister's statement that petrol would not be covered by the carbon price for now.' He said that twice. I am entitled to clarify in this parliament that what I have said here and publicly is that the carbon price will not apply to petrol now or in the future. Members of the opposition have been out there for months and months and months trying to scare Australian families with a false claim that petrol was going up by 6.5c a litre. I will not have them now going out there for months and months again trying to scare Australian families that somehow a carbon price is going to apply to petrol in the future. It is not honest. It is not right. It was implied by the member's question and I correct it now because it would be an irresponsible fear campaign, only pursued by people determined to be dishonest with the electorate.

In relation to the rest of carbon pricing in response to the member for Hasluck, each and every statement that members opposite have made about carbon pricing have been grossly irresponsible and wrong. On a number of occasions I have come into this parliament and said to members opposite that every time they ask a question with a figure in it, they have made that figure up. Having committed that error month after month, day after day, week after week, making figures up in order to pursue a scare campaign, the responsible thing for the member for Hasluck to do now, before he makes any assumptions about how carbon pricing will work, is to wait until he gets the full details of the scheme. Also, the member for Hasluck should be out in his electorate telling every family he meets that his policy and the Leader of the Opposition's policy is to rip $720 a year off them. That is a fact.