Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How many megawatts of clean energy will be produced over and above the already agreed 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 as a result of the $10 billion to be spent through the clean energy fund—an amount that, for example, could have been spent building 10 much needed teaching hospitals?

Mr Melham interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Banks should be very careful that he doesn't get detention. I note that there was a degree of argument in the conclusion, but I just am noting that.

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

To the member who asked the question, first and foremost, this is a government that invests in capital for health care. We have a very proud record of doing that. I understand we have a record of doing that in the member's very own electorate, so we will continue to invest in health care—

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

Having noted that there was argument in the question, I should have said I would hope the Prime Minister would ignore it, but the Prime Minister has not. The Prime Minister will now return to the question.

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

I do not like unanswered points about the government's record being left, Mr Speaker.

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

I appreciate that.

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

I think it is important that people understand how much money we are investing in health care. Second, in relation to the member's question, as I have just explained in answer to the earlier question, this will not be a body where politicians are there picking winners. That is the opposition's plan. The government's plan is to accept the advice of scientists and to accept the advice of economists and to put a price on carbon, because that is the cheapest, most effective and efficient way of transforming our economy to a clean energy future.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was: how much new clean energy will be produced as a result of the $10 billion?

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

The Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.

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

I was explaining the way in which the government's policy will work. At the centre of it, with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is not a system where politicians pick winners but a system where we have a board and management with commercial expertise which deals with projects on a commercial basis and ensures that they work to catalyse clean energy development in our economy.

I understand the member has an interest in this. The member may want to study some of the projects that have already been supported through other government mechanisms and see what is being achieved, because that might give him an understanding of what can be achieved through a mechanism like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. For example, through our Solar Flagships program, in Chinchilla in Queensland we will see the development of a solar thermal power station which, if it were built today, would be the biggest in the world. It is that kind of clean energy development that will transform our economy. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will work commercially with commercial expertise to help with the transformation, but at the centre of the transformation is putting a price on carbon pollution, which is what economists have advised us is the cheapest way of cutting carbon pollution, creating clean energy jobs, transforming our economy and reaching the carbon pollution emission targets that are agreed on both sides of the parliament. I certainly do not want to see—and perhaps the member would not want to see either—Australian families slugged $1,300 a year to pay for the Leader of the Opposition's carbon plan.