Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her Chifley Research Centre speech on Friday, in which she said she wanted to provide 'a richer experience for members of the Labor Party, including by giving them more opportunities to have a say and a direct vote on important decisions'. Why isn't the Prime Minister giving the Australian people the same opportunity to have a say and a direct vote on the carbon tax by putting the government's legislation before the people at an election?

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

I see that the embarrassment about the refugee and asylum position of the opposition continues. They have given up defending it because it is indefensible and in breach of the national interest.

In relation to the question from the Leader of the National Party—who is now trying desperately to cover up that the opposition is in a position that trashes the national interest and knows it cannot defend it—what I say is this: we in this parliament are dealing with the clean energy legislation. We are debating it; we will be voting on it. And when we vote on it we will be voting on whether or not members of parliament want a clean energy future. I believe climate change is real. I know that, from time to time, the Leader of the Opposition denies that, in the way that he denies other demonstrable facts.

I believe that climate change is real. I have accepted the advice of the economists that the cheapest way of us cutting carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon. I know the Leader of the Opposition denies that fact, too, and wants to slug families $1,300 a year to pay for his plan, which will fail.

There is a theme here: high price leading to failure—that is the Leader of the Opposition's approach. In this parliament we will act because it is in our national interest to act soon. There is a bipartisan target of cutting carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020. It is therefore in the nation's interest to start moving towards that target as soon as possible and in the cheapest possible way. So we will put a price on carbon through the legislation before this parliament. We will create a clean energy future with all the jobs and investment that will come with it. We will give people tax cuts and increases in family payments—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all very well, but under direct relevance, the Prime Minister should answer the question: why not have an election? Just have an election.

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

Order! The Prime Minister has the call and she is responding to the question.

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

In response to the question, I was saying to the member who asked it—the Leader of the National Party—we will provide tax cuts, family payment increases and pension increases. I can well understand that the opposition is now desperately worried that it will go to the next election saying to pensioners that the opposition will take money out of their hands, saying to taxpayers that they will take money out of their hands, and saying to families with kids that they will take money out of their hands.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not relevant.

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

I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about that but there is a theme here. Acting in the national interest on the issues of seizing a clean energy future and border security, and acting in the national interest to amend the Migration Act: there is never a day that the Leader of the Opposition walks into this parliament worrying about the national interest. He proved that yesterday.

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

I simply say to those who perhaps feel aggrieved because they are denied an additional point of order and so they interject—they interject only on me, because they are going on about whether it was relevant or not—that it passed my mind to rule the question out of order for its preamble.