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 remind the Prime Minister that this year's World Competitiveness Yearbook ranks Australia at No. 43 in the world in terms of efficiency of government decisions, and Australia has slumped from ninth to 29th since 2007 when it comes to having an efficient institutional framework of government. Can the Prime Minister explain how the government's carbon and mining taxes, among 39 new or increased taxes and 21,000 new regulations, have improved Australia's competitiveness? (Time expired)

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

To the Leader of the National Party: first and foremost, there is a bipartisan target in this country to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent. You can do that the most efficient way, or you can do it a less efficient way. The government has chosen to do it the most efficient way. What the Leader of the National Party will never be able to do is to walk up to the dispatch box and say that the policy he stands for comes at a lesser cost to the Australian nation per tonne of carbon pollution that we reduce out of the atmosphere than the government's policy—that is, the Leader of the National Party stands for a more costly policy for the nation. So, if the Leader of the National Party is in truth in any way concerned about Australia's international competitiveness, why is it that he stands for businesses in this country—that he stands for our nation—paying more to reduce carbon pollution than the international price—because that is what he stands for? He wants to put a bigger burden on our country than the top costs that are paid internationally. You are flinching at that, but that is your policy. If you think it is unacceptable then change your policy, because that is what it is: a costly, inefficient payment to polluters. That is what the National Party leader stands for. That would be worse for competitiveness and worse for the economy. The Leader of the National Party has to acknowledge that it is a far more costly plan.

Then, on the minerals resource rent tax, I do believe that, because the Australian people own the wealth in our ground, they are entitled to a share of that wealth when mining is at its most profitable. I understand that the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition, given a choice between the Australian people and paying more money to those in mining—allowing them to keep all of their superprofits—would prefer to do the latter. My priority is assisting the Australian people.

If the Leader of the National Party is truly concerned about our competitiveness then why can't he do the same thing that has been done by a National Party Minister for Education in New South Wales—a minister who actually cares—

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

Madam Speaker, this is a point of order about relevance. This is supposed to be about efficiency of government decisions. That is what the question was about, and the minister is raving on about some kind of policy—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Yes, I am talking about the education of Australia's children, and that means I am talking about the competitiveness of our economy and its prosperity for the long term. I do understand that those opposite, because they stand for a plan which would see $16.2 billion less invested in education, are uncomfortable when we talk about the importance of education to our competitiveness, but I would say to the Leader of the National Party: take a leaf out of Minister Piccoli's book and be prepared to put Australia's children first. If one National can do that then surely another National can do that. To the Leader of the National Party: yes, that means him.