resource damage assessment process looking at effects of dispersants on larva. is that what you said? and the answer is that the natural resource damage assessment process is a very comprehensive process looking at damage from any thing including the efforts to minimize the impact of the spill. it looks at everything that can possibly be quantified with the idea of evaluating the impact of this bill on natural resources and public access to those resources, figuring out, building the best -- against the responsible party and to hold them responsible and the final part of the natural resource damage assessment process is to do the restoration required, paid for by the responsible

party to make up for the damage that was done, what ever that looks like. it is a legal, scientific, economic process to really focus on natural resources. it will be part of that. >> putting on my reporter hat for a minute i am trying to do stories about what has happened and how bad is the damage in the gulf and that is part of the natural resource damage assessment process and it is a legal process and they are not at liberty to say anything. there is a little frustration about not having full information what is going on in the gulf as it goes through this process but we are assured there making the best case for responsible parties and we will hear what the results are but it is a frustrating time, what is happening with such and such,

but called back again in 2015 and we will -- >> i totally share that frustration. i think everybody here understands that it is not we are not going to tell you, it is building the best possible case against the responsible party. if you tip your hand you risk undermining your case and everybody wants the responsible party to be held accountable and this is the way to do it. >> thank you for being here today. my question is primarily for the industry owner operator as well as the federal perspective. an effective response and recovery in the gulf relies on industry working closely with the government. i was wondering if there were best practices or lessons learned that came out of the deepwater horizon response that could be shared from the federal perspective as well as the

operator's perspective. >> this is the industry. >> the industry -- >> the oil industry receive food industry? >> seafood industry. tea change the best response from government at the federal, state and local level was the seafood community. normally we deal with three or four closures in a year based more on sequel pollution. in the 40 day -- we had 48 closures and vote sea food community supported nowak and their closures. we supported them in their closures and the states in their closures and there has been a great cooperative effort between noaa, the states and other federal agencies and the

industry to accomplish making sure we were providing safe product to the public but also that we have sustainable which i believe we do have, sea food for the long term and we're spending our energy and dollars doing the research hand in hand with noah and the state and academia. >> one thing that came out of this is a realization by all companies and the government that the fishing industry itself could be used as an effective response tool in situations like this. use of the vessels opportunity program work. going forward, it puts an aspect in place that many didn't realize they had in front of them. at very little cost. we were doing our thing and

various fisheries at a moment's notice can be called upon to act upon as the safeguard between shoreline and the problem offshore. a light bulb going off. >> i am curious to what extent people in the oil industry, how that relationship has changed, we have to get the oil industry out of the gulf. they are interwoven in terms of the economy of the gulf coast. how do you handle your relationship with people in oil? >> they are us. half of my family emigrated from france and ireland in the 1700s in the oil and gas business. have far in the seafood business. they couldn't make it in the harder of the two businesses. the real tragedy was the 11 live that were lost and 17 people that were injured and i can't imagine what those people had to

go through evaluating of fire in the middle of the night. i can't imagine it. they are who we are. we worked here for a long time. they harvest resource below the ocean floor. we harvest a resource above the ocean floor. there have been challenges and conflicts but we have been able to work through those conflict. they are a user of what we harvest. we want it to be done correct. don and the commission did an excellent job preparing the report, suggestions to improve the safety of offshore oil and gas drilling. the oil and gas community came out with a great response putting billions of dollars in to the response program. one of the most exciting things i heard during this challenge was when they started to use the vessel opportunity program, they were out there because they hired a bunch of contractors and

they are based contractors 20-1 because they are protecting who they are, their ability to be successful. i am seventh generation and my sons are in business with me. they are the eighth generation and grandson's will be the ninth generation from france to be able to accomplish and continue to apply the seas of south louisiana. >> questions? >> my name is sharon hayes and i work in the federal government to washington d.c.. i don't have a very articulate question. it is more of a plea. i am not a scientist and i want to put a human face on this. are moved to the gulf coast, mississippi gulf coast after katrina and helped with the recovery. if anyone down there has done a significant amount of time on the gulf coast you know how close to the edge people live.

today i was talking to a friend of mine who directs the national estuary program down there. he was mentioning that there is a lot of money flowing around. it is nice that bp wants to do the right thing and make people whole after the oil still, but i am very concerned about the wetlands and the restoration. i was going to make a plea that you use whatever power you have to make sure that the money goes to the right people and the right places so that we can get the restoration we need. none of the money was coming to the people who were doing the restoration. i know their reasons for that and that takes a long time and having worked in government, i know that. that is a request that i have and i wonder if you have any thoughts about that. >> thank you for that very heartfelt, and and we.

i think you are absolutely right. the . i think you are absolutely right. the restoration will be tea. the natural resource damage a person's process announced that bp, agreed to set aside $1 billion for early restoration projects. this restoration will be part of the natural resource damage assessment process. we don't have to wait for the whole damage assessment process to come to a conclusion. everyone wants to do restoration now. so this down payment from bp allows that to get under way and there is a public process for ideas about the best restoration

projects, we held ten open sessions in the gulf and an additional one in washington. those ideas about what to restore and where are being folded into the process that will play out over the next couple years in terms of the allocation of the funds. there's a lot of interest in getting on with the restoration starting with the projects everyone thinks would be important and that money will be allocated to each of the states in part and the two federal trustees for projects not only along the coast but also in the open ocean. there is a formal process for funneling money into the early restoration and i echo your hope it will go to the right things and the right people. >> the exxon valdez spill, people were anxious to show they were doing something they

pristine cleaning the rocks and killing organisms -- they looked busy. your point is well taken that you want to make sure your doing something that doesn't just look good but makes sense. more questions? >> my name is don martin with the ocean communications group sea web. a terrific conversation. i have a good news/bad news question. clearly the bad news was the spill in the gulf. no one wanted that happen. the good news is what we are hearing tonight. i have a question about human nature and i wonder if you can reflect on your experience about communicating around these issues. clearly when we have a crisis it is easy to get the word out that there is an oil spill and some fisheries -- there is some explosions somewhere. when we have good news stories to tell that things are not as

bad as you might think they are it is really hard to get through the surface to talk about those things. it is interesting when you look at neuroscience and social marketing and human behavior because we all say, all of us, we want good news, we want to hear the good news but when we try to communicate and get that out it is a big challenge. your reaction, thoughts and advice would be appreciated. >> thank you for that question. we have a lot of people come to the gulf coast who were sincerely concerned and they would like -- how many of you have ever cleaned a shrimp? this is remarkable. we would have people come down and buy shrimp off of the boat and they would say i took the head off and it has a black streak of oil running down --

[laughter and applause] removed the veins. if it isn't removed properly, sandy and gritty. >> you are not talking about the intellectual capacity of americans, are you? >> that is something you knew. [laughter and applause] >> another fact that we know from the oil spill, that is a rapid method for screening. past that, sea food went to the lab where seven trained people melt that under controlled

conditions, freshen their nose, then that sample was subdivided. >> i am sorry to interrupt the that is off the topic of the question and you were off the topic a second ago. >> it went to the formal testing. off of that formal testing, the levels of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons they have shown to be 100 to 1,000th of the level of concern. that is what we are talking about. one step further, food safety and applied nutrition, came out a few weeks ago and said we did the calculations, you have to eat 60 pounds of gold from the day for five years to approach the level of concern. we are trying to get americans to eat two seafood meal week. >> we be eating 60 pounds at day of shrimp? let me know where you want me to shrimp and -- ship it.

[applause] >> what about the questions? how do you communicate when things have changed? how do you convince people things have changed? >> that is an excellent question. i want to thank the lady who said she came down after katrina. that was a real challenge on the gulf coast and thank you for coming to help. much appreciated. that is a great challenge. in this situation plea for in-house many of you were around when the tylenol scare occurred in the 1970s? you probably remember it. it was a small isolated incident but it changed food drug marketing forever. today i can still feel about the tylenol scare. you were branded last year by seeing oil gushing out of a pipe if you thousand feet below the

surface for 80 some days and her about it for a shorter period of time. how do you change that? we can't go back and do the evening news. you have to remember during exxon valdez the evening news and you had the newspaper, morning, evening and newspaper. now you have the internet and 24/7 sea and and so the branding was more complete this time. bp has contributed a lot of dollars to this and a federal government. we have to understand what synapsees are in the consumer's mind and message amount of that connection to where we can change it. we have to convince them, miss lucina's work at the university, what they saw is not just what is happening to seafood.

that black streak on the back of a shrimp is not oil. it is not going to be easy. we have to get ted danson to get in front of people and say it 100 times. >> we worked together for many years. part of the problem is we have come out of an era where science -- without being partisan -- science really wasn't a leading the way. so then you have people whose self-interest, we are all full of our own self-interest and every industry wants their way. so science started to get downplayed. you lost trust. people would say something and it would be true. if we let science lead the way again so that we can all go ok,

activists are saying this and the industry says something or other but science, people who are there to protect us and letting science lead the way are saying this, we will rebuild trust and then you can start, people will all positive message to come for. we are so conditioned to go oh, i don't really know if that is true. i am grateful for what you do and how you put people's faith in science again. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for one more short question and i promise to get you out of here on time. the hour is nearing. warm up your thinkers. >> my name is lisa donahue. i went to school down south to

do environmental studies. all my friends from new orleans said it was best and they were affected by people who were affected by it including their dads who were shrimp fisherman. it was really effective. i was confused if it was that bad what are you saying it is ok? a million dollars here or a million dollars there from bp, i don't understand how that will help as much as people say it is. we have a few billion dollars we need to get to fix the damage that was done and what are the industry is doing to make sure this doesn't happen again? we have bp s a announcements. not only the environmentalists but the fishermen's standpoint. >> about the impact. we talked a little bit about the environmental impact and we were focusing much of our attention

on the impact of seafood. to understand -- what is impressive is about how devastating this spill was to the communities in the region, the economy, the tourism industry, the seafood industry, it was remarkable how it affected what the expert calls the sy cotesocial effect. there were people who were age is about things, translated into child abuse and other things. we have a psychological impact of this bill not being as bad, this was a devastating event.

we should take every step, citizens and industry that it doesn't happen again. our recommendation is to -- we recommend the industry established the safety institute much like the nuclear industry after three mile island huge >> we have food awaiting us in line. i have a little instruction. [applause] >> let me give you a quick note. if you looking your baggage haven't already, everyone has already figured it out. run for the food!

ted danson will go to the dinosaur hall to sign books. other cookbooks and our chefs are available for purchase to be signed as well. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend on booktv on c-span2, gretchen morganson talks about a role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008

financial collapse. afterward, henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership with china. he is interviewed by monica crowley. paul allen talks about his memoir. look for the complete booktv schedule at booktv.org and get our schedules in your in box. sign up for booktv alert. >> on this nomination the odds are 72. the nomination is confirmed. >> the senate confirmed deputy counsel doddered rallied to succeed elena kagan as you and solicitor general. listen to him argue before the supreme court from 2008 the state would -- discussing the rehnquist court. he is one of 100,000 people you can search and watch for free online at our c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> next highlights from the most recent session of the australian parliament.

this 35 minute program comes courtesy of the australian public affairs channel. >> i am david speers. we are going to show you some highlights from the latest sitting of the australian parliament. climate change continues to dominate the agenda here as the government finalizes its plan to introduce a carbon tax. the government has been under pressure to do more about bugs are arriving in australia, finalizing the deal with malaysia on 800 asylum seekers as a deterrent. the government is also being forced to act on the live exports of cattle to indonesia after shocking scenes of the mistreatment of cattle.

here are highlights of the latest sittings of the australian parliament. >> my question to the prime minister, of the the house on the report released by the climate commission titles the vertical dead guy. why is that critical to set a price on carbon? >> order. the leader of the house on a point of water, continues to interject to the gallery. the member from canning resume

his seat! >> thank you for the information. usually i do the miss speaks. there were so many interjecting that if a member from canning was still interjecting 9 missed that. he certainly jumped to his seat. he has been warned and he is now on a slippery slope. and i remind members that a warning as the precursor for a naming. i remind members especially those up to the rear of the chamber the only person that can move a motion for with the role

of a member after naming -- philippe a member -- a motion can be moved to withdraw a member after a naming. [laughter] i have seen plenty of movement about doing numbers under the chamber under the present circumstance. i want to remind people that i made numbers in support of actions myself. the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much. it was an important topic of climate change and the important reports that came out today from the climate commission entitled uncritical tied, and in this

report, we have climate scientists confirming that climate change is real and climate scientists said that action is needed on climate change. this is a report that has been extensively reviewed by experts climate scientists including the csi and the bureau of meteorology. we worked on these reports, also working with ross and his team taking an update of the climate science. what this report shows is between 3,000 one, and 3,010, global average temperature was higher than the average temperature from 1961 to 1990. that makes it the warmest decade on record. as the sea absorbs more carbon dioxide is becoming more acidic with calcification rates over the past three decades affecting

natural icons like the great barrier reef. on the west coast of australia, a centimeter or two since the 1990s. three thirds of that are from increased temperatures. with rising sea levels come risks. sea level rise of only half of meter by the turn of the century can lead to very different seas. in sydney or melbourne's coastal areas a once in 100 year whether event would happen almost monthly. this is very important information. i am not at all surprised by some of the jeering that has broken out on the other side because of course members of the coalition to they like we mentioned have come against this report and confirmed climate change denial. we know the leader of the

opposition is in climate change the nile which is why he is prepared to go are round -- the member for whenworth exchange harsh words. but he should be pursuing the example of conservatives trying to lead to the future by prime minister cameron who has announced a very deep cuts in carbon pollution and who has said this will position low u.s. -- the uk in the global low carbon economy creating a significant new industry and jobs. this confirms climate change is real and to tackle climate change we must cut carbon pollution. the most efficient way is to put a price on carbon and iron, and

we will do just that. we will not succumb to the leader of the opposition and his climate change denial and go down the path of a costly date that cannot work. we will cut carbon. it is critical data and a critical year for those who believe in climate change. >> hear, hear. >> my question is the minister for immigration, given it is not a signatory to the united nations refugee convention, what formal guarantee has the minister received from the malaysian government to provide protection for persons seeking asylum pending determination of their refugee status as required by the migration act? >> minister for emigration? >> i think the member for his

question. and i welcome the new found interest in the rights and protection, mr. speaker. i refer the hon. member to the commitments made by the prime minister of malaysia and a joint staff statement with the prime minister of australia which indicated this be treated with dignity. i refer the hon. member to the negotiations on the operational details continuing with malaysia and the government providing further information as negotiations are completed. of course i would also bring the member's attention to statements from geneva and australia that this arrangement presents a significant step forward and opportunity to improve protection for asylum seekers for about the asia-pacific region. i understand the frustration of the opposition -- i understand the opposition is devastated that the government has reached

an international agreement that at the same time increasing humanitarian needs -- i understand that they will be disappointed as we continue to implement this arrangement. >> the member from north sydney. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to be treasurer. i refer the treasurer to his comments last friday on abc radio, the planned to lift royalties on iron ore. when he said, quote, he did not communicate that he was going to do this to us. what mr. barnett has done is very strange. he did communicate with us. he didn't discuss it with us. does the treasurer stand by his

own words? >> that the prime minister the treasurer? >> i think the treasurer for his question because we had a humiliating back down today because he has been forced to admit that he knew that if he took this decision than it would be withdrawn by the independent commission. he finally admitted that day. he has put some correspondents in circulation which goes back 13 months where he raised the question of fines and in 13 months in a matter he has not discussed with me. the matter is not discussed but he did put that in a letter. no doubt about that but he didn't say he was moving to put it in that budget than or in a subsequent budget. he made that announcement before

the budget. before the budget before last. and what he conceded is he knowingly went ahead with a worldly increased knowing that that would result most probably in less revenue for the people of western australia and one that demonstrates is he is all about politics, not the benefit of the west australians were inventing the and infrastructure in western australia so the western australian premier has increased his royalty but the money is going to be withdrawn as he indicated in that letter. he knew it would be withdrawn. the proof of all of this is in an article that appeared in the press on -- he talked about going towards australia a year ago and he said he was talking to norman bore, the longest

serving am be in that government. mr. more said to him there was little point lifting royalty as the commission process would immediately take the revenue away. the whole time, they knew if they lifted their royalty it would be withdrawn by the independent commission. they knew that. despite that they went ahead and lift the royalty in this budget, not in the budget before this. not one year ago. he knew by correspondence in his own name in the treasury -- >> the treasurer -- order, order. order! the member from north sydney on a point of order. >> i asked the treasurer whether he stands by his own words. >> member from north sydney will resume his seat.

ordered. ordered. the treasurer will direct his remarks to the question. >> i certainly do. i stand by what i said. the fact is this. the west australian premier has increased his royalty, knowing they would be withdrawn, knowing that was the case, having mentioned that in correspondence and having had his ministers told journalists that would be the case and didn't proceed in the budget before last but suddenly out of the blue he comes forward and increases his royalty and goes out and pretends that that revenue would not be withdrawn despite having admitted that in correspondence and despite having his ministers travel around -- despite all of that this is the president of western australia who last year was claiming mining companies were being taxed too much.

what does he do this year? he increases the taxation of mining companies and he does it in such a way that makes it difficult for further investment to take place in infrastructure in western australia. so what the goal is for the western australian premier and carrying on about this because he knows his budget figures are fudging. based on exchange rate assumptions which mean that his budget figures are wrong and not just this year but for the rest of the estimates. >> the member for quote? >> my question is for the minister of immigration. placed by the parliament yesterday. now enable the asylum seekers to make claims under the united nations convention against torture. given malaysia is not a signatory convention can the minister confirm the 800 asylum seekers by the eligible to prevent transfer and remain in

australia while a climb out of the convention regarding the trade from malaysia is assessed under the new law? >> minister for immigration and citizenship. >> i cannot confirm that because it is not true. as the member from cloak well knows and has misrepresented the protection legislation once again as he has previously and completely misrepresented malaysia. let's go through -- [talking over each other] prime ministers of malaysia plea digital outline the agreement reached by him so that statement says prime ministers have agreed that this bilateral agreement will include transfer ease will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards.

that is what the agreement between the two prime ministers said very clearly. it has been confirmed by the commissioner from malaysia to australia. under terms of their agreement. now he cried crocodile tears for the situation in malaysia. at the same time criticizing us for taking too many asylum seekers out of malaysia, criticizing us for taking 4,000 asylum seekers out of malaysia. [talking over each other] >> only by this point as this is house would recall. last november the member from cook proposed an arrangement similar to that from the transfer agreement accepted instead of malaysia he proposed iran. i wonder how he would have gone

negotiating the protection of this government -- >> the leader of the opposition. >> this is for the prime minister. i refer the prime minister to the latest version of the got report. in particular number 17. australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon surprise. arkin she maintained that her tax only makes the polluters pay?

>> the prime minister. >> thank you for the reference to be ghana review. i have the review in my hand. it is the product of seven months work. we should think him as an australian parliament and end and australian nation. i anticipate everybody will agree with the review put forward by mr. garnaut. that should not stop us thinking him for his work and respecting him in his professionalism in doing it. the leader of the opposition's question, he talked about the question of cost, mr. garnaut makes observations about costs. this one on page 77 of this report uses the terminology of direct action that the leader of the opposition would use to refer to his policy.

i would refer to it as a policy in which polluters are subsidized. mr. garnaut states this -- using direct action to achieve similar amounts of emission reduction would raise costs -- the leader of the opposition -- [talking over each other] >> would raise costs much more than carbon prize but would not raise the revenue and reduce the cost in any observed [talking over each other] >> order! order! >> the opposition business on a point of order. >> the leader of the opposition's question cannot be more specific and quoted a sentence from the garnaut review and asked to continue to maintain only the biggest polluters would pay after a the garnaut review promising not

even -- [talking over each other] >> the manager of opposition business will resume his seat. >> at the time the member approached the dispatch box the prime minister was relating a further reference in a report to carbon pricing. the prime minister has the court. >> thank you very much. my point is basically this. if you want to look at the garnaut review you should look at all of it. what he does say about the omission proposed by the leader of the opposition is that they would raise costs much more than a carbon price but would not raise the revenue to reduce the cost in any of these ways. the cost might be covered by budgetary expenditure then this

affects to pay the cost. other people's taxes have to rise to pay for expenditures thunder direct action. what professor garnaut is putting their and what is a clear contrast between the policy -- [talking over each other] >> we are putting -- [talking over each other] >> polluters would pay. [talking over each other] >> big polluters would pay. we have been clear about that. big polluters would pay the price and they would have been sustained to act to reduce the carbon pollution that they emit. we have been very clear with australian families, outlining the carbon pricing to the australian community that there will be australian households.

that is why we will use the majority of the revenue raised from pricing carbon to assist australia with those impact. to generally assist australian families who need that the most. we will use the remainder of the revenue to protect australian jobs and programs which help to be a clean energy economy. as professor garnaut says the leader of the opposition's plan is about putting costs directly on the shoulders of australian taxpayers and australian families without any compensation at all. >> a more humane process for the media target. and that we are not going to impose religious beliefs and

values on their neighbors. one third of each gets hungry every night. they do not fish in our waters and because of profits, $10,500, in light of this, would that be a time to say here we go? could the minister advise to the longer provide the ascendancy with cattle now buying? these people like nature lovers to watch the world wide major programs the liberal national geographic -- [talking over each other] >> having given himself extra time by referring to the minister as minister burke i give a call sustainability,

environment, water and community. the minister has the call. >> i thank the member for the question by capacity representing the minister of agriculture. i do appreciate the perspective and concern, when anything relates to the live industry. [talking over each other] >> and met with some of the others, a similar story across north australia going through the northern territory and to western australia. there are a large number of jokes and family businesses and employment operations seen by large industries. it is also true that the reason this debate has taken off in

such a way over the last 24 hours is the footage that was on television last night was just awful. i felt bad watching it. i am sure every australian felt bad and every farmer felt that as well. comments have been made by the new south wales association about the distress many of them have felt in seeing their own stock treated in away that we saw at a number of establishments last night. the footage was only available through the minister of agriculture shortly before that program went to air. a number of actions have been taken and before we went to question time, just provided a detailed media conference where he went through gravity of what was cited and also the specific

actions which he had already undertaken and the further actions. suffice it to say, the establishment's australians accept their stock will be treated better than that and animals originating from australia will be treated better than that and the actions taken by the minister have been on those specific establishments. >> the member from north sydney. >> my question is to the treasurer. i refer to the fact the economy went backwards the first three months of this year. treasurer, why is the government hitting australian households and businesses with a carbon tax, a mining tax, when we now

know that a mining costs can lead to economic pneumonia? >> the deputy prime minister for the treasurer. >> order! order! order! order! the deputy prime minister for the treasurer. >> i was stunned by that question for the treasurer. he refers to the contraction in the march quarter as a mining boom cost when in fact this had a contraction in the march quarter of 1.7 percentage points because of the impact of the biggest natural disaster in australia's history. i don't accept that. i am completely stunned as to how out of touch they have been.

there was a contraction in the march quarter of 1.2% but 1.7% came from the natural disaster, from the floods and from the cyclone and in new south wales lendable funds in the northwest of australia. they come into this house and describe that as a mining boom cost. this is just extraordinary. i think i can understand why they are so out of touch. we have a clue of this a few weeks ago. the leader of the opposition came into this house in gave a speech for 30 minutes and never mentioned the impact of the floods or the cyclone or the weather events in western australia. not once in a 30 minute speech. and we had been treasurer go to the press club to deliver some alternatives to the budget. not once in a 30 minute speech

did he mention the impact of the floods of the cyclone or other weather events. this just shows how out of touch and incompetent and how they do not understand the challenges facing australia's economy. the fact is the fundamentals of our economy are strong. if you have a look at the figures today you will see that consumption, willing investment and business investment are making positive contributions to growth but the big negative is impact of those cyclones and those floods when they want to stick their head in the sand and pretend they never happened. this is incredible. i don't think there has been an opposition this incompetent in the history of this country. what they want to ignore too is

the strong line of business investment that they have and they want to ignore the fact that if they cope with that in the years ahead they bring out budget circumstances. they are intent on rigging that surplus. they come into the house to complain about emphasis. they have never seen a deficit they didn't want to make bigger. as they come into this house -- >> [talking over each other] >> order! come to order! order! order! order! the treasurer has the call. >> they are opposing vital savings measures in this house. they are trying to rip the government surplus and it has gotten so bad and so negative that they are opposing their own

policies! can you believe that? opposing a policy that goes back to 2004 because they are so negative! >> the treasurer will resume his seat. the leader of the opposition. >> my question is to the prime minister. i ask the prime minister will she repudiate professor garnaut cavs proposal for an unaccountable cut to emissions? >> ordered, ordered. those on my right will come to order. the minister -- prime minister. >> thank you very much. as my colleagues have observed the leader of the opposition has come forward in discussion of the economy and the only thing

he knows how to is -- [talking over each other] >> in an incredibly irresponsible way. anybody who has listened to the leader of the opposition's question, very clearly the leader of the opposition has misrepresented professor david speers 21. we see the opposition do this because he can't mount an argument that deals with the fact. he can't mount an argument that deals with the fact. he can never discuss the facts because the facts are on the table. in every opportunity including every opportunity, he walks in with extortion. professor garnaut did not say what the leader of the opposition put into this

question. what professor garnaut said and talked about was the kind of climate commission they have in the united kingdom where a body makes recommendations to government, recommendations to government which perform the democratic role. of course, our democracy is filled with bodies that make recommendations for government. this is just one such body that makes recommendations. if we look at the way it works in our democracy it has worked for years without anybody taking the silly political point, we see the leader of the opposition take today. i never heard the leader of the opposition wake up for more any other microphone and say he is concerned that david cameron is not -- [talking over each other]

>> prime minister resume her place. >> the manager of opposition business on a point of order. >> prime minister was asked a specific question. her statement is quite out of order and i ask the you withdraw that. >> manager of opposition resuming. no matter how he characterizeds an argument in response, the only requirement is the response be directly relevant and the prime minister is aware of the need to be directly relevant and the prime minister have the call. >> thank you very much. i had mr. garnaut's were put to me in correcting that distortion. r. m. pointing out the truth of

what professor garnaut said and the truth of what professor a garnaut said you can see with the arrangements he is thinking about around the world including in the united kingdom where prime minister david cameron has recently received recommendations from a climate commission to act on those recommendations. i did not hear the leader of the opposition say at that time that conservative leader was not acting appropriately. why is that the leader of the opposition can never engage in the climate change debate dealing with the fact? why is it he always has to rely on falsehoods when you don't have a rational argument, the