Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:01): I accept that the Treasury modelling which I have just relied on and the figures which I have given to the House are the Treasury modelling and should be relied on. I also accept that the carbon pricing package of the government is the cheapest possible way of reducing our carbon pollution. When you want to talk about a drag on our economy, when you want to talk about a burden on working families, you would endorse the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us have a look at the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, seeing he invites the comparison. If he wants to get it modelled, if he actually wants to tell Australians the truth about it, we will happily assist. What we know is that, because the Leader of the Opposition is in the business of subsidising polluters, he would make carbon pollution reductions at a far greater cost than carbon pricing; that is, he would do the most economically reckless thing—a thing that would certainly have a huge impact on economic growth and a huge impact on jobs. Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a very direct question about the Treasury modelling. She was not asked about the Leader of the Opposition's position. The SPEAKER: I would counsel the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the supplementary question. Ms GILLARD: Mr Speaker, what I would say on comparisons of economic effects of carbon pricing packages is that we are determined to do it in the most efficient way. That is what the Treasury modelling shows. It shows economic growth. It shows income growth. It shows our economy growing. What the Leader of the Opposition is determined to do is do the most costly approach, wrecking economic growth with an impact for jobs and taking benefits off working families.