Ms GILLARD ( Lalor — Prime Minister ) ( 14:27 ): In answer to the question I say: (1) the question contains words which would mislead the Australian people, so I am not accepting the premise of the question; and (2) when it comes to businesses around the nation, including businesses in Queensland, the government is determined to give them a tax reduction. What is standing in the way of that tax reduction is the conduct of the opposition. So, if the Leader of the National Party is genuinely concerned about this business and its future, it is very hard to explain why he is opposed to a tax reduction being given to that business. It is very hard to explain that, indeed. But when it comes to the opposition, there is no plan— Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the carbon tax and she has made no attempt at all to answer that question. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has just commenced her answer. I am sure she will direct it to the specifics. Ms GILLARD: I was asked about a particular business and I am talking about measures that would assist that particular business. As we all know, as a result of world conditions and the high Australian dollar there is pressure on Australia's manufacturing industry and particularly there is pressure at this time on aluminium. We have always been very conscious that a sustained, strong Australian dollar would bring these pressures to bear on parts of our economy, like manufacturing. That is why out of the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax we are determined to cut the tax burden on businesses like this one. It is an appropriate way to spread the benefits of the resources boom. We take a very different view on this from the opposition. We stand for a fair share of the benefits of the boom going around the nation. They stand for a privileged few. On dealing with climate change and reducing carbon pollution, we stand for doing that in the cheapest way possible. The opposition, of course, stand for a carbon plan which would impose additional costs on businesses whilst at the same time imposing additional costs on Australian families and taking away from those families the tax cuts, family payments and pension increases we intend to provide. To the opposition generally, who I understand today, tomorrow and the next day will continue to ask questions about this matter, I would ask the following: first and foremost, how do you explain the Howard government's commitment for an emissions trading scheme; and, No. 2, how do you marry these professions of concern about these businesses with your plan to block these businesses from getting a tax cut?