My question is to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. Prime Minister, it's quite obvious that we have to reduce the size of government. So why don't we look at getting rid of the climate change department? There's $8.7 billion a year spent on it. It would loosen up 5,700 full-time equivalent positions, which would go through natural attrition. It's got absolutely no prospects whatsoever of changing the climate or anything like that, and getting rid of it would save us from jacking up taxes on capital gains tax for small business, taxing superannuation funds and taxing trusts.

There has been now decades of science and advice on climate change that it is real. I support responding to the science of climate change, which does represent a challenge but also represents an enormous opportunity, because where we are positioned in Australia is that, because of the transition that is occurring globally when it comes to climate action, we have the critical minerals and rare earths that will go into all of the products that will make a difference. We also have amongst the best solar resources in the sky. We also have the opportunity to act—because there is a cost of inaction as well. What we are seeing, not least in the great state of Queensland, which the member represented in the other place, is increasing numbers and frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Now, all of those—

Order! The member for Wide Bay will leave the chamber immediately. Swearing in the parliament is completely unacceptable and he will leave the chamber for three hours.

The member for Wide Bay then left the chamber.

Honestly, we will not allow this parliament to have that language. None of us will accept that. I won't accept it. Australia won't accept it.

We don't say—because Australia has always had extreme weather events—that you say every event is because of climate change. What you do say, though, is that the science told us they would be more frequent and be more intense, and that is happening. What you do say is that the temperature in the water around our island continent is also increasing, which is having an impact—as it did in South Australia most recently, which we had to deal with, with a cost. What we say is, if you take no action whatsoever on climate change, the cost to our economy will be more—

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for New England on a point of order.

On relevance. Everything you say, I respect, but there's no chance that the $8.7 billion you spend is going to change the climate back, so why spend it?

That's a debating point, and the member is entitled to raise his point on relevance—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The question did cover a wide range of funding commitments, and the Prime Minister was challenged in the question about the use of that funding, so he is being directly relevant regarding his view and the government's view. I'll allow him to continue, but I'll make sure his remarks or any comments he's got are directly relevant to the issue of climate change that he was asked about.

When it comes to funding, a member in this place said:

The federal government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes.

That was the member for New England. He also said:

… in fact, we're one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia … I made sure it happened.

He was right then, and he's wrong now.