The Leader of the Opposition made a range of incorrect and misleading statements today on the ABC's Insiders program when comparing Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme with the legislation passed by the United States House of Representatives - the Waxman-Markey bill.

If Mr Turnbull genuinely wants to have a debate about the policy, he should start by getting the facts right. Today Mr Turnbull has made misleading statements about three key areas of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

1. Assistance to emission intensive trade exposed industries (EITES)

Mr Turnbull stated that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme must offer no less protection to Australian jobs and Australian industries than the US legislation.

Any suggestion the CPRS offers less protection to Australian jobs and industries than the Waxman-Markey legislation is false.

Under the CPRS, Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs) will receive a greater portion of free permits than is being proposed for US EITEs under Waxman-Markey.

Further, under the CPRS, there will be no cap - no limit - on the number of free permits available to these industries. Where the US proposal is to cap, and then reduce, free permits for US EITEs, the CPRS free permit allocations will start at more than 25 per cent of all permits in the Scheme and will automatically rise as necessary with growth in these industries.

The Waxman-Markey model does not guarantee 100 per cent assistance to US EITEs. All US EITEs, irrespective of the number of firms and growth in output, will have to share in the 15 per cent of free permits being allocated at the start of the US scheme. Growth in these sectors will result in lower assistance rates to each and every eligible US industry.

By contrast, Australian firms will have certainty over the number of free permits they will receive over many years, regardless of how many permits are being provided to other Australian firms.

Further, the actual levels of US assistance will not be determined until as late as 2013 and will rely on detailed calculations that have not yet even begun.

Does Mr Turnbull honestly believe that it is in our national interest for these key details to be held hostage to the United States political process for the next four years?

Mr Turnbull asked the Government to copy the CPRS EITE assistance program under the Renewable Energy Target legislation when that was negotiated through the Senate - so it is strange that he today criticised a policy he recently endorsed.

2. Coal

Mr Turnbull said today that in the US, fugitive emissions from coal mining will not be included.

Mr Turnbull wants people to believe that coal mining in the United States gets off scot-free. In truth, the US is proposing to deal with fugitive emissions through increased regulation rather than inclusion in the emissions trading scheme.

If Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party's proposed response for the coal industry is to increase regulation, rather than create a robust market, he should be upfront about that.

If his proposition is that coal should simply face no cost whatsoever when other industries and Australian households will face a carbon cost, Mr Turnbull should explain why that is the case.

The exclusion of coal fugitive emissions could reduce CPRS permit revenue by upwards of $10 billion over ten years, pushing the cost of achieving our emissions reduction targets off to other businesses and households.

3. Agriculture

On agriculture, Mr Turnbull is attempting to incite a baseless scare campaign when the situation for agriculture under the CPRS could not be more clear.

Agriculture is excluded from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2015. It is not in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.

"I am happy to debate climate change policy with Mr Turnbull, but I would urge him to get the facts right before making provocative and irresponsible claims about jobs and industry," Senator Wong said.

"And if Mr Turnbull really wants assistance to Australian industry and jobs to be 'no less' than the US than will offer to its industry, as he has claimed, he should vote for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme."