Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

If you look at those numbers and how they flow out over the decade, of course, they add up to something equivalent to, or perhaps larger than, $1,000 per family as a taxation burden which would flow from the proposal put forward by the opposition. Of course, the alternative in terms of funding it lies in cutting services, and the Leader of the Opposition refused to rule out cuts to defence and refused to rule out cuts to hospitals and therefore, of course, we have had nothing either on the tax side or the spend side to clarify the whole nature of the big tax position and topic which the Leader of the National Party referred to before.

My next point on the big tax question is about whether the opposition are serious about the abatement task, which is reducing carbon pollution. Today, we have expert analysis from the Department of Climate Change that the overall impact of the scheme put forward by those opposite is to bring out 40 million tonnes reduction in overall carbon pollution. Of course, the target is 138 million tonnes if we are to be serious about a five per cent reduction overall. So, as I have said in response to an earlier question, if they are only going to do 40 million tonnes reduction, that actually results over time in a 13 per cent increase in the overall emissions in the economy. So they end up paying more in their scheme and we still push out more carbon pollution into the future. It does not add up.

But, if they were actually serious about the target of 138 million tonnes worth of greenhouse gas emissions, I am also advised that in fact the tax burden goes beyond $10 billion into multiples beyond that. So I just say to those opposite: if you are putting forward a scheme which does less and costs more you should think very long and hard before you ask questions about other schemes.

Now, on the question of compensation which the Leader of the National Party also referred to, I say to the Leader of the National Party that the compensation regime which we have put forward has been clear on the public record for a long time. It applies to different income categories and it has been the subject of multiple questions in this place. In terms of how the scheme is reviewed over time, once the scheme commences household assistance would continue into the future. Secondly, because these assistance payments are indexed to the CPI, assistance will automatically increase in line with increasing carbon prices that affect household costs.

I also say that before the scheme commences and indexation begins the government is committed to adjusting the initial level of household assistance if the cost of living impacts are higher than expected. Finally, I say to the Leader of the National Party that the government will also annually review in the budget context the adequacy of assistance to all households, noting that these payments are already automatically increased.

These, and the government’s position on how we approach indexation, are clear on the public record. That is the response to how we would look at future levels of assistance across the country.

See this speech in context