Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday when he suggested that people could go to Treasury documentation to find out the impact of the emissions trading scheme on electricity and gas prices. I inform the Prime Minister that I have here the 820 pages of Treasury documentation, which has to be downloaded and printed as it is not available in hard copy, which he expects Australian families to read. I ask the Prime Minister: why shouldn’t Australian families and small businesses believe that he is trying to hide the true cost to them of his great big new tax on everything, when he expects them to find answers to their legitimate questions in an 820-page document?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was a breach of a number of standing orders, as you are aware Mr Speaker, which go to argument. I would ask you to get the new Leader of the Opposition to go directly to his questions in future.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is within the bounds of leniency that have been allowed in the past. While there might be some elements to the point of order, the practice of this place has been that, within reason, this has been allowed and, within reason, the leaders of the opposition have been allowed some greater leniency.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were much tighter, Mr Speaker.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will read people’s autobiographies, especially those of leaders of the House, in a later life.

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He asked specifically about the cost of electricity and gas under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and he asked where it could be found. In broad summary I think that was the content of his question. On the question of electricity, electricity prices under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would rise by seven per cent in 2011-12. As for gas, the gas price would increase by four per cent as advised in both cases by the Treasury in 2011-12.

The second part of the honourable member’s question goes to the extent to which the government is transparent about this. Yesterday I made these statements in the parliament, today I make the statements in the parliament and they go to the actual cost of the scheme.

The third part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question went to what he described as ‘this big tax’ on all Australians—to use his own terms—and that is what I would like to respond to as well. I think honourable members and various members of the public were witness to a fairly extraordinary interview last night on this subject on the The 7.30 Report. It was, I think, necessary viewing because it goes to the absolute heart of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about ‘this great big tax’. I will read some of what was contained in that interview. In his interview with Kerry O’Brien on the ABC, which just received plaudits from those opposite and I welcome that, the first statement from the Leader of the Opposition last night, as today, was to this effect:

Well, under Mr Rudd’s scheme taxpayers will pay because they are consumers, they’ll pay a lot more, $120 billion …

That is his statement upfront.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Well member for Sturt, let us just see what unfolds in this interview between Mr O’Brien and the Leader of the Opposition. The first question which is asked by Mr O’Brien of the Leader of the Opposition is:

… Mr Abbott, is it honest of you to say baldly, as you just did, that this entire cost of $100 billion plus, will actually come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Consumers pockets, is that correct?

The first evasion from the Leader of the Opposition is as follows:

But it’s a giant money-go-round, it’s a giant drag on the economy.

He then goes on, but the question he was asked was, ‘Is this $120 billion a tax coming out of taxpayers’ or consumers’ pockets?’ Mr O’Brien has a second effort to extract the truth from the Leader of the Opposition and asks again:

Is it honest of you to say that consumers and taxpayers will pay $110 billion, or whatever figure you use, is that honest?

The Leader of the Opposition’s answer on the question he has been asking me today about is:

Because of the, of the volume of trades,—

I am seeking to be absolutely accurate in what it contains here—

Because of the, of the volume of trades, the accumulative value of all this, on the Government’s own figures, is close to $120 billion.

Then we have the third attempt by Mr O’Brien at asking the direct question of, ‘Is the $120 billion a tax on people and on consumers?’ Mr O’Brien asks:

The total churn, as you put it, does not mean that individuals will foot that bill, does it.

To which the Leader of the Opposition replies:

Yes.

He agrees with the proposition that it is not a tax on consumers. That is what he says. It is absolutely clear.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I would suggest that those opposite actually read the transcript. He gets asked once; he gets asked twice; he gets asked a third time. This one big tax—this $120 billion—he says is a direct impost on taxpayers and consumers. Three times he was asked this question. The question as it was put was:

The total churn, as you put it, does not mean that individuals will foot that bill, does it.

And he agrees with the proposition. I can just say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is transparent out of his own mouth that he accepts the proposition that this, in fact, is something quite different. So let us go to the actual essence of his proposition.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’ve all bowed their heads, mate.

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

I always enjoy the interjections from the PhD from Flinders, who, we read out yesterday, was a strong supporter of an emissions trading scheme all his life. But here goes, to the absolute core of it. Firstly, on taxpayers, we in our scheme cost taxpayers $3.3 billion; they cost them $10 billion-plus, three times as much, at their own admission. Secondly, our scheme refers to, as the Leader of the Opposition confirms in his own interview, the ‘value’ of the carbon market. It is like the value of the electricity market or the value of the gas market. What he has sought to do is to say that that equals a tax on consumers.

Last night’s interview was spectacular in the Leader of the Opposition being nailed on the core con which lies at the heart of his climate con job strategy, and that is that on tax you charge three times more. On the question of the size of the market which is created for carbon through the CPRS, that is comparing apples with oranges and you know it, and you were exposed on television last night for having done so.