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 the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal report which found that electricity prices will rise by 60 per cent in New South Wales, with one-third of this massive price hike due to the government’s emissions trading scheme—its great big tax. As this represents $228 on an average annual household electricity bill of $1138—a 20 per cent mark-up—how can the Prime Minister maintain that his great big tax is a good deal for Australians under enormous financial pressure?

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

I welcome any debate on the cost of our respective approaches to climate change, because that put forward yesterday by those opposite does less, costs more and is totally unfunded. The question put by the Leader of the Opposition goes again to the electricity price. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasury advice to the government is that prices will rise by seven per cent in 2011-12 and 12 per cent in 2012-13. I would further tell the Leader of the Opposition that the total average increase in electricity, based on the advice from the Treasury, will be $1.70 per week or $88 per year in 2011-12. That is part 1. Part 2 is this: omitted from his presentation just now is the fact that the government has something called a compensation scheme for working families.

The reason the government charges polluters is to use the money from the big polluters to provide financial support to working families so that they can deal with the 1.1 per cent increase in the cost of living and provide them with the resources to then fund the acquisition of energy efficiency measures for their home. That is why we have done it that way. What is the contrast? Those opposite, when it comes to compensating working families, offer not one dollar. What they have done—

Government Member:

Government member interjecting—

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

He interjects on time, ‘The money churn.’ Guess what churn those opposite have decided to use. They reach their hand into the pocket of taxpayers and churn that money into the pockets of the big polluters. That is exactly what they have done. That is Liberal Party churn, front and centre, because what they have done is transfer the burden of climate change transition from the big polluters who cause it onto working families as taxpayers or consumers. That is it in a nutshell.

I am also taken by the fact that for the first time in my life that I have been in this position I have heard those opposite cite as their source of authority a publication of the government of New South Wales. But I will just leave that to one side and ask him to reflect on the numbers that I provided before from the Treasury. The Leader of the Opposition concluded his question with this: he referred again to what he describes as the great big tax, on which he was asked three specific times last night on television whether it was an impost on consumers and taxpayers. He ducked and he weaved because he knew the answer was no.

The bottom line is this—their approach is as follows: (1) they do less with their scheme, (2) it costs more for taxpayers and (3) it is not even funded. On this there are only two ways to go. You will fund your scheme by a huge additional tax yourselves because you are charging taxpayers at least three times more than the government scheme or, secondly, as the Leader of the Opposition was asked again this morning, you cut services. When asked whether he was going to cut schools, cut hospitals, cut defence, he refused to rule it out. Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that there are two ways you can go when you have an unfunded policy. One is that you jack up taxes and you pass them on to working families; the second is that you cut services. When asked whether he would cut hospitals and defence this morning he ran a million miles.

The heart of the climate con job by the Leader of the Opposition is this: they are putting forward a scheme which costs the taxpayer three times as much. That is point 1. Point 2: those opposite know that, when it comes to the value of the carbon market over the next 10 years, the value of the carbon market is not a cost to taxpayers. It is like saying that the value of the electricity market is a cost to taxpayers and they therefore know that the value of a market as one concept does not equal a direct impost on taxpayers. What he has deliberately done is mix apples with oranges. That is the heart of the big con. It is at the very centre of the climate con job which he has tried to put forward to the Australian people. Bit by bit, tile by tile, as each day passes, it starts to crumble into a total lack of credibility.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask that the Prime Minister table the Treasury documents from which he was quoting.

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

Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document?

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

Consistent with my previous answer, yes.

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

Was the document confidential?

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

The document was confidential. Consistent with my predecessor’s practice, I will not be tabling it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 201, where the Leader of the Opposition has raised the question of tabling of those documents, I refer you to page 590 of House of Representatives Practice which sets out quite clearly that where it relates to public affairs that document should be tabled and, if it is not because he claims confidentiality, it should be treated like the rule of evidence in court where if the evidence is not placed before the court then it may not be cited by counsel. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that unless the Prime Minister is prepared to put his evidence before the parliament here he is not entitled to quote it.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. There is no point of order and I have acted consistent with past practice about these matters. I think that during the last parliament we clearly established the way in which these things were handled and that is the way in which I am handling them.