Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister about his great big new tax and his proposal to provide fixed levels of compensation based on average price increases, which do not take into account the higher prices paid by regional families for electricity, water, food, groceries, fuel and other essentials. Why does the compensation envisaged overlook the increased costs faced by regional Australian families, particularly those who need to rely on higher costs for heating and cooling their homes in places like Darwin and Launceston?

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

I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. I go first of all to the preface to his question about big taxes. Can I just remind him that the one he is putting forward is three times more expensive than what the government has put forward. Furthermore the opposition’s scheme will cost more than $1,000 per household by 2020 on their current numbers, and can I say to those opposite—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Sturt will withdraw. The member for North Sydney may withdraw as well.

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

Mr Speaker, I also said that the Prime Minister lied so I withdraw as well.

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

Order! The member for Dickson on a point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too withdraw for calling him a liar, Mr Speaker.

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

Order! I indicate to the House that the chair’s patience is well and truly tested and I think that, if they reflect upon general behaviour it is not what those that observe us would expect, and I would ask them to try for the last half of today’s question time. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would assist the House if the Prime Minister did not persist in asserting untruths. If the Prime Minister persists in asserting untruths—

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has been here long enough to know that, if he has a problem, he can use other forms of the House to address that problem. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was responding to the Leader of the National Party’s question, the first part of which went to big taxes and the second part of which—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has made an offensive remark and I ask him to withdraw.

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

Order! I did not hear the remark but, as there has been an indication that a remark was made that was offensive, I will seek the cooperation of the minister and ask him to withdraw.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw my suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition should take a swing at somebody.

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

Order! The minister knows that he must withdraw without reservation.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you very, Mr Speaker. Can I say in response to the Leader of the National Party’s question, the first part of which went to the question of big taxes, I simply, as a matter of truth, assert that their proposal costs the taxpayer more than $10 billion—that is what they say. Our proposal costs the taxpayer $3.3 billion. On a matter of fact theirs is three times the cost of the government’s plan.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question is about compensation and the extra cost of heating and cooling in places like Darwin and Launceston.

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

Order! There is no point of order. I hope that the Leader of the National Party, on reflection, will realise that, whether it is on his written script or not, he added words about a description of a tax that have been used during this week. It might have assisted me if I had ruled that part of the question out of order. It is something that I am now considering to make it easier for me as the chair. I indicate to some people that, if they consider the allowances that are made on questions which are outside of the standing orders, they might reflect upon the way they behave in other aspects of question time.

I am in a position where I am trying to implement standing orders that I am on the record as describing in this place, both as Speaker and before being Speaker, as not being a level playing field. If we want to rule out argument and other matter in questions, I am happy to do that. But I think that people should reflect upon what the consequence would be of that. The Prime Minister has the call, he is responding to the question, and I hope that he will be heard in silence.

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

I respond to the Leader of the National Party, whose question did go in two parts: the first was his reference to big taxes and the second was on the question of compensation arrangements.

I was responding to the first one before: by the opposition’s own admission their proposal would cost the taxpayer more than $10 billion. The government’s proposal is $3.3 billion. By definition, it is three times larger.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The second point I would make to the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be getting pretty excited in question time today, is that if they were to be fair dinkum about the actual emissions target then of course the tax burden goes through the absolute roof.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point is relevance. I note from the Practice that of course you cannot compel ministers to answer questions. However, you can note that, as the Prime Minister has decided not to answer the question, you might invite him to sit down and admit he will not answer it.

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

I think I have ruled on this aspect when raised by the Leader of the National Party. The Prime Minister is responding to the totality of the question. It may not have been what the Leader of the National Party intended as the main point of his question, but the Prime Minister is responding.

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