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 her weekend statement 'There will be no carbon tax on petrol under the government I lead.' Why is this statement any more believable than her pre-election statement 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' especially as Senator Bob Brown has said that a carbon tax on petrol is inevitable?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the Leader of the Opposition I say: there is a little edge of desperation about all of this, isn't there? The Leader of the Opposition has been caught out misleading the Australian community. He has been here in Parliament House and right around the nation claiming to anyone who will listen that carbon pricing will apply to petrol at petrol bowsers—that families or small businesses going to fill up the tank will be paying a carbon price on the petrol they put in their motor vehicles. He said it here in parliament and he said it around the nation.

The decent thing for the Leader of the Opposition to do today would be to ackn­owledge that he was wrong, to acknowledge that he went out of his way, with no facts and no truthfulness, to try to scare the Australian people. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, having been caught out once, is unlikely to do the decent thing. Instead, he will be trying to move his scare campaign to the next stage. I anticipate that over the coming weeks we will hear more and more ridiculous scares from the Leader of the Opposition. I say to Australians who hear these words of fear from the Leader of the Opposition: he was dead wrong about petrol, and every word he says over the next few weeks, with his next round of scare campaigns, will be dead wrong as well. Petrol is not in the carbon-pricing scheme. It will not have a carbon price applied to it now or in the future.

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

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement this morning on the doors, by the member for La Trobe, who said: 'Fantastic news! The carbon tax won't apply to petrol.' I ask the Prime Minister: wouldn't it be better if there were no carbon tax at all on anything?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition. On this side of the parliament we believe climate change is real. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is in denial. On this side of the parliament we respect the words of scientists. We understand that the Liberal Party in the modern age is attracted to vilifying scientists. On this side of the parliament we listen to the words of economists, who say that the most efficient way of tackling climate change and cutting carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is his business to insult Australian economists. Consequently, led by the science and led by the views of economists, we on this side of the House believe, if you are going to effectively tackle climate change, you must—

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. It was a simple enough question. If exempting petrol is fantastic news, wouldn't it be more fantastic to exempt everything and not have a carbon tax at all? The answer should be directly relevant to the question.

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

The question is being responded to. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you care about tackling climate change in the most efficient way, then you are for putting a price on carbon. In terms of the comparisons between the government's view and the opposition's view—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

The member for Sturt will withdraw.

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

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side of the House are for putting a price on carbon. We are for assisting families. We will assist families with tax cuts, with increases in payments and by not having the carbon price apply to petrol. The alternative—because the Leader of the Opposition asked me about alternatives—is to go for his plan, which will not work and will cost Australian families $720 per year. If we are going to look at alternatives, a price on polluters—$720 a year coming straight from families—then the comparison gives the Leader of the Opposition the answer to his question. We are for doing this the most efficient way with the most assistance to families; he is for doing it the most ineffective way and ripping $720 per year off families.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's plan to take action on climate change through pricing carbon and an ETS see lower carbon pollution, more tax cuts and assistance for families and pensioners, including through the treatment of petrol? What are the facts around the treatment of petrol and how have these been received?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for that wonderfully perceptive question and I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of her community in this place. Soon we will be in a position to announce full details of the carbon-pricing package which, as a Labor government, we have been working hard on. We have been working hard, as a Labor government, in order to tackle climate change—a huge challenge for our nation's future. As we have gone about the challenge of tackling climate change and cutting carbon pollution, we have done it guided by our Labor values. Guided by our Labor values, we have been working to ensure that nine out of 10 households get assistance through tax cuts or payment increases or a combination of both, that the vast majority of those households will not pay a cent as a result of pricing carbon and that more than three million low-income households will get the benefit of a 20 per cent buffer. We know that their budgets are tight and we want to make sure that, in tight budgets, they have 20 per cent of reassurance, that they have been assisted above and beyond the impact of a carbon price.

We also have wanted to take the decision to not put a carbon price on petrol because we understand that, in many parts of the country, people have got no choice but to get into their car and to drive their car to get places. It is true of the outer urban electorate that I represent, it is true of the outer urban electorate that the member for La Trobe represents and it is true of country and regional Australia, as represented in this place by so many good Labor members. For example, last week I was with the member for Lingiari, a place where you have got no alternative but to jump in your car and drive. So we have determined that, because of the needs of families in outer urban places and in regional Australia, there should not be a carbon price on petrol. I also thank the member for New England for his advocacy on behalf of regional Australia and his community as we have gone about pricing carbon. We have done it in a Labor way, and doing it in a Labor way means that we should look at the alternatives that are being advocated in this place. Unfortunately, the alternative is a $720 per year direct slug on families. The Liberal party's position was not always like this.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

The member for Bradfield is warned.

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

The member for Cowan will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Cowan then left the chamber.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the parliament to this report of the former Howard government on emissions trading—the emissions trading scheme the former Howard government wanted to introduce and which, if it had introduced it as heralded by this report, would have started on 1 July this year. That emissions trading scheme of the Howard government would have had a carbon price on petrol. That is, the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister in a government that would have put a carbon price on petrol from 1 July this year. That is the truth from this report.

Instead, the Leader of the Opposition has been out trying to scare Australian families. It is time for him to do the decent thing, to go back to Queanbeyan and to say to the people at the fresh food market that he was wrong when he said to them that petrol would go up, to go back to Moorebank and say to the community there that he was wrong when he said that petrol would go up. He should stand at the dispatch box and say in this parliament that he was wrong when he said petrol would go up. That would be the decent thing to do. We await to see whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is a decent man who will do it. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her latest promise that the government will exempt petrol from her carbon tax because 'I know what it is like for people to have no choice but to jump in their cars to get places.' Will the Prime Minister now exempt electricity prices from the carbon tax or has she forgotten what it is like for people who have no choice but to turn on their lights, their heaters and their washing machines?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to the member's question I would say this: of course I understand that people use electricity for all sorts of daily household purposes, which is why, as we put a price on carbon, we will assist Australian households. Nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or increases in payments or a combination of both. The vast majority of those households will not see carbon pricing cost them a cent and lower income households will have the benefit of a 20 per cent buffer. It has been referred to in the media as a battler's buffer—that is, they will get 20 per cent more than the impact of carbon pricing on them. I understand that Australian families are struggling with energy bills that have been going up and up without a carbon price. We need to give the electricity generation sector, the distribution sector and the energy sector certainty so that they invest for the future and particularly invest in the clean energy sources of the future.

The member who is showing a concern about cost of living questions may want to think about the alternative. People will see their energy bills go up and the Leader of the Opposition will be ripping $720 a year out of their family budget. That is what the plan of the Leader of the Opposition is: to put a tax on Australian families and give that money to subsidise big polluters. We, on the other hand, are going to cut carbon pollution and tackle climate change by putting a tax on the big polluters, by charging them a price on carbon and using the money raised to assist Australian families who are often struggling to meet big costs like electricity prices. I say to the member he may want to think how his constituents will react to the Leader of the Opposition's plan to rip $720 off them per year.