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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that excluding petrol from her carbon tax will not lead to lower costs for households because abatement that would otherwise have come from the transport sector will have to occur elsewhere and at higher cost?

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

Did you write that, Prime Minister?

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

I would say to the Leader of the House: there is no truth in the rumour I am writing the Leader of the Opposition's questions.

To the Leader of the Opposition let me say this: I made a deliberate choice in designing the scheme that will be announced on Sunday. We are finalising the carbon pricing scheme and it will be announced on Sunday. In designing that scheme I took a deliberate decision that we would design it in a way which was true to our Labor values of assisting households who needed our assistance the most. That is why we are in a position to say that we will be working with Australian households and providing nine out of 10 households with tax cuts, with payment increases or a combination of both.

I also believe it is appropriate not to have householder petrol covered in the scheme. As I have explained to this parliament during the course of this week, I understand what it is like for people to live in communities where, whilst we would wish public transport were better—and we will be working over time to make public transport better—the reality is that members of the community who need to get around really have no choice but to jump in their car. Of course, that is true across country Australia as well, in many of the electorates that Labor members represent as well as the electorates represented by the member for New England and the member for Lyne. So we made a determination that petrol should not be covered in the scheme. I think that is the right thing to do for Australian households.

Yes, that is a design change from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition: pricing carbon in the way we are intending to price it is the most efficient, cost-effective way of cutting carbon pollution. So every choice we have made is about making the greatest change at the least cost.

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

Mr Speaker, a point of order on direct relevance: I asked the Prime Minister to confirm that excluding petrol would not actually lead to lower costs for households, and that is the question she should do her best to answer.

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

The Prime Minister—

Mr Windsor interjecting—

Order! The member for New England should contain his enthusiasm, or whatever he is displaying. The Prime Minister is responding and she knows the obligations on her under the standing orders.

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

I can confirm that petrol will not have a price impact from pricing carbon and consequently petrol will be cheaper than it would otherwise have been if we had put a direct carbon price on petrol. Australian households, despite the fear campaign from the Leader of the Opposition, will not see extra cents per litre when they go and buy petrol as a result of us pricing carbon, so it is good for Australian families and good for Australian households, and I am really quite surprised the Leader of the Opposition would be recommending anything else.

As for costs of abatement throughout the scheme, economists tell us, and of course they are right, that pricing carbon gets you the lowest cost abatement, and that is what the government is determined to do. The Leader of the Opposition, in contrast, is wedded to his grossly inefficient and costly scheme which would give us far higher costs of abatement per tonne, putting an extra burden on Australian families. And we can put a dollar figure on that burden: it is $720 per year.

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

A supplementary question to the Prime Minister: I refer the Prime Minister to this Australian government transport fact sheet dated July 2008, which states:

Excluding petrol would not lead to lower costs for households—to the contrary, any abatement that would otherwise have come from the transport sector will have to occur elsewhere and at higher cost.

I ask: doesn't the Prime Minister's own fact sheet prove that, whatever the spin, Australians will pay more for everything under her carbon tax?

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

What I can confirm for the Leader of the Opposition is that the emissions trading scheme which he helped design when he was in the Howard cabinet had petrol in it. It is also true to say that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme had petrol in it. We have made a different decision in the interests of Australian households to take petrol out and, of course, we will be working to support Australian households, with nine out of 10 households getting the benefits of tax cuts or payment increases. For the Leader of the Opposition, with his so-called professed concern about cost-of-living for Australian households, we stand by nine out of 10 households getting a tax cut or payment increases; the Leader of the Opposition stands for taking that money away, including money which would have been provided to the most at risk in our community. Older Australians with pension increases—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I can understand why the Prime Minister does not want to answer this question but she certainly was not asked anything about the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly she has been caught out and she should simply sit down.

Opposition members: Clean bowled!

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

Order! There will be a few people clean bowled right out of the chamber—except for Western Australians! Again, the Manager of Opposition Business does not help himself by the amount of argument he has in his points of order. I remind the Prime Minister that she must contain her response in a directly relevant manner to the question. I am sure that she is aware of that. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be heard in silence. As we indicated yesterday, it helps if we hear the responses, to know whether they are within the standing orders.

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

I was asked about cost of living and the way in which carbon pricing works for Australian families. I am making the very simple point that the government are intending to provide nine out of 10 households with tax cuts or payment increases. They are the very tax cuts and payment increases that the Leader of the Opposition is determined to claw back from Australian families, from older Australians, from pensioners, from sick Australians on the disability support pension, and from the mums and dads who are supporting kids who need that money in their family payment. The Leader of the Opposition is determined to claw that back and then, having taking those dollars away, to put an additional burden on Australian families of $720 a year. The government have made a different choice: to price carbon in the most efficient way, to assist Australian families with tax cuts and payment increases as we do so and not to put a carbon price directly on petrol.