Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Chifley and the honourable member for Cook proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, the Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Chifley, namely:

The urgent need to provide households with financial relief based on facts surrounding the introduction of a carbon price on July 1.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased the House can consider this matter of public importance. I am also looking forward to the contributions from the member for Moreton and the member for Robertson on this critical issue because we are in the process of taking action on an issue that has been dodged by federal parliaments for successive decades: action on climate change and meeting our international commitment.

It is worth noting that this is an existing bipartisan commitment to meet a medium-term target of reducing emissions by five to 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. Both sides of the House committed to reducing emissions. In doing so, we have sought to do this in a way that will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. To ensure that we target this action to those that are contributing most to pollution, all the money that is raised by bringing in a price on carbon will go to jobs, will go to clean energy, will go to households. We recognise too that a lot of other parts of the world are acting on this critical issue. As much as we structure our plans in a specific way, it is important to note as well that, under the proposals put forward by those opposite, families would actually be worse off and would be required to pay more.

In introducing this price on carbon, I would reinforce the point that, in tackling pollution we are targeting the top 500 polluters. But, along the way, we have admitted and have acknowledged that there will be price impacts. We asked Treasury to model that impact—not to do so on hunches or to work off guesswork but to rely on facts and reality. It was a significant body of work in terms of the modelling that was undertaken by Treasury and, in addition, it was then tested further and refined to ensure that this work, which would form the bedrock of work in relation to other initiatives, would be solid. As I said, this modelling forms the bedrock of our plans to provide thorough household assistance as we transition to a cleaner energy future. It is used to shape the type of assistance that is also provided through our Jobs and Competitiveness Program to help industry in the transition process too. Both measures are vitally important for the people that I am proud to represent and champion in this place—and I will come back to that later.

Let me go back to the modelling. On that modelling alone, it is indicated that the impact on prices and the cost of living will be 0.7 per cent. If you contrast that to other major initiatives—for example, when those opposite were in government and introduced the goods and services tax—bear in mind that we predict prices will move 0.7 per cent as a result of a price on carbon, and when the GST was introduced there was a 2.5 per cent lift in prices.

The 500 polluters that are being targeted are the only ones targeted, which again is worth noting. The myths peddled by those opposite suggest that all businesses will pay—every single small business and all businesses in the country will pay. We have 500 of the biggest polluters targeted and, unlike the imposition of the GST—which effectively turned every small business into a small taxation office—ours will only target 500 of the biggest polluters. Again, prices are predicted to go up 0.7 per cent, and it is worth putting it into context. That is less than a cent for every dollar spent. We have estimated, as a result of that modelling, that the overall impact will be $9.90 per week on average, and the assistance we are providing is $10.10 per week to cover that $9.90 per week impact.

All sorts of claims have been made about what impact putting a price on carbon would have on everyday goods and services. I think it is important, as the matter of public importance suggests, that we base this on fact. It is worth noting and bringing to the House's attention some of the movements. In terms of electricity we have had all sorts of claims made as to what impact this would have. Electricity will be up on average 10 per cent, or $3.30 per week. Gas will be up nine per cent, or $1.50 per week. For fruit and vegetables the average price impact is 10c—that is a 0.4 per cent impact. Rents are the same—a 40c increase, or 0.6 per cent. I have already gone through utilities. Pharmaceuticals will go up less than 10c, or 0.3 per cent. In terms of urban transport we have all sorts of claims about what impact that will have in terms of fuel and prices of urban transport. For urban transport there will be less than a 10c impact. Again, we have all sorts of claims made about the impact on airlines and travel—and I want to come back to that further in this contribution—but the impact is about 30c as a result of putting a price on carbon. So again it is important to get the facts on the record. These are the facts and these are the figures, and we have built our household assistance around these figures.

In terms of that household assistance, families who are receiving family tax benefit part A receive an extra $110 per child, and families on family tax benefit part B receive an extra $69. From July 2013, regular fortnightly or quarterly payments will receive a permanent boost. Pensioners receive an upfront lump sum payment over the next few weeks to help now and over the coming months. Again, it is a fact that single pensioners are receiving about $250 and it is a fact that pensioner couples will receive about $380 combined. We will deliver another permanent boost to regular pension payments from March next year. So, overall, singles will get about $338 a year and couples an extra $510. That is on top of the increases we have already delivered. For example, a single pensioner on the maximum rate is now $4,000 a year better off because of what we are doing.

For workers, from July everyone earning less than $80,000 will receive a tax cut, and for most people that tax cut is worth about $300 a year. We are also—and this is a tremendous boost for a lot of workers—tripling the tax-free threshold to $18,200. So, if you are a part-time worker earning $25,000, you are going to have an extra $500 in your pocket every year, and if you earn less than $18,200 a year you will not be paying any tax at all—none, zip, nothing. Self-funded retirees who hold a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card receive an upfront lump sum payment in June to help now and over the coming months. Those are just some of the impacts.

There are around 65,000 taxpayers who live in Chifley—in the suburbs of Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill, Blacktown and Marsden Park—and around 58,000 will receive a tax cut. Out of those 58,000, 49,000 receive a tax cut of at least $300. In total, more than 52,700 people in the electorate I am proud to represent in this place will receive household assistance through income support payments. More than 19,000 will receive extra cash through their family assistance payments. This means, for example, that a typical family with a household income of about $75,000 a year, with two kids in school—and with a price impact of about $549 a year as a result of a carbon price—will, through what we are doing on family tax payments and tax cuts, receive an extra $1,179 a year. They will be $630 better off.

These are facts. This is reality. That is what we are doing: lifting payments, cutting taxes, boosting pensions and lifting the tax-free threshold. The response of those opposite is: extra payments gone; taxes back up; pensions reduced; and the tax-free threshold lowered. A million people will benefit from our lowering of the tax-free threshold—60 per cent of them women. Hundreds of thousands of young people will benefit from that move. As I reflected in the House last week, imagine a political party going to those young people and saying, 'We will actually make you pay more tax so we can cut tax for the wealthiest in this country. 'It is a ridiculous proposition, but it is actually reality because that is what those opposite are saying. This is fact. This is what they said they would do. And what else have they done? Not only have they said they would take away the things we support or we are proposing to do, they are also out there pumping mistruths, peddling myths and relying on fear. Sure, fear gets you someplace fast, but it does not get you very far. At some point, once you have scared people, you have to come up with a solution. And if you are going to meet that bipartisan target that both sides committed to, the solution cannot be the biggest tree-planting program in the country. They have told whoppers—no-one can accuse them of a lack of imagination! We have had the Leader of the Opposition saying that the price rise and the effects of the carbon price will be unimaginable, but he himself has been quite imaginative in making up all sorts of myths about its impact. At some point, he has to stop the self-delusion and get with the reality—not say, again, that the price rises will be unimaginable. Listen to some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition has said:

This will destroy the steel industry, the cement industry, the aluminium industry, the motor industry. It will be, over time, the death of heavy manufacturing in Australia.

Anthony Abbott has morphed into Anthony Robbins, the biggest and greatest motivator of people in this country! Anything that he touches—anything that he turns up to—dies! Apparently, he can go to Whyalla and say, 'We had the AWU in South Australia just today predict Whyalla and Port Pirie would be wiped off the map'. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said: wiped off the map. How does he propose to be the leader of this country and go around the country saying to people that their town will be wiped off the map? It sounds more like a disaster movie—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll all be rooned!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, rooned indeed. Thank you, Chief Government Whip. It is worth noting some of the other myths. I said before that one result of the price on carbon will be to add 0.7 per cent to the costs of living. State-based regulators have confirmed key aspects of that forecast. The Treasury analysis said that electricity prices will be up by 10 per cent. The New South Wales pricing regulator, IPART, confirmed that electricity prices would rise by $3.30 per week. IPART also said the impact on council rates would be 0.4 per cent less than under Treasury modelling. Those opposite have been saying all sorts of things about what the impact would be. It is quite astounding, when you match the reality against the myth, to see what will really be the case.

We have had all sorts of claims made about what effect the carbon price will have on councils. IPART and the New South Wales Minister for Local Government confirm that council rates will rise 0.4 per cent as a result of the carbon price. For average households, how much does that add per week? When it is applied to council rates, 0.4 per cent is just six cents a week—that is all that it will lead to. This has been an incredible attempt to spread fear about the carbon price. The New South Wales government has now confirmed the Treasury forecast, and after all that modelling and all the work that we have done, we are in a position to be able to provide facts instead of the fear that has been provided by those opposite.

What about some of the other claims that we have had? We have had the member for Wide Bay, who at some point is actually going to ask the member for Grayndler a portfolio-related question—

Mr Jenkins interjecting—

You are right, the member for Scullin, it is highly unlikely, but we live in hope. Let us look at the impact on flights. Virgin, for example, has announced that on most flights it will only add $1.50. We had a scare campaign yesterday by those opposite, who said that aviation would be doomed—and rooned—yet we have had Rex put out a release for their 2011 full year results which quotes its Executive Chairman, Lim Kim Hai, as saying:

I am actually more optimistic and confident of the outlook and potential of the Rex Group than I have ever been for the past nine years.

And what about the claims in relation to Brindabella where—and I have never seen this before—we had the shadow Treasurer going to table a document, then folding the document in half, tearing it and handing up the convenient part but leaving out the inconvenient part. These are improvements to the House practice that I have been happy to see as a new member!

It is important, as the MPI states, to rely on fact instead of fiction. It is incumbent on those opposite to not only demonstrate exactly what they intend to do but also, importantly, to represent properly what impact this will have. As well as rate rises, they have talked about the cost of landfills and how that would be affected. The biggest move in relation to increases in landfill costs has come as a result of the waste management levies in New South Wales, not as a result of anything to do with the carbon price.

We have taken action on an issue affecting the nation. In the past, we have had delay—governments have delayed, deferred action on this and put it in the too-hard basket. We have acted. Those opposite agree that we need to act. It is a bipartisan target. It is time to get to work, instead of wilting under the pressure.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Those 11 words—there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead—will haunt this Prime Minister for the rest of this year, for the rest of this parliament and for the rest of her term while she remains in this place. That is because there has been no more blatant refusal to confront the truth than her reversal of this promise that she made to the Australian people prior to the last election: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

This Prime Minister—and her Treasurer—on more than one occasion went to the Australian people prior to the last election and made a solemn promise to every Australian that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. And why did she do that? She knew then that the polls were so close and that the carbon tax was so on the nose with the Australian people that she had to come forth and say on national television and to the national media—to be beamed into every lounge room in Australia—that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. That is the promise that this Prime Minister made to the Australian people. And that is the promise that she ripped up in doing a deal to maintain her seat in The Lodge and to maintain her seat here at the despatch box in this parliament. In other words, in order to retain her position as the Prime Minister of Australia, she ripped up a solemn promise that she made on a number of occasions to the people of Australia. What would the government have us believe? Let us nail the lie at the heart of this issue. The government and the honourable member for Chifley, who is not such a bad bloke although he is part of this dysfunctional government—he has not been here that long, so I suppose he cannot be blamed for all of their ills—in this motion before the House speak of the 'urgent need to provide households with financial relief'. Why is there an urgent need to provide Australian households with financial relief? Because the government have been saying, if you listen to them, day after day, hour after hour—we heard it again in question time today—that this tax will only be imposed on 500 companies, the 500 biggest polluters in Australia. The government has been saying that ad nauseam. Hardly anybody in this country would not have heard the government's claim that this tax will only be imposed on the 500 biggest emitters—the 500 biggest companies, to put it in other words. If that is the case, if only the 500 biggest emitters are going to have the imposition of this carbon tax upon them, if only those companies are going to be met with the cost, why is there an urgent need to provide households with financial relief? This nails the lie at the heart of this government's campaign.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bells the cat.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bells the cat, as my honourable colleague says. The reality is that urgent relief is being provided because of the carbon tax. If you have been listening to the radio or watching the television you could hardly not have noticed the ads about the household assistance package. Let me read the transcript: 'Soon millions of Australians receiving government payments will get additional help with their everyday expenses. An initial payment will automatically appear on your bank account from May 2012. It is the first part of the Australian government's household assistance package. This extra assistance will become a regular part of your government payment between March next year and early 2014. For more information …' Why is this required? If the imposition of this tax is only on 500 companies, why is urgent assistance needed for Australian families? If that were the case, it would not be needed. As I said, this is the lie at the heart of this policy proposal.

Everybody knows that when a tax is imposed upon a company, that company will seek to pass on that tax to the purchasers of goods and services from that company. Where they can do it, they will pass on that tax. Where they cannot do it, they will have to try and downsize or cut their costs in other ways. One of the consequences of that would be a loss of jobs in this country, and we are seeing that already. Where those companies are in an internationally competitive position, competing with other companies producing goods or services in overseas countries that do not have this tax, then something has to give so far as the companies are concerned. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about business, anybody who knows the faintest thing about how taxation works, anybody who has had to balance their own family books, let alone the books of a small business, knows that when there is an additional imposition by way of an additional cost for the business—which this tax is—that has to be passed on in some way, otherwise something has to give within the business.

Do you think that this government will come out and honesty admit to that truth? No, they will not. This increasingly dysfunctional government, led by the chaotic Prime Minister and her office, will not come clean with the Australian people. If they honestly believe that they need a carbon tax, they should say, 'Yes, we need a carbon tax and it is going to cost you.' Why don't they have the guts, the courage, to come forward to the Australian people and say that to them? No, they will not. They want to walk both sides of the street: on the one hand this is a tax applied only to 500 companies and on the other hand we need urgent financial assistance for every family in Australia. The reality is those two things do not add up, and anybody who spends a moment thinking about it can see, as I have described it, the lie at the heart of this policy. Yet day after day after day we get the Prime Minister in here pretending that somehow these realities do not work.

Not only that, this tax is so toxic that they cannot mention it in the advertisements on television and on radio. In Senate estimates it was revealed that the focus groups put together to test the best lines in order to present this to the Australian people found that the toxicity of the carbon tax was such that they did not even bother to put it to the focus groups, knowing what the reaction would be. We know that because of reports coming from government backbenchers, they are afraid to doorknock in their own electorates because people will tell them directly what they think about this carbon tax. If my experience is true, they will also say that they want to get rid of this government as quickly as they can. That is the reality so far as this matter is concerned.

We have two worlds here. We have this unreal world of Treasury modelling—we had the honourable member for Chifley telling us about Treasury modelling and the impact of prices—and then we have the real world in which ordinary Australians live. Let me tell you something about the real world in which Australians live. From the December quarter of 2007 to the December quarter of 2011, four years, what has happened in the real world of Australians? Their electricity prices have gone up by 61per cent. That is even without a carbon tax.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right!

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're saying that's fine and you want to do something about the cost-of-living pressures. This is the unreal world that this government lives in. 'That's fine,' interjects the honourable member opposite, a 61 per cent increase in electricity prices. But that is not all. Gas prices have gone up by—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think that the honourable member misheard my comment which was, 'That is right; that is correct.' He is attempting to mislead the parliament with that misrepresentation.

Mr Andrews interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to let you have the call when I give you the call, but until then it is probably better to be silent. The honourable member for Menzies in continuation.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Electricity prices have gone up by 61 per cent. Gas prices over four years have increased on average across Australia by 37 per cent. Water and sewerage rates across Australia have increased by 58 per cent. Petrol prices across Australia are up by eight per cent. Health costs have increased by 20 percent. If you go to the doctor or you need some medical attention, health costs have gone up by 20 per cent across Australia in this government's term. The price of bread has gone up by nine per cent across Australia and the price of food on average has gone up by 13 per cent across Australia in four years. Fruit and vegetables have gone up by 20 per cent and rent, where people do not own their homes, has increased by 25 per cent over the last four years.

We have these two worlds: this totally unreal world that the honourable members opposite are trying to pretend we live in—as if things just go according to whatever Treasury has modelled—and the real world of people who are going to the supermarket, the people who are going to the service station to fill up their car, the people paying for their rent, the people using public transport, the people driving on the freeways—the millions of ordinary Australians and their world. The great English statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, said 150 or so years ago that between two nations there was no connection. At that time he was talking about the rich and the poor. There are two nations here between which there is no connection—between the government and the real people of Australia, because these costs are going up and we have not even got to the carbon tax.

What is the carbon tax going to do to Australians? Just today in question time we had an example of transport. What the government expects of their fuel excise over the next forward estimates is a $920 million increase in revenue. That $920 million is going to get passed on by every transport company that is transporting goods around this country. If we are talking about transport, consider the service station owner who has just tendered out for his electricity under this competitive arrangement and in the tender documents that came back there was a carbon tax component of $13,141. That represented just over 18 per cent on his annual bill, and yet we are being told that it will have only a few dollars impact. This one service station is faced with an 18 per cent increase on what is being projected for the carbon tax.

The City of Sydney will have to collect an additional $921,000 in rates and the cities of Wollongong and Blacktown will need to collect almost half a million dollars extra in rates. If anyone wants to check this, I make this suggestion: ring up your local council and ask them how much are they factoring in for the carbon tax in terms of their expenditure in the next year. I have spoken to my local councils and they are factoring in a very significant amount for what they will have to find. In other words, how much will rates go up because of this carbon tax?

I have mentioned just two things. One is transport costs for every good that is supplied and provided around this country, which flows through to food prices. It flows through to the goods that we buy from the shelves of shops which are usually trucked in from somewhere else around the country, often overnight. The other is the councils. When the street lights are turned on, when the waste is disposed of—all of that attracts a carbon tax. Somehow, these people come in here and pretend that this is not going to have an impact. But, as I said, you cannot be saying it impacts upon only 500 companies in this country and yet come in here with a motion which says there is an urgent need to talk about financial assistance to families—and they are spending $36 million on media advertising to sell this particular proposal—the one in which the carbon tax does not speak its name. It is hidden away in the budget as a nice little line item under the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. That is on top of the $70 million this government is already spending on advertising. It is estimated that this government is spending something like $270,000 per day of Australian taxpayers' money in order to advertise this urgent need to provide financial assistance for something they tell us is not going to affect us.

This is a joke. It comes from a government that is not even a joke. This is a government that is dysfunctional and a Prime Minister who evades questions she is asked here in question time. This is a Prime Minister who told the unionists she was furious about a labour agreement and yet turned around and said she knew nothing about it. This is a totally dysfunctional government. I hope that some of the backbenchers in the Labor Party do go doorknocking, because what they will hear is that Australian people are totally fed up with this government, with the lies, with the dissembling and with the dysfunction. They want some security. It is about time we delivered hope and reward and opportunity to people of Australia and that will only come by having an election.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It pains me in a way to follow the member for Menzies, who I used to share a corridor with and had quite a bit of time for. I was pained because I thought he had actually stolen my speech. When he was talking about the rise in electricity prices of 61 per cent, of water and sewerage by 50 per cent, of gas over the last four years of 37 per cent, I thought he had stolen my speech. It is difficult for me to use exactly the same information in my speech, talking about why we need to provide some relief for families. It is important that we do that in the context of putting in a carbon price on 1 July, because as the member for Menzies—I was going to say passionately—so vociferously put it—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eloquently.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't take that interjection. There are a lot of families in my electorate and in the member for Menzies's electorate who are doing it tough. In fact, that is why we have been putting money into the member for Menzies's electorate. In Menzies 6,000 families have received extra money over the last few weeks—more than $1 million for his families going into his communities that can then be spent as his electors see fit. There are 17,000 pensioners in Menzies who are receiving more than $3½ million that will then circulate through those communities, through those community organisations, through those clubs, through the business, all because of the Gillard government's commitment to look after those people who are doing it a bit tough. So if the member for Menzies wants to tell his 6,000 families that he wants to vote no to that money, if he wants to tell those 17,000 pensioners in his own electorate that they do not deserve this extra support in that context of rising electricity prices, he will have some explaining to do. My understanding is that the Commonwealth government does not actually own any power stations and it does not actually deliver any power to people. That is the business of state governments and private enterprises. We do not own any gas-fired power stations delivering electricity, or even any water plants.

But I do understand that when I go around my electorate, when I doorknock, when I talk to people at community functions about the mining boom and how great things are, the people in my electorate say, 'There might be a mining boom on but I am not experiencing it. There might be a guy down the street who works in the mining industry who is getting a new back deck and a new car, but I am not experiencing that.' You talk to builders and they say, 'If you do renovations and you are not building for someone in the mining sector, you are not building.' It is as simple as that. The reality is that it is a two-speed economy. If you are working in the tourism sector in Queensland, you know how tough it is. You go to places like Cairns where there is unemployment north of 14 per cent and you understand that there are households throughout Australia particularly in the patchy parts that need support.

But let us go back a bit and put the overall context for Australia. Let us remember the underlying facts here. We have a triple-A rating from all ratings agencies for the first time in Australia's history. Forget the doom and gloom, the jeremiah ads and the Hanrahans opposite; the reality is that we have got a triple-A rating. The rest of the world, the IMF and the World Bank included, say, 'Australia you are doing great!' It is admitted by those opposite when they are overseas. When they are overseas they say, 'Yes, we have got serious bragging rights. We have got a healthy economy. Things are going well.'

Imagine that conversation with the Spaniards where they have got youth unemployment nudging 50 per cent. Our overall unemployment has got a four in front of it—4.9 per cent. Sure, our cash rate compared to the rest of the world is a little bit different—we have still got a lot of room to manoeuvre—but it is significantly better at 3.75 per cent now than the 6.75 per cent it was one we came to power. The average family with a mortgage is $3,000 better off. The member for North Sydney, with his mortgage, a loan that he forgot to declare—and I think I have some information on his mortgage here; it was written up in the paper as $710,000—is about $7,000 better off per year, thanks to the policies of the Gillard Labor government.

We have got great investment pipelines of half a trillion dollars—and that is a term that you do not see used very often—of development and manufacturing and the like, particularly in mining, coming towards Australia. Retail sales figures came out today—and obviously things could be a bit better there. The balance of trade is the best it has ever been in the history of Australia. There is a bit more work to be done in productivity, but hopefully with some innovations and post the Queensland floods we will see productivity start to head in the right direction, particularly with the NBN. Obviously, that will be an advance in the future, with jobs of the future being via the NBN.

That puts the overall context of what Australia is like, but obviously we do need to do a lot to help households. So how are we doing it? For a start, we say yes to giving money to parents who have school kids, the 1.7 million Australians who have kids in school. There are people in the chamber who have children at school and they know how much this would be appreciated—not that they will be receiving this money. For primary school students it will be $410 each and for secondary students it will be $820 each. If you are a normal family with two or three kids, right now receiving that money will be of great benefit.

For families, if you are receiving family tax benefit part A, there will be $110 extra per child. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said no. Families receiving family tax benefit part B get $69 extra. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? No. The 3.2 million pensioners will receive upfront lump-sum payments—a lot of them right now and over the coming months in my electorate will receive the money. If they are singles, they will receive $250; if they are couples, they will receive $380 combined. Again, in March next year there will be a permanent boost to their pension payments. So, overall, the singles will receive $338 extra a year, and couples $510 extra a year. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said, 'We will claw that back. We will take that back.' He said no. So a single pensioner on the maximum rate is now $4,000 better off because of this Labor government.

Let us not forget the workers, the seven million Australians who in 31 days time will receive a tax cut. Everyone earning less than $80,000 will receive a tax cut. For most people it will be $300 a year—not to be sneezed at—but, if you are one of the lower-paid people, we are going to triple the tax-free threshold. It is a great thing to do. I thought the party of Menzies and the like would be in favour of tax cuts, but instead the Leader of the Opposition said no.

As for part-time workers, if they are earning $25,000, they will have an extra $500 in their pocket every year, and they will have that in the first week or so of July. When they go to the shops they will have more money in their pocket, more money in their wallet, from the very first pay packet. And, remember, if they earn less than $18,200, they will pay no tax at all.

Self-funded retirees—a very vocal group in my community who make sure that I know their concerns—who receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, will also receive an upfront lump-sum payment in June to help over the coming time, because, as we do admit, the pricing signals associated with this pricing pollution will have an impact on people. We are trying to change behaviour. That is why there will be an impact. But they too will receive $250 as part of the seniors supplement. Obviously, the low-income households on $30,000 a year or a couple earning less than $45,000 a year could be eligible for a yearly lump-sum payment of $300.

In question time today, mention was made of an article in the West Australian by one of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues, questioning his negativity, his ability to say no, no, no all the time. There was even a suggestion that some of his colleagues want to rehabilitate him in terms of his inclination to say no. Obviously that would be a very big project and obviously they have started that process. They tried to make him go to rehab but he said, 'No, no, no.' That is what he said. He was not even able to say yes to the pensioners in his electorate, yes to the families in his electorate, yes to the people in the low-income households in his electorate, or yes to the pensioners who need this $250 to $380 to help them with cost-of-living pressures. Instead, he relies on no.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on this matter of public importance. It asks us to discuss the facts about the carbon tax. We on this side of the House are very happy about the facts about the carbon tax. In fact, we will talk about them day in, day out right up until the next election and beyond. The first fact we should know about the carbon tax is that it was introduced based on a lie. Every single one of us in this House, with the exception of the few Independents, went to the election in 2010 saying that we would not introduce a carbon tax if we were elected to this parliament. That was every single member on this side of the House and every member on that side of the House.

The Prime Minister famously said a few days before the last election that, if she was elected Prime Minister, there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. It will be a statement that will follow her until the end of her political time in this parliament because that is the basis of the lie. This is the first fact that we need to discuss whenever we discuss the facts about the carbon tax.

The second fact that we should be discussing about the carbon tax is that it will have enormous economic pain on this nation at a time when we can least afford it. It will have pain in at least two ways. It will have pain by putting upward pressure on the cost of living and it will cause pain with job losses across the community. Let me address that first one about putting upward pressure on the cost of living for everyday families. You just have to look at the government's own figures. They have tabled the modelling to which the member for Chifley referred, and that modelling itself says that the carbon tax will cause electricity prices to increase by 10 per cent in the first year alone. That modelling says that it will cause gas prices to increase by nine per cent in the first year alone.

There is modelling from other independent agencies that say it will cause Australian made motor vehicles to increase in price by $400. There is modelling by the Master Builders Association that says that it will increase the cost of a newly built house in Australia by $5,000. We know of other modelling that says that rates will go up by at least one to 1½ per cent. In my own electorate, which covers most of the Knox municipality, they have already made the decision to increase rates by $1½ million for the residents of Knox due to the carbon tax. That is a 1½ per cent increase on the rates for every single residence across my electorate.

These price increases are when the carbon tax is at $23 per tonne in the first year. But we know that the carbon tax is legislated to increase to $29 per tonne by 2016 and that it is forecast to go up to $37 per tonne by 2020 and then up to an incredible $350 per tonne by 2050. We talk about the price impact today on electricity, on gas, on rates, on house prices and on motor vehicles, but what about when it gets to $29 or $37 or up to $350? The prices will just continue to go up and up and up and up. The previous speaker, the member for Moreton, said the whole point of this was to put up prices. That is the whole point of the carbon tax regime. It is actually to put up prices. At least the Prime Minister had the honesty to admit this when, back at the beginning of 2011, she said:

I want to be very clear with Australians about what pricing carbon does. It has price impacts, it's meant to—that's the whole point.

That is exactly right. It is the whole point that it puts prices up and these prices will go up across the board and they will continue to go up as the carbon tax goes up from $23 per tonne right up to $350 per tonne by 2050.

I mentioned the impact on jobs. We have also had some economic modelling done by the Treasury departments in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and elsewhere. In Queensland, under Anna Bligh's premiership, they did some modelling and said that the carbon tax would cost Queensland 21,000 jobs. In Victoria it would be 23,000 jobs according to the Victorian Treasury modelling. In New South Wales it would be 31,000 jobs.

Let us have a look at the government's own modelling and the aluminium industry figures in the government's package, which says that the impact of the carbon tax will halve the aluminium industry. But, in the government's own figures, perhaps the most astounding number of them all—and the government does not like to talk about this—is that between now and 2050 the carbon tax will decrease our GDP by $1 trillion between now and 2050. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of a whole year's worth of economic output between now and 2050. So, for every single Australian between now and 2050, one of your year's of work will just disappear because of the impact of the carbon tax. To suggest that it will not have any impact on jobs to lose a year's worth of output is, frankly, preposterous. But it is right there in the government's numbers.

Let me go to the third fact. I have pointed out the first fact about it being based on a lie and I have discussed the second fact about it having a tremendous economic impact in relation to cost-of-living pressures and jobs. The third fact in relation to the carbon tax is that the compensation will be insufficient for the carbon tax impact in very many cases. It will certainly be insufficient for all of the other price impacts which this government are having through their various other policies.

We know, for example, that, in their own words, at least 40 per cent of Australians will be worse off as a result of this carbon tax package. That includes, for example, a person who might be earning $90,000 as an electrician and who is married to somebody who is earning $30,000 as a part-time retail assistant. A family with those incomes would receive $306 in compensation, according to the government, but would be hit by $681 by the carbon tax—that is, they would be $375 worse off each and every year. And this, of course, is reliant upon the government modelling being accurate, when we know that in previous years the government's forecasts have been far from accurate. Two years ago they said that this year's deficit was going to be $12 billion and, of course, it has ended up being $45 billion. So we question whether that modelling will be correct.

There are, of course, an array of other areas where the government is putting upward pressure on prices. It is putting upward pressure on prices through the 22 other taxes which it has introduced in the last four or five years. It has been putting upward pressure on families' cost of living by reducing family tax benefits and eliminating the entrepreneurs tax offset. It is also changing the policy settings in child care, in the private health insurance rebate and in shipping reforms, which makes things more expensive. And, of course, in its macro settings it is making the economy less productive overall. The carbon tax, though, is the worst of it all. To address cost-of-living pressures we must get rid of the carbon tax and we must change this government.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to put on the record that, while the member for Aston has spoken against the assistance that is going to families, for my part, in the seat of Robertson, I actually believe that my families really do want this money. I know that those who have already received it are extremely appreciative of the support from the federal government.

The member for Aston, opposite, has actually just made a speech against 9,000 families in his own electorate. That is 9,000 families that the member for Aston says do not need assistance with the cost of living. Now, I did hear some facts—a few facts—in the speech we have just heard about the real pressure that there is on families. We do acknowledge that there are cost-of-living pressures. That is why we are actually doing something about it and practically helping those people—even the 9,000 families in the member for Aston's seat, whom he seems not to want to help in any way.

Yesterday we started delivering extra money to more than 16,000 pensioners from that same electorate. I am sure that those pensioners will be very, very happy to receive that assistance to help them with cost-of-living pressures. I would like to make a comment about the small businesses in the seat of Aston, which could find that the pressure being taken off local families and off local pensioners actually does something—dare I hope for this—to inspire a little confidence and put a little positivity back into the public place instead of the carping, mindless negativity and the permanent nay-saying—the no, no, no, no—that we get day-in and day-out in this place from the Leader of the Opposition.

So let us get the facts straight—because this is a debate about facts, not hysteria. The member for Aston is telling 9,000 families and 16,000 pensioners in his electorate that they do not deserve extra support to make ends meet. He is telling them that if the coalition parties actually get into government that he and the Leader of the Opposition will rip off them every single cent that they have seen in their accounts this week. That is the fact. There is a very, very big difference between those on the other side—the take-it-away Tories—and the Labor Party, who are actually supporting people who live real lives in real seats like yours and mine, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted to speak today on the urgent need to provide households with financial relief based on facts surrounding the introduction of a carbon price on 1 July, and I very much thank the member for Chifley for putting this matter of public importance on the record. The Gillard government is building a strong economy for all Australians. We are making tough decisions that have to be made when you are in government. Sometimes in my role as a parent I do not always want to make tough decisions but, in the long term, there are moments where you have to make a choice. And we have made decisions that will ensure that we remain the strongest-performing economy in the world.

The facts are that unemployment is very low, inflation is very low and official interest rates are very low. In fact, for the first time in 40 years all of those indicators are under five per cent. That is a definite sign of a very strong economy, an economy in which Australians should have confidence and hope. But, while they are having a bit of trouble with managing the cost of living, we are going to help them—and we are going to do this despite the whimpering, the whining and the wrecking of those opposite. The thing that marks us out as so different from those opposite is that we actually do understand that families and pensioners are feeling the pinch. We understand that the relentless negativity campaign has only served to benefit the few—those on the opposite side who want to whinge day in, day out—while it has hurt business and consumer confidence. There is nothing good about that for businesses in my electorate and there is nothing good about that for ordinary families, pensioners and self-funded retirees in my electorate.

I am very proud to be a member of the Labor Party and the Labor government committed to helping Australians with the reality of cost of living pressures. We stand in stark contrast to those opposite, who assail the public with the same platitudes and negative comments, trash-talking the economy day in and day out. We understand that, by putting a price on carbon, 500 polluters are basically going to pay to put out the trash. That is the sort of trash that we should be paying attention to, not the trash-talking of the opposition. They are polluting, so they are going to pay—500 of them.

We know that businesses do pass on costs. That affects prices. The Treasury has made it very clear that there will be a 0.7 per cent price impact. Let's get this fact straight: we are making polluters pay. Let's get this fact straight: we are helping families in electorates right across this country, even if the members who represent them do not want them to have that money. We know for a fact that families in Robertson, my electorate, and all across the country deserve support. They do not appreciate all these hollow media stunts. We are giving the support—that is a fact. Another fact: how many households are we going to help? Under our clean energy future package, we are actually going to help six million households, who will get their expected average cost increases fully covered by tax cuts or increased payments, or both. The fact is that there will be changes to tax. So, if anybody is listening to this, remember that you will be benefiting from the tripling of the tax-free threshold. That means that one million people will not have to lodge a tax return after 1 July. Eighteen thousand two hundred dollars is what you will be able to earn before you have to pay one cent of tax. Imagine that. Imagine one million Australians not having to fill in a tax return. This is going to improve their lives, not just because, I am sure, they will be happy to not have to undertake that paperwork but because they will have more money in their pay packets every single week.

Let's get another fact on the record. Because of the Labor government's commitment to put a price on carbon, you get to keep every cent you earn up to $18,200. Another fact: in Robertson I have about 56,000 people who pay tax and about 47,000 of those taxpayers in my electorate are going to receive a tax cut. Of that 47,000, at least 38,000 will receive a tax cut of at least $300. I know that right now probably some mums and dads are on the Central Coast driving around, taking kids to sport—to soccer or AFL, with the Tigers at West Gosford—or maybe they are going to dancing lessons at Erina. One of the things that they will be thinking about is how they are going to make ends meet. They can be assured. The fact is that money is going into their accounts to assist them with the cost of living. Mums and dads who are returning to part-time work after the birth of a child and people who might be semi-retired and still want to work are going to have the factual advantage of money in their pocket because of the changes that we are bringing in.

More than 10,600 families in Robertson are going to receive extra cash through their family assistance payments. This will absolutely make sure that families on the Central Coast will be able to manage their family budgets. We want to take a bit of pressure off the family. We want to give families the best chance to get a good start in life. So we are helping them. That is a fact. Right across the country we are helping them. One point six million families are going to get assistance because of the price on carbon. If families get family tax benefit A, they will get $110 per child. If they get family tax benefit B, they will get $69 per child. In fact, most of the families in my electorate have already received that.

What have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition? He is going to get rid of the carbon price. He says that loudly, but do you know what? We do not hear that, when he does that, he is going to put his hand into the pockets of these millions of families and take away all of the assistance that we are giving them. We are going to see a massive impact if that comes to be, not only through a lack of vision for our country but through a real, practical, negative impact on people in the electorate of Robertson and right around this country.

We know that a price on carbon is the right thing to do. It is a tough thing to do, but it builds a future for this nation that gives us a strong economic base. We absolutely understand, as the member for Chifley stated in his matter of public importance today, that we need to deal in fact, and the fact is: families need assistance with the cost of living and we are delivering that. The fact is in their bank balances right now.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a word which must never be spoken in this place whenever Labor refers to carbon pricing. It is the word 'tax'. I call on those opposite to just once call this insidious policy what it is: a tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. In the days after the 2010 election, Julia Gillard gleefully shrilled, 'Let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in.' She was talking about the openness of government and the importance of Australians being fully informed about the decisions of their parliament and the government of the day. She said Labor was a party of truth tellers. If this rhetoric—this hyperbole, as she would probably call it—applies to anything, it should include the impact of the decision by the Prime Minister to introduce a carbon tax. Just five days out from the election, she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The Prime Minister has already broken that 16 August promise, that there would be no carbon tax, but this is no reason for us not to let the sun shine in by ensuring that all Australians understand the full impact of the carbon tax.

I point out the very wording of this matter of public importance. It talks about 'the urgent need to provide households with financial relief based on facts surrounding the introduction of a carbon tax on July 1'—a carbon price, sorry. I have used the word 'tax'. The member for Chifley would not use the word 'tax', but that is what it is. If there is such an urgent need to provide households with financial relief, why bring it in in the first place? Why burden families, farmers, businesses—ordinary, everyday hardworking Australians—with a tax the Prime Minister said, five days before the election, that she would not introduce?

But we all know that this government likes to tax. The regulator in New South Wales has confirmed that, thanks largely to the carbon tax, families and businesses will pay an average 16 per cent more on their electricity bills, adding between $182 and $381 to the average household bill. The federal government knows businesses will pass these extra costs on to their customers—you, me and all other Australians. The government claims to be compensating Australians with additional compensation but even its own modelling shows that millions of households will be worse off. The best way for citizens to know whether or not they are getting enough compensation is to ensure transparency—a word those opposite probably do not know the meaning of—in the price rises the people of Australia are going to be hit with. But there is nothing transparent about this government.

Their latest compensation for the carbon tax is nothing but a con. This is a carbon tax Australians did not vote for. Hardly anybody in this place voted for it. The member for Melbourne certainly came to the election with a view that a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme—call it what you like—was necessary. I often hear the member for Lyne grumbling behind me and saying, 'It's not just the member for Melbourne.' Maybe he too was in support of it. That is two out of 150 representatives in this place. The rest of us were against it. The rest of us went to the people at the election saying that there would not be a carbon tax under the government we were in. The regional independents have sold out their constituencies by siding with Labor and the Greens and propped up the government. On 24 February 2011 we had that awful press conference where Senator Bob Brown, the Greens leader and quasi-Prime Minister at the time, almost shouldered Prime Minister Gillard out of the way and proudly announced that there was going to be a price on carbon—a tax.

Labor can try to make itself feel better about the burden it is placing on Australia through the introduction of this tax but it should not. Every Labor member—members who claim to represent the disadvantaged members of society and some who even claim to represent regional areas—should be ashamed of the cost they are lumping on everyday, ordinary Australians. They are making people disadvantaged. The best way—in fact, the only way—to ensure that Australians are not crippled by this terrible, insidious tax is to scrap it. The claim that this compensation will assist Australians with the financial pressure they will feel under a carbon tax is sheer nonsense. It is a ridiculous money-go-round. It is wealth redistribution by any other name. Many dual-income families will be worse off once they reach the typical income of a school teacher and a shop assistant or that of a policeman and a part-time nurse. Self-funded retirees who do not qualify for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, including all those under the age of 65, will receive nothing. For what? It is not going to reduce the sea levels or change the shoreline by so much as a millimetre. It is not going to drop global temperatures by so much as a degree. It is just a nonsense. The longer this tax is in place, the worse the consequences will be for the economy, jobs, families and, certainly, regional Australia. The compensation simply will not be enough to outweigh the extra costs Australians will be hit with.

Australia will pay the carbon tax through higher electricity prices. The member for Robertson talked about people who would be driving their kids to sport—and they would be. In her electorate of Robertson they would also be driving them to dancing practice and those sorts of things. The member for Robertson represents an area which is under 1,000 square kilometres. My area, the Riverina, is over 60,000 square kilometres and I know that people in my area are going to be paying this carbon tax through the petrol bowser, as will the people in the member for Robertson's electorate. When people travel for sport, dancing classes and all those sorts of things in the Riverina it is not just a little drive down the road. Sometimes it takes hours to get from point A to point B to have a game of footy for the kids or dancing competitions for those young ones who enjoy it. Unfortunately, those young ones who enjoy their footy and their dancing may well not be able to do that, because for some families the cost pressures will be too high.

This carbon tax is going to be paid for by everybody: through the power point, the bowser and—certainly in Wagga Wagga, Coolamon shire and Griffith—through their rates, because their rubbish tips are deemed to be over that threshold limit of 25,000 tonnes. Following this year's deferment by the Treasurer, they are eventually going to be forced to pay a carbon tax through their rates. That is just totally ridiculous. I could do no better than to quote an article from the Daily Advertiser, Wagga's local newspaper. They have called for heavy polluters to be punished, not everyone. As the Daily Advertiser quite rightly pointed out, it is just a load of rot that the local ratepayers are going to be forced to pay a carbon tax because they have to take rubbish to their tip. Wagga Wagga City Council is now going to be put right up there with Orica, BHP Billiton, Xstrata and the rest as one of Australia's biggest polluters. When you think about it, those companies that I mentioned are not 'biggest polluters'—they are job creators. They are taking jobs to the people, taking resources out of the ground and creating wealth for this country, and they are being hammered by the government over there which is only interested in creating class warfare that is not needed.

Recently, Wagga's annual emissions were reduced to 28,000 tonnes per year. This is good news for Wagga because, instead of having to pay over a million dollars in proposed carbon tax payments, they are only going to have to pay $660,000 in the year after next. That is $660,000 that will not be spent on fixing potholes, on children's playground equipment or on libraries. That is ridiculous. As Tim Blair pointed out on Monday 14 May in the Daily Telegraph:

One tonne of rubbish, according to the government, generates one tonne of carbon tax windfall gas. You might want to ask your own council how many tonnes of rubbish it's piling up every year. If the amount is close to the 25,000 tonne tax threshold, you'd actually be doing the council a favour by throwing your old mattresses and televisions in the river. Dump car bodies in the scrub and save the town library.

Is that what we want from this government which purports to be so environmentally friendly? Is that what we want from this government which is cobbled together by the Greens here in the lower house and definitely in the upper house, where they are led by the nose by Christine Milne and all the rest, and Adam Bandt? It is a disgrace that we have to have a carbon tax when the Prime Minister said five days out from the election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. It is an absolute con. It is a disgrace, and those members opposite know it.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on this matter of public importance because I think the public does have a right to know exactly what is going on here. What we know is that this government is being very coy with the facts. Let us remember it was this Prime Minister who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—a solemn promise that she made to all Australians at the last election. Here we have less than a month until we have a carbon tax. This is a government that is spending $270,000 a day—$36 million—on advertisements about the carbon tax. It talks about the cash bribes but does not actually mention what they are about, but the public knows it is all about the world's biggest carbon tax, Labor's toxic carbon tax.

Everyone knows that Labor's toxic carbon tax will cascade right through the economy, and that is why Labor are desperately out there spending up and calling it compensation. Despite Labor's lie that only the big emitters will pay the price, the cost of virtually everything will go up and up and up. We know it is not just the big emitters; it is everyday Australians who will pay the price for the carbon tax. Like many Australians, I am very concerned about the increases in electricity, petrol prices and the council rate increases that Territorians and, indeed, all Australians will face from 1 July because of the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax, which will cause us to have the world's highest electricity prices.

Australian household electricity prices have already increased by 40 per cent since 2007 and are predicted to go up by at least another 10 per cent in the first year of the carbon tax. Fact No. 1: Territorians will be slugged more for electricity because Power and Water, our only electricity provider, was included on the carbon tax hit list. It is considered one of Australia's biggest polluters, providing electricity to 200,000 plus people. From 1 July Territory families will be slugged on average an extra $2.61 a week for electricity under the carbon tax. Territorians will clearly be worse off under the carbon tax, and the carbon tax compensation being handed out will not be enough for many families.

The government's own figures indicate that thousands of Territorian households will be worse off under the carbon tax. Their own figures indicate that 40 per cent of Australians will not receive compensation. Let me share some examples with you. Tiffany V, a constituent of mine, last week told my staff she received a text message to say that she has had $69.35 paid into her account as part of the household assistance payment. This is her quote: 'Honestly, Labor Party, that tiny amount going in to help with your carbon tax? Stop kidding yourselves.' She then went on to say that her latest power bill jumped by $250, her most expensive bill yet—and the carbon tax is not even there.

We all know that the carbon tax will act as the wrecking ball across the Territory economy and Territorians will be paying for it through increased prices, higher energy bills and pressure on local businesses that are already experiencing high cost of living pressures.

I have spoken in this place many times about petrol and how this carbon tax is a tax on remoteness. Everything in the Northern Territory is freighted in. We are completely and utterly dependent on freight and freight companies. Everything from fruit, veg and general groceries to building materials is transported into the Territory by road, rail or air. There is a lot of this freight that comes in by diesel road trains, and we all know that that will be affected by the carbon tax. This toxic tax is definitely a tax on remoteness.

Do not take my word for it. I have a letter here from Toll, which is putting Territorian customers on notice that freight costs are likely to go up because of the carbon tax. This is not going to be a good thing for Territorians. Our cost of living is already high, and Territorians tell me every day that they do not support a carbon tax. They tell me that a carbon tax will not do anything for the environment. It will only push up cost of living pressures—something that Territorians are already struggling with.

Lyn, another constituent of mine, says she is worried about the electricity and whether she will be able to afford the increase of $2.61 a week under the carbon tax. She is married with no children and will not receive any compensation. I have also heard from Palmerston residents Megan and Scott Smith, who have three children, a mortgage and a dog. They have done the figures, and the carbon tax compensation that they get will not cover their costs. They tell me they already forgo meat on a regular basis because it is too expensive, so any further cost increases will be detrimental to them. Then there are John and Sarah, who are a single-income family with two children under five from the northern suburbs. They have worked out that the compensation simply will not be enough to outweigh the extra costs that they will be hit with. Their household salary is $85,000. Or there is northern suburbs construction worker Clint and his public servant wife. They have one son, a mortgage and two dogs, and they are a typical family. Combined income for them is $130,000 a year, so they are not eligible for any carbon tax compensation. Fishing is their favourite family pastime, but they fear that it may be jeopardised because of the carbon tax and the extra increases in fuel. They do not consider themselves rich; they consider themselves average, hardworking Territorians who want a fair go, and they want to be properly compensated by this government. They do not want a carbon tax.

Every day I am told how people in my electorate are worried about meeting their home loan repayments and that the Gillard Labor government is now making people pay more for energy, fuel and food because of the Prime Minister's carbon tax lie. Hardworking families are already doing it tough. How are they going to budget for another few hundred dollars in their spending?

What about small business? Small business is, as we know, the engine room of our economy. The Territory's small business operators are worried that this toxic carbon tax will spell the end for them. Small businesses will receive no compensation for the carbon tax, and they are in the firing line with average weekly cost increases of $15.80 from the carbon price and $13.38 through an increase in power and water charges. Of course, small businesses will be forced to pass on these added expenses to the consumer, and the business owners tell me that they are burdened by a drop in consumer spending.

This government does not understand that, if businesses are hit by the carbon tax, of course they will have to pass it on, and that that means everyday Territorians will be paying extra for electricity, food and fuel under a carbon tax. I have spoken to private airline operators, builders, building equipment suppliers, fish-and-chip shop owners, grocers, butchers, florists and market stall owners, and they have all told me the same thing: this tax will make their costs go up and they will have to pass on these costs to everyday Territorians.

I was very concerned to hear that this tax will be the final nail in the coffin of some businesses. A few weeks ago, a local business operator who employs 13 people and who earns around $85,000 a year wrote to me saying that Julia Gillard's 'lie' will hurt his business. He is 59 years old, and his wife is 70. She cannot receive a pension because he works, yet, like most Territorian families, they still have a mortgage. He wanted to know why he was not eligible for the welfare gift, and he is angry that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan consider him to be rich. He told me that he does not know how he will manage his operating costs or how he and his wife will survive. These are real-life Territory examples of people who are doing it tough and who are genuinely concerned about the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax promise.

As I have said time and time again in this place, families will be better off under a coalition government because we will remove the carbon tax and deliver real tax cuts. Only a coalition government will give Australia hope, reward and opportunity, because we on this side of the House do not support a carbon tax. Only a coalition government will deliver to Australians an Australia free of a carbon tax.