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

My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister again to his great big new tax. Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual cost increase from his proposed emissions trading scheme for the average dairy farmer will be between $6,000 and $9,000? Can he tell the House what impact this will have on the price of milk and other dairy products at the supermarket checkout?

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

I thank the Leader of the Nationals for his question. It goes again to the assertion about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the overall household sector. Once again he used this figure of $1,100. Again the National Party pluck it out of space—pluck it out of thin air. The figure was contained in the question of the Leader of the Opposition which I answered just before. If they bothered to honestly reflect upon the data and modelling released by the Treasury of the precise impact on families of acting on climate change, it is there in black and white.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about the flowthrough of costs to the checkout of a $6,000 to $9,000 increase for dairy farmers. He is not answering that question. He is answering a question that was asked earlier in question time. If he does not know the answer, he should sit down.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I would have thought that, if the Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order on behalf of those that he serves in that position, those behind him might like to listen to the response. Whilst he has put an earnest case that he believes requires my agreement, I remind him that on this question by way of a preamble, perhaps generously, I had allowed the argumentative use of words that open the answer as it has been responded to, making other things relevant to the answer.

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

The nice thing about the member for Sturt is that he always puts an earnest case. Five weeks ago he put an earnest case in support of an emissions trading scheme; today he puts an earnest case against an emissions trading scheme, but it is always earnest. In fact, more than half of them over there supported the scheme, six weeks ago, that they are now arguing against. I find that interesting. But consistency has never been their strong suit.

The question goes to the cost of living impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The impact on the CPI is 1.1 per cent, as indicated in the modelling which was released by the Treasury. The Leader of the National Party asked a question about the impact on bread and milk. Within that price index milk goes up by 0.8 per cent, bread goes up by 0.7 per cent and meat by 0.7 per cent. We have been up front about the impact on prices. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, as he built up to the announcement of his alternative proposal today, would indicate what the cost flowthrough of his proposal is. We have been transparent in the papers, in the attachments and in the Treasury numbering on what flows through to individual working families. It is there in black and white. Those opposite are pretending this: they can act on climate change, but it can be cost free for the entire economy. Business does not have to pay and working families do not have to pay. Does the taxpayer have to pay? Somebody has to pay. Let me tell you: in this proposal put out today, there is not much by way of substance.