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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that an individual earning over $80,000 a year receives no compensation under your emissions trading scheme, can you inform the House how much worse off a senior classroom teacher in New South Wales earning $81,656 a year will be under your great big new tax, your $114 billion money-go-round?

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

The Leader of the Opposition’s question is in two parts. It is about compensation on the one hand and about big taxes on the other. If I could just refer briefly to the second part of his observation first, it goes to the size of the tax he is proposing—$10 billion in terms of the cost to the taxpayer. We are also advised that if they were to actually be serious about their target of five per cent, the cost to the taxpayer, wait for it, would rise to $27 billion. Can I say to those opposite that this is an extraordinary exchange when they talk about taxes, and we have a scheme from them which in overall terms costs more, does less and is totally unfunded.

The second part of the honourable member’s question goes to compensation. He refers to the compensation schedule that we have put forward. I note in passing they offer not a dollar of the compensation to any working family anywhere in the country. The household categories are as I described before; the compensation regimes are as I described before as well. For the individuals concerned, and for all those who are going to be affected by the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, I simply go to the point that the cost of living impact as advised to the government by the Treasury is 1.1 per cent. That will flow through to households. What we have for low- and middle-income households is a compensation regime. That is clear; the cost impact has been identified by the government as well, and that is equally clear.