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

My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer her to page 77 of Professor Garnaut's latest report—and I hope she listens carefully to this—which says:

Every dollar of revenue from carbon pricing is collected from people, in the end mostly households, ordinary Australians. Most of the costs will eventually be passed on to ordinary Australians.

That is the quote from Professor Garnaut. I ask the Prime Minister: how can she possibly maintain the pretence that only a thousand big polluters will pay her toxic tax?

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

I have the page of the Garnaut report that the Leader of the Opposition refers to. It will not surprise anyone in this parliament to know that he is misrepresenting the force of Professor Garnaut's words. When you read these words, try to understand them, digest them and think about them in the national interest rather than try to clip a few out to use for a petty political agenda. What you actually find when you read Professor Garnaut's words is this, and very clearly: Professor Garnaut is there contrasting and comparing the costs for Australian households of two ways of pricing carbon—the way that the government is talking about by putting a price on carbon which businesses pay or the way that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about through regulatory mechanisms. He is comparing and contrasting those two approaches. The Leader of the Opposition cannot rely on one sentence in this document and not use the force of every other sentence. Professor Garnaut very, very clearly concludes that the mechanism the Leader of the Opposition is advocating is more costly for Australian households. Let me read the quote:

Using direct action measures to achieve a similar amount of emissions reduction would raise costs much more than carbon pricing …

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

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: it was a very simple question about who pays—big polluters or households. The truth is that it is households—that is the point. She should be directly—

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Having made his point of order, he cannot then proceed to debate. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

I refer to the section of the report that the Leader of the Opposition referred to to ensure that, rather than having it misrepresented in this place, people understand what Professor Garnaut is putting here. He puts very clearly—these are his exact words:

Using direct action measures to achieve a similar amount of emissions reduction would raise costs much more than carbon pricing, but would not raise the revenue to offset or reduce the costs in any of these ways. The costs might be covered by budgetary expenditure, but this affects who pays the costs, not whether the costs are there. Other people’s taxes have to rise to pay for expenditures under direct action.

Who are those 'other people' whose taxes have to rise? They are probably better known to the Australian community as mums and dads with jobs who would need to pay the increased taxes that the Leader of the Opposition would need in order to subsidise big polluters.

What we have said consistently, and Professor Garnaut makes this point too, is you put a price on carbon pollution. Big polluters pay that price. We have always been very clear indeed that there would be some price impacts, which is why we take revenue from pricing carbon and we generously assist households who need it the most. I have said that many times before. The Leader of the Opposition may only just have heard it: we generously assist households who will need that assistance the most. The difference here is more tax for Australian families and no assistance compared to a price on the biggest polluters and using that money to assist households. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition, instead of looking at the occasional word in Professor Garnaut's report, reads the whole lot.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Moreton, yet again. The Leader of the Opposition.

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

Yes, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

This price wouldn't be paid by households, it would be paid by the 1000 biggest businesses—

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

What is the Leader of the Opposition asking?

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

I seek leave to table this document which shows that the Prime Minister is deceiving this House.

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

Leave is not granted.