Mrs GASH (2:17 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to these electricity bills from Mr and Mrs Hancock, constituents of mine in Nowra, which have skyrocketed from 2009 to 2010. My constituents are already struggling to pay their electricity bills. How much more will their bills rise as result of the Prime Minister’s carbon tax?

Government members interjecting—

Mrs GASH —Listen to the rest of the question! If the answer is that she does not know the tax rate yet, what can be more uncertain than the Prime Minister of Australia not being able to explain the tax rate?

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order.

Ms GILLARD (Prime Minister) —I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. To the member for Gilmore I would say this: I am concerned about the cost of living pressures being experienced by the constituents she names. I am concerned about the cost of living pressures being experienced by Australians. But I would also say to the member for Gilmore that when she is discussing cost of living pressures with these constituents or anyone else in her electorate what she needs to explain to them is the following: electricity prices are rising. That is true. In the future we will have further rises in electricity. That will happen under any scenario. If she is in any doubt about that she should discuss the matter with the member for Groom, who has been very forthright about that publicly.

Under Labor’s plan, what will happen for her constituents is that we will price carbon. We will give her constituents fair and generous household assistance. As a Labor government we will provide fair and generous household assistance. What would happen under the alternative plan being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition is that power prices would go up, there would be no household assistance and the Leader of the Opposition would impose on constituents, like the ones that the member for Gilmore names, an additional tax bill of $720 per year.

Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can this answer be directly relevant when the Prime Minister is engaging in political fantasy?

The SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. I invite the Manager of Opposition Business, if he has concerns about the response, to look at the question again, especially the latter part, which widened the ability for any response to be directly relevant.

Ms GILLARD —I understand that the opposition wants to do anything to distract from this simple truth, but the simple truth is that the plan being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition will mean an additional impost on families of $720. It is simple maths. The Leader of the Opposition is committed to reducing carbon pollution by five per cent by the year 2020. With his direct action measures it will increase by 17 per cent. He will need to buy permits for the difference from the international market. That will cost $20 billion. He is also committed to spending $10 billion on ineffective carbon pollution measures, on ineffective direct action measures. So $30 billion has to be found from somewhere, and it will be found by putting an additional impost of $720 on Australian families. So the member for Gilmore, concerned as she is about the cost of living and money in the pockets of her constituents and Australian families, may want to speak to the Leader of the Opposition about whether her constituents want to pay that extra $720 for his scheme.