Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:02): I would say to the Leader of the House: there is no truth in the rumour I am writing the Leader of the Opposition's questions. To the Leader of the Opposition let me say this: I made a deliberate choice in designing the scheme that will be announced on Sunday. We are finalising the carbon pricing scheme and it will be announced on Sunday. In designing that scheme I took a deliberate decision that we would design it in a way which was true to our Labor values of assisting households who needed our assistance the most. That is why we are in a position to say that we will be working with Australian households and providing nine out of 10 households with tax cuts, with payment increases or a combination of both. I also believe it is appropriate not to have householder petrol covered in the scheme. As I have explained to this parliament during the course of this week, I understand what it is like for people to live in communities where, whilst we would wish public transport were better—and we will be working over time to make public transport better—the reality is that members of the community who need to get around really have no choice but to jump in their car. Of course, that is true across country Australia as well, in many of the electorates that Labor members represent as well as the electorates represented by the member for New England and the member for Lyne. So we made a determination that petrol should not be covered in the scheme. I think that is the right thing to do for Australian households. Yes, that is a design change from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition: pricing carbon in the way we are intending to price it is the most efficient, cost-effective way of cutting carbon pollution. So every choice we have made is about making the greatest change at the least cost. Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, a point of order on direct relevance: I asked the Prime Minister to confirm that excluding petrol would not actually lead to lower costs for households, and that is the question she should do her best to answer. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister— Mr Windsor interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for New England should contain his enthusiasm, or whatever he is displaying. The Prime Minister is responding and she knows the obligations on her under the standing orders. Ms GILLARD: I can confirm that petrol will not have a price impact from pricing carbon and consequently petrol will be cheaper than it would otherwise have been if we had put a direct carbon price on petrol. Australian households, despite the fear campaign from the Leader of the Opposition, will not see extra cents per litre when they go and buy petrol as a result of us pricing carbon, so it is good for Australian families and good for Australian households, and I am really quite surprised the Leader of the Opposition would be recommending anything else. As for costs of abatement throughout the scheme, economists tell us, and of course they are right, that pricing carbon gets you the lowest cost abatement, and that is what the government is determined to do. The Leader of the Opposition, in contrast, is wedded to his grossly inefficient and costly scheme which would give us far higher costs of abatement per tonne, putting an extra burden on Australian families. And we can put a dollar figure on that burden: it is $720 per year.