Yes. I think the first point is that the climate action incentive payment is just a mechanism to redistribute the proceeds from the carbon pricing system, which is the OBPS component and the fuel charge component. There will be a reconciliation every year to make sure that no more and no less is given back—and this is all based initially on estimate, of course. If there's any discrepancy, then adjustments will be made the following year in the climate action incentive payments, as well as in the amount allocated to the SME and MUSH funds.
There's an accounting that will support that. It will be perfectly revenue-neutral. Just to clarify, the government will not actually use other sources of funds to supplement. It will be neutral.
The other thing is why, despite its being revenue-neutral on an aggregate basis, we can still say that lower-income families will get more. It's because, again, we're giving the same amount per capita, regardless of income. By doing so, effectively, we give relatively less to higher-income individuals or families than we give to lower-income families, because higher-income families have more money and are spending more, particularly on discretionary items, which may have greater content as well. They're spending more, so they would be paying more fuel charges than lower-income families would.
By giving the same amount to these two families, you're effectively giving more than they need to lower-income families and less than they need to higher-income families to compensate for the fuel charge. That's why I said it was progressive by nature. That's the effect of it.
The point here was just to find a simple mechanism to give back the money or the proceeds from the regime to individuals, and that is the climate action incentive payment through the T1 regime.