Actually there was modelling done at the time that indicated those in question would be far worse off than the $600 or so that was to be offered as compensation.
Just on the issue of compensation and let's say it covers the additional costs ... how does that encourage consumers to reduce their carbon generating activity?
There is a strong case that the ETS stacks up to be just another tax IMO when put up against the reality of how it works and what it will achieve against the enormity of the said problem.
