House debates
Monday, 18 March 2024
Questions without Notice
Fuel Efficiency Standards
4:34 pm
Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax and the minister's frequent comparison to the scheme in the United States. Between 2004 and last year, vehicle emissions in the US decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 per cent.
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member will pause for a moment. I just want to hear this point of order.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is asking about a government policy that doesn't exist.
Opposition members interjecting—
In terms of hypotheticals, it's actually not—
Opposition members interjecting—
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I'm sure the minister will be able to deal with the premise of the question as he sees fit. I'm going to ask the member to continue with his question.
Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Vehicle emissions in the US decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 per cent. In contrast, the minister's scheme requires an annual reduction of 12 per cent. That's a rate nearly eight times higher. Why is the minister again fudging the numbers and punishing everyday Australians?
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Before I call the Minister for Climate Change and Energy I want to hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order.
Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is a point of order in relation to standing order 100, 'Rules for questions', (d)(iii) and (d)(iv), that a question must not contain inferences or imputations. I would say that the member's question was in breach of that standing order.
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Warringah is of course entitled to raise a point of order, and we have had this issue raised in the previous couple of weeks of parliament. The particular difficulty I have is that in the examples and what Practice has shown over decades, the type of question that has been asked by the member has been asked for a very long time. There are numerous examples of where the argument raised in the question has been put to various ministers over the time. The minister has the opportunity now to disagree or agree with the premise of the question or what's in the question. And if we were to start applying this directly then indeed everyone's questions would be in focus, which, if that's the will of the chamber, we can look at. But I think even questions from the crossbench would fall under that. On the point of order—
Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Respectfully, though, Mr Speaker, this does go to a question of principle of the standing orders. There is a purposeful mischaracterisation of a government policy that is in breach of these standing orders. It means either that the standing orders are pointless or that they are being belligerently ignored on the assumption that the standing orders won't be applied.
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
While the member is of course entitled to her view around the standing orders, it's my job to ensure that they are enforced. And in line with Practice and what has happened for some decades now of how questions have been asked—and I'm happy to send her examples of that over the time—it would assist everyone if everyone could refresh every question and ensure that standing order 100 doesn't include arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expression or hypothetical matter. So, whilst I'll note what the member has said, this question is in order. The member is entitled to ask, just as everyone is entitled to ask, their question, and the minister will now be entitled to respond to the question. The minister has the call.
4:38 pm
Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I really do thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The question goes to bringing Australia in line with the policies in other countries, and that is a fair point for the honourable member to make, because it is the fact that Australia and Russia are the only two major economies without vehicle efficiency standards in place. The United States has had them in place since the mid-1970s—introduced, to be fair, by a conservative administration; President Gerald R Ford introduced vehicle efficiency standards in the United States at the time. It is the case that we had considerable catching up to do with the rest of the world, because the rest of the world has been introducing these standards and because Australia has been so late to the party when it comes to introducing the standards. Several governments have tried, but until now no government has followed through and delivered for Australian motorists.
I've been reflecting over the parliamentary break, and I think I've been unfair to the member for Bradfield. I have pointed out his strong support for vehicle efficiency standards, but I think an observer could reach the conclusion that he was the only one on the other side. To his credit, he is a strong supporter of vehicle efficiency standards, but he wasn't the only one. Indeed, he of course had joint carriage with the then member for Kooyong and the then member for Flinders, Mr Hunt. He took it through cabinet on several occasions, to his credit. Everyone who was in cabinet at that time in 2016 and 2017 obviously signed it off. The Leader of the Opposition would have been in favour of it. There was a joint media statement—a big gold crest on the media statement—from all three ministers. It said in relation to the honourable member's question about international standards—
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The minister will pause. The minister was asked a question about why he's pursuing this policy. He is giving context as to why he's pursuing the policy. Just like the member for Griffith, I gave the same advice to the member for Fairfax. He's entitled to raise a point of order.
Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question went to the minister's comparison to the United States and the scheme he is introducing. The order is one of relevance. The question went to the United States having an annual reduction of 1.4. He's requiring Australia reduce it by 12 per cent on an annual rate. Can—
Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Resume your seat. The minister needs to make sure his answer is relevant. The question contained detailed analysis by the member for Fairfax, and it finished with the question about why the minister is pursuing the question. I'm going to give him the call to make sure he's being relevant to that part of the question. He can deal with the others as he sees fit.
Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Certainly, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the guidance. Australia does have a lot of catching up to do with the United States, who introduced these standards in the mid-1970s; we are seeking to catch up with them, yes, and that means we are ambitious. We are ambitious not for ourselves but for the Australian people to catch up with the United States.
We're not the only ones. The member for Bradfield said in his statement—and it's directly relevant to international comparisons. He said:
Although Australia accounts for less than two per cent of the global new vehicle market, it is becoming increasingly important that we harmonise our approaches to vehicle emissions with those in place in other countries.
That is what we are seeking to do. We're not seeking to catch up with New Zealand or Europe, which have more ambitious standards. We are seeking to catch up with the United States.
It is the case that they did it in the 1970s. We are trying to implement them in 2024, which comes considerably too late when you consider that John Howard went to the 2001 election promising, 'The coalition is negotiating new fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles to reduce the amount of fuel consumed per kilometre travelled.' The Liberals kept talking about it. We will deliver it.