Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, 77c. The 7c reduction in excise was to offset the GST. From that point onwards, the cost was neutral. The GST component that has been added to fuel has come from the 77c to where it is now times 10 per cent—not from zero, which is the scam that is used in a lot of arguments around the place. The other thing is that the government pegged excise at 38.14c a litre. Had we continued, as the previous government had, indexing that every six months, we would be paying another 14c a litre more than is currently the case. That, again, is conveniently forgotten by our critics.

If you also look at the international prices of fuel, you will see that Australia is almost always in the bottom four. They are usually the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia and, occasionally, New Zealand. We are generally third or fourth in the world with the cheapest fuel, and our government charges are not excessive by international standards. If we want to have a mature debate about this, let us take those things into account as well.

If you want to take a more positive view of where the government is going with a whole range of vehicles, look at the purpose of the bill. I have not heard many speakers on either side drilling down to the positive effect it will have. Two years ago, the Prime Minister released a white paper on energy policy entitled Securing Australia’s Energy Future. The paper outlined a major program of reform to modernise and simplify Australia’s fuel system. It was centred around a single fuel tax credit system to replace the current complex system of fuel tax concessions.

While the move was widely welcomed by primary industry and trucking sectors, a number of concerns were raised in relation to businesses having to claim the fuel tax rebates through their quarterly BAS statements. Many of these businesses have approached their local MPs, including me, in recent months to let us know about the cash flow challenges of this and what they will face if they have to wait up to three months for their 38c a litre rebate. You might say, ‘That’s probably not all that big a deal,’ but I have a fisherman in my area whose fuel bill is $90,000 a month. That is a very big fuel bill. The cash flow implications to him are quite substantial. Bear in mind, too, the precarious nature of fishing in some of Australia’s offshore fisheries—in particular the east coast trawl area, most of which falls within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The problems there are manifest, and we are still working through compensation packages and the like. Banks that are allowing fishermen to continue are providing them with very meagre overdraft facilities, right down to the point of their monthly fuel bill. When you have to add another 38c a litre to that fuel bill, albeit that you will get it back in one to three months time, it is still a substantial cash flow problem.

I was contacted by a number of operators who were looking for the high out-of-pocket costs. As I said, this involves tens of thousands of dollars or, in one case I know of, $90,000. I would like to quote a few of the comments that I have received from a number of businesspeople and fishermen in my electorate. One of them said:

We have gone from paying 22 cents a litre (with rebate off) before the GST came in, to now paying almost $1.10 plus GST (with the rebate off) to the Government wanting us to pay the full price of $1.48 or more—as you know, prices keep increasing, that is just today’s price. Our fuel bill alone is in the red by $35,000 just since December.

I make the point: cash flow is important. Another said:

This would put a lot of trawler businesses under terrible strain financially ... if this new system of administration were to be introduced, trawler and fishing businesses could not afford to fuel their boats and wait to claim the rebate back in their BAS. Many family operators would just close down.

A third one states:

This and the fuel cost at the moment will surely bankrupt my business as we are finding it extremely hard. I have recently retrenched my deckhand and am back on the vessel myself with my son to try and make ends meet.

You can gather from those statements that this has had a more profound effect on the fishing industry than anyone else. And I make no apologies for saying this: I am a critic of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. My colleagues in the coalition know of my ambivalence with this organisation. I think the Representative Areas Program on the Great Barrier Reef was a disgrace. The sooner it is reviewed and certain areas opened, the better. You have to remember that at the turn of the decade these people went through what was called the east coast trawl plan. It removed 250 of the 750 trawlers on the east coast of Queensland. Since then, another 50 or more have gone. We were told at the end of that process, ‘The reef is now secure; it is now sustainable. We may need a little bit extra in the marine park, but that won’t be a problem.’ How much extra? Initially, it was going to be 20 per cent but, when the maps came out, it was 33 per cent. Worse still, when the maps were put over traditional fishing grounds, the effect was around 70 per cent to 75 per cent.

This brings me back to the point of the debate: what were the effects of that? One was that you could not fish in what was remaining of the traditional areas without the risk of pulse fishing, where you just outfish an area. I have often wondered whether the technique at the beginning of this plan was for the fishers to be able to come back to the government and say, ‘We’re overfishing what’s left of the reef.’ I am a cynic enough to believe that that was probably part of the agenda. Nevertheless, I have some very positive fishermen in my area who decided they would go to the outer reef. To go to the outer reef, they had to upgrade vessels, buy new vessels and new equipment but—and this also applies to some who are still fishing within the marine park area—there are vastly greater distances to be covered at a time when fuel is at a premium.

So you can see that these taxation measures and how they are implemented are terribly important, especially to someone whose banker has them on a very tight overdraft. The statements that I read to you before came from commercial fishermen who have been hard hit by this Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning whereby, in many instances, trawlers travel great distances.

The government has recognised the risk to these businesses, businesses which have been the backbone of many regional economies—and, I say quite unequivocally, to the agricultural life and fishing life of Gladstone and Bundaberg. We have proposed a compromise by way of a two-year phase-in of the BAS-claiming system. These amendments will be debated in upcoming legislation. Without anticipating that legislation, I understand that the changes will mean that eligible businesses, including farmers, fishers and truck drivers, will be able to elect to make a claim for early payment of fuel tax credits on a written form, as they do now, until 1 July 2008. They will still have to pay the excise up front but, by filling out this form at the time of purchasing their fuel, they will be able to claim back the rebate within a fortnight. That is significant if you are a three-monthly BAS payer. Businesses have until 31 December this year, as I understand it, to elect to take up this early payment option. I would certainly encourage all affected fishermen and businesses in my electorate to do so.

See this speech in context