Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

I should say at the outset that I do not resent the Speaker’s decision to grant today’s MPI to the member for New England. I am sure it was a very difficult choice, but in any case the themes of the MPIs submitted by both the member for New England and me were very similar. However, I did think the member for New England was a little generous in talking about the government’s ‘reluctance’ to act on high petrol prices. I would have gone in a bit harder and claimed they were absolutely refusing to act on high petrol prices. It is interesting that the member for New England’s MPI talks about high petrol prices but both he and the member for Page spent all of their time talking about ethanol, which, of course, has only a minor contribution to make to dealing with the challenges facing Australia. Given the time they dedicated to ethanol, it is probably appropriate for me to respond to that at the outset.

The opposition absolutely support the ethanol industry—we always have. In fact, we proudly commenced the process of growing an ethanol industry in this country right back in about 1992, when we first established capital grants for that industry. Let me discuss a few benefits of the ethanol industry. To a limited extent it can assist our agricultural sector. It is good for regional jobs. It is good for the environment. It does or can very slightly reduce our import dependence on oil. And, of course, it does help independent service stations compete with the major companies because they are less reluctant than the majors to use and market ethanol and its tax-free status gives them an important competitive edge over the major oil companies, which have so much market power.

We also have to understand that, while ethanol is and should be an important part of our energy mix, it is limited in its capacity. In Australia today we produce about 37 million litres of ethanol a year, and we hope to increase that rapidly. But to mandate it to the extent of 10 per cent, for example, we would need to produce about two billion litres of ethanol a year, so we are a long way short. Also, to mandate ethanol would force us to import much of that product, which would be counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve. So we certainly do support ethanol, but we have to have a sensible approach and acknowledge the limitations we have in pushing for market take-up of ethanol in the fuel mix generally.

During question time today, the Prime Minister again tried to portray the opposition as saying that the current rise in petrol prices is due to something other than the rise in crude oil prices. Of course we accept that. We would be fools to argue that the current hike in petrol prices is not largely caused by rises in the international price of oil—of course we accept that. But the Prime Minister misses two very broad points. First of all, when the international price of oil is high, it is more important than ever that governments become even more diligent in ensuring that we reduce the impact of those high prices on the consumer. The second point is that the ever-increasing rise in international oil prices should be a wake-up call to every import-dependent country around the globe that we have to do something about our import dependency. The Prime Minister is missing the point. When oil prices are high he has to do more, not less. When oil prices are high it is a signal to us that we have to wake up and start doing something about our import dependency, because in this country we are now importing almost 60 per cent of our crude oil and, hard as it is to believe, something like 22 per cent of our refined product.

Let me go to those two broad themes. The first is about doing something to reduce the impact of high oil prices. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister says there is nothing he can do, let me tell him at least three things he could do immediately to mitigate the impact of high oil prices on Australian families, who now face having to pay up to $40 a week more for their petrol. On top of higher interest rates, that is causing considerable pain. The first thing the Prime Minister could do is direct the Treasurer to write a simple letter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission referring to it the power to formally monitor and investigate the retail petrol market, the wholesale petrol market and terminal gate pricing; none of this looking at retail prices and putting them up on a website—that proves nothing. Motorists want to know what is generating what is posted on that website. They want to look behind the prices, not just at them.

This is not a difficult job for the Treasurer. As I indicated during question time today, I have written the letter for him. It is worth reading because people have to understand the technicalities of this. The Treasurer writes: ‘Dear Chairman, In this letter I give the commission a written direction to monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of goods and services by refiners, wholesalers and major retailers of transport fuels, pursuant to section 95ZE(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.’

It is clear that this is what the act requires the Treasurer to do. Graeme Samuel does not have the power to investigate petrol prices or to demand information from the oil companies about wholesale pricing, for example, without this letter from the Treasurer. I do not know why the Treasurer will not do this. I do not know whether he just refuses to do it because it is our idea—

See this speech in context