Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

for those who are the retailers but hopefully will give some real competition in the pricing levels of the product. I know that the member for Kennedy will be indicating to us plenty of other examples where competition was going to be the be-all and end-all of bringing relief but where it did not happen. I understand that, and he understands that that is my starting position. But, regrettably, the only game in town from governments not only of the persuasion opposite but sometimes from the persuasion of Labor has relied on competition.

I have acknowledged that, under the legislation that is to be replaced by this bill, the competition was not level. Hopefully the detail in this bill will lead to a greater competitive market, a fairer market, a market where especially the independent operators do not have the same hurdles that they had to confront in the past to get access to the product, because that is one of the great problems: the way in which the gate to the refinery can so easily be shut.

The other aspect was mentioned by the Prime Minister today in defending his decision not to touch petrol excise in any way. What he does not contemplate is that the income tax cuts that were so championed—it was not a case of, ‘If we have these income tax cuts, we won’t be able to spend on education, health and defence,’ or whatever the Prime Minister was talking about—were skewed to areas where the vulnerability to the price of petrol is the least. This study by Dodson and Sipe goes to that. The people who can most afford—the people on high incomes who got the greatest rate of personal income tax cut—tend to live in suburbs of the major cities that are under the least stress as a result of increasing petrol prices. And the reverse is absolutely true, because those at the lower income levels are the people who live in the outer urban fringes of our major cities. They get less relief in comparison but confront greater costs in the prices of commodities such as petrol.

What the government could do is get their departments to look at whether in fact a return to the excise is a fairer form of tax. I am only contemplating this, but that is what we have to look at. On the basis that our income tax system remains a progressive form of income tax and the excise on petrol is a flat tax based on usage—and most flat taxes are recognised as being regressive—I have a feeling that there would be some worth in looking at that type of relief as against other forms of tax relief.

I am disappointed that members of the coalition have scurried away and have gone missing in action on this debate, especially those from the western suburbs of Sydney, the great champions, the ones who are supposed to have brought across the Howard battlers—those from the electorates of Macarthur, Greenway and Lindsay. Where are they? Where are they to champion those people who, because they live in the outer suburbs of Sydney, travel great distances to their employment, to their places of training and to take their kids to child care so that they can go to work—that is, if they can find the child care? Even if they want to crawl to the Prime Minister, like they usually do, why aren’t they in here defending those people and saying, ‘Mr Prime Minister, it’s wonderful—$1½ billion—but you should do more.’ Somebody has to get into his ear and tell him that there is a lot more that needs to be done. He should not be churlish and dismiss the ideas that have been put forward by Labor over a number of years.

We see today that the Prime Minister has finally found an area that Labor has talked about as being one of the ways that we could take some of our competitive advantage because of the resources we have—to invest in new technologies such as gas to liquids and coal to liquids, something that might add to our ability to be independent of overseas and global interests in our fuel dependency. Suddenly the light switched on and the Prime Minister said, ‘We’re in it.’ But as our spokesperson, the member for Batman, said on Thursday, he simply recalls that when Paul Keating was the resources minister, not the Treasurer, he was a great advocate of that type of technology—gas and coal to liquids—over 20 years ago.

This government wants to give the impression that it does something. It is a great government about the spin. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, you have suffered because of the spin over ethanol when, in fact, at the end of the day anybody who is a fair observer of our position on ethanol can see that what is happening now is proving our point. When you go to the petrol station now, they tell you that it is E10; they tell you that it is up to 10 per cent. The car manufacturers are advising consumers that, in the operation of their car, as long as it is E10 it is all right. But we were criticised because we raised this. We simply said that the consumer should make informed decisions. This government has to make decisions that make sure that Australia’s renewable energies are sustainable and that Australia has an energy system that is sustainable into the long term. (Time expired)

See this speech in context