Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to address a number of issues, the first of which is fuel prices. If the government needed a clear indication of why it is slipping in the polls, it was given today by the Assistant Treasurer. The argument continually put up by the Prime Minister and others that the price of fuel in Australia is driven purely by international factors is an absolute farce. The member for Macarthur and, I think, the member for Lindsay have highlighted in the press in recent days some of the difficulties they perceive in terms of the coalition getting its message through to its constituency—and this is being compounded daily in this place. It is not my duty to advise the coalition, but I would suggest that they start listening to what people are saying to them. The price of fuel and its impact on the cost of living is a very real issue in the broader community. It is not right for the Prime Minister, the Assistant Treasurer or anybody else who talks about it in this place to say that this is purely about international factors. Time and time again, the NRMA and other organisations have spoken about the taxation component of fuel prices in Australia. The taxes are about 51c a litre at the moment—the excise is 38c and the goods and services tax is 10c or 11c. I know that the goods and services tax goes to the states and they are probably abusing the money et cetera, et cetera—we have heard all those arguments—but the artificiality of that component in fuel pricing in Australia, which we can do something about, has an impact on the cost of living.

The argument put is that we have to collect that money so that roads, railways, bus stations et cetera can be fixed, but only 12c of GST and the Commonwealth component of 38c is spent on anything that vaguely resembles a road or rail network. I suggest to the government that they look very closely at this. Particularly in an era of surplus budgets and a boom period—and I congratulate them on running a surplus budget—there is room to move on this issue. It will have a positive effect in voterland and at the browser, and it will have a flow-on effect on the cost of living.

The government sends mixed messages on the renewable fuel industry. I will not labour that particular issue, but we have the absurd situation whereby we are getting the message almost daily in the parliament that the government is very concerned about renewable energy, carbon trading and global warming et cetera. The rhetoric is good but people do not believe it because we have other strange messages coming through the system—such as that, in 2011, if you produce renewable fuel in this country you will be taxed. Rather than putting in place incentives that send the economic message—which in my view the Treasurer has in the past always been good at—we are getting a mixed message now. The carbon debate is taking place. At the end of the week, a report will be received. Landholders—the farm sector—are not even involved in the resolution of the carbon problem in Australia; they are not included at all.

Another issue I want to raise is the impact of the cost of living on pensioners. I am sure that all members have people coming to their office saying that the indexation process—the way the pension is increased—is not keeping pace with the cost of living. I think that is a fact. Maybe other people can convince me that it is not a fact, but it is not me they have to convince; they have to convince the people who are sending that message. Those people have made a positive contribution to the development of the nation. In a boom, where we have a budget surplus and some excess funds, surely those people are entitled to a share. I recognise that the government is keeping them on a string with $500 here and $500 there, but that is not good enough in terms of providing them surety into the future and true indexation of their cost of living. Those things can be looked at, and again I congratulate the government on their economic management, but the message they are delivering to the constituency is not what the constituency want to hear and it is not one the government can deliver. (Time expired)

See this speech in context