Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The funding in this budget for the Fort Street High School and the duplication of the transport line show exactly the priorities of this Labor government—the inner city at the expense of the working families in the suburbs.

Further to the discussion in another place today, the member for Grayndler challenged me to put my position on the record about the Fuelwatch program, and in the context of the appropriation bills I can do that. Yesterday we had the extraordinary spectacle of the members for Lindsay and Blaxland, representing Western Sydney electorates, attempting to defend a fuel system that will make no difference to the price of fuel in Western Sydney. What neither of them addressed was how a family in Penrith or a family in Greenacre would be better off under this government’s scheme—a scheme, I might add, which fines operators for lowering their petrol prices. Let me restate that for the House: if you dare to commit the sin of putting your price down, of lowering the prices of your goods or services, you will be guilty of an offence under this Labor government and fined for doing it. How is that going to bring petrol prices down for working families? There is no substance in this measure and it is a measure in this budget that I am happy to oppose. This will not achieve anything except to increase the already significant machinery of government. As the opposition leader has stated, how does watching petrol prices bring them down? It is a very good question.

Whilst Labor campaigned and talked endlessly on the problem of escalating petrol prices, we have proposed a 5c reduction in the petrol excise, a practical measure which will reduce the price of petrol—no spin, no politics, just action. The former government took the measure of removing the indexation of fuel excise, which has saved motorists—in Western Sydney, in my electorate and all across this nation—17c on the price of fuel compared to what they would have paid if we had not taken that measure. That is an example of a real measure to deliver savings to families, unlike setting up a scheme where they can simply watch the prices and where all operators appear on an average day to have high prices, removing the peaks and troughs which allow people to decide at what price and on what day they prefer to buy petrol.

On the other side of the fence we have the Fuelwatch scheme. It is a scheme which costs over $20 million, as outlined in this budget. It has been proven not to have reduced prices in Western Australia, where fuel prices are generally higher than elsewhere in the country. The member for O’Connor frequently reminds me—he sits right behind me and my ears get a constant taste of what he is saying—that there is a major refinery in Perth. You might think, ‘Well, if the refinery is in the eastern states and you have to take the petrol from the eastern states to Perth, that might be one factor that makes prices generally higher in Perth.’ But, no, the member for O’Connor—whom I find to be a very reliable figure in the chamber—tells me there is a major refinery in the city of Perth. Therefore, there is no reason why under the FuelWatch system which has been in operation in Perth fuel prices in Perth should be generally higher than elsewhere in our country. The highest price for fuel is also higher in Perth than in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. By admission of its own minister, FuelWatch seems to be anticompetitive and could force independent service stations out of business. The refusals of the Prime Minister to guarantee that this will have even a 1c impact on the price of fuel seem to tell honourable members that there is no substance to this measure.

The 2006 census showed that my electorate of Mitchell has one of the highest proportions of mortgage owners—and McMansions—and some of the highest housing-loan repayment levels in the country. While I welcome the allocation of $2 billion to improve housing affordability, the government is not addressing the real reasons for the worsening housing affordability problems in this country. Saver accounts are a worthwhile initiative and something that we should be exploring, but they do not go to the heart of the problem in solving housing affordability. In fact, they seem to tackle the problem at the margins. It seems to be politics as a substitute for substance—that is, looking like you are doing something rather than actually doing something. If the government were serious about housing affordability, they would place pressure on the state governments in the new so-called cooperative federalism, in the new so-called ending of the blame game, and they would speak to their mates in the state Labor Party and say, ‘It’s time to abolish stamp duties on mortgages and business conveyances.’ That would be a practical and real measure to bring down the pressure on housing affordability.

When the GST was introduced in the year 2000 it came with the state government’s commitment to abolish stamp duties, a measure that the majority of state governments are yet to implement. Like every Labor government, like this Labor government, they are addicted to tax. The GST—a growth tax which was designed to provide a direct funding mechanism to the states and a guaranteed increase of funding to the states—came in and they have been addicted to it ever since. Yet their agreement to remove the stamp duties—their agreement to take the stamp duties off as compensation for the increased amounts of revenue they would be receiving from the Commonwealth—was never fulfilled. Today stamp duty, land tax and local government contributions—listen to this, because it is very important—add about 30 per cent to the cost of a new home. That means a third of the cost of a new home comes out in taxes, duties and local government contributions. Many of these taxes are justified on the basis they contribute to local infrastructure, but if you walked down any street in my electorate and said, ‘A third of your housing cost went on infrastructure,’ they would laugh you out of town, and they would be right. It is clear these exorbitant taxes and charges do not go to infrastructure in my electorate of Mitchell.

The Rudd government campaigned on ending the blame game, but it is clear that we now have the federal and state governments covering each other’s backs. They are working together, but they are working together to hoodwink Australians into thinking that things are changing. They are not. Many of the problems of affordable housing in Australia can be directly attributed to government. The lack of land release and the urban consolidation policies pursued by so many socially revisionist state governments have increased the pressure on housing in this country. If the Rudd government do not put pressure on their mates in state governments to cut mortgage stamp duties, they cannot be taken seriously when it comes to having a genuine concern for housing affordability in this country.

I want to turn now to climate change. Prior to the election, Labor ran a fear campaign on climate change—a campaign designed to encourage people in this country to think that they were facing an imminent and urgent crisis of the planet that was going to bring doom and ruin upon them. The Liberals had been asleep at the wheel on climate change, we were told we had to believe. As Peter Garrett said before the election, ‘The government has sat on its hands for 11 years and we are going to do something about it.’ Along comes the first Labor budget, and what is in it for climate change? That was the impending emergency they created prior to the election; what is the emergency following the election? What is the urgent action and what measures have they pursued to do something about climate change?

In fact, if you examine the measures in the budget, as many people have, you will be very disappointed. I am very glad my honourable friend and colleague the member for Flinders is here in the chamber, because the coalition’s $8,000 rebate for solar panels was designed to drive further demand for solar panels in order to drive greater efficiencies in production, installation and research. Yet, despite all Labor’s pre-election climate change trumpeting, the implementation of Labor’s means test for solar panels has led Phil May, the Co-director of Solartec Renewables, to say, ‘They have totally destroyed the solar industry—absolutely and totally ruined it.’ It is becoming increasingly clear that when it comes to climate change Labor do not believe their own rhetoric about it. Otherwise, they are negligent for not doing anything about the matter.

In conclusion, I want to turn to what I regard as one of the most insidious effects of the Rudd government and its budget and also to the change Labor is trying to effect in Australia.

See this speech in context