Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate, particularly as it is about fuel prices and their impact on Australian working families. The Leader of the National Party just put forward a critique of Fuelwatch. He ignored the fact that the ACCC concluded in its report that the downward pressure on prices as a result of introducing FuelWatch meant that petrol prices were on average 1.9c per litre less under Western Australia’s FuelWatch scheme. The fact is that Fuelwatch provides convenience to motorists. It is about information that is already available to the owners of petrol stations being conveyed to the consumers—and that is what the ACCC has found.

In spite of the fact that we have had question after question about Fuelwatch from those opposite, they still will not say where they stand. They still have no idea where they stand. They say—as we heard from the Leader of the National Party—that they stand for a reduction of fuel excise of 5c, but the fact is that such a proposition was rejected by these same people when they were ministers. The then Minister for Transport and Regional Services in the previous government is now the Leader of the National Party. When this was on the agenda back then, he said—quite correctly—that it was economically irresponsible. His leader, John Howard, whom he supported through thick and thin, took them over the cliff and they followed like lemmings onto the opposition benches. For the 12 years in government they rejected the measure that they now say must be implemented by the new government. They had 12 years. And there are reasons why that is the case.

The Australian Trucking Association met here in Canberra today, and the member for North Sydney, who is still obsessed by trade unions and is still supporting Work Choices, indicated across the chamber today that it was just a union gathering. I had the privilege to address the 600 transport operators meeting here in Canberra and I understand the Leader of the National Party also had the privilege to address them. It is a pity that the Leader of the National Party was not there for the opening address by the Chairman of the ATA, Trevor Martyn, because this is what Mr Martyn had to say:

Of course it has been suggested the Australian government could reduce fuel excise but it would be just a gesture. The price of diesel has already gone up by 48c and is likely to rise an extra 20c. A tax cut of even 10c per litre would hardly be noticeable. Instead the best approach the Australian government can take is to focus on the long term and fix the road transport laws that are stopping us from using the latest and most efficient fuel designs.

This is consistent with what the ATA has said in critiquing the now opposition and giving support to the now government on our transport policies. Indeed, the ATA’s CEO Stuart St Clair, a former National Party member of this place, said on 2 May, about the leadership that had been shown by the government on issues relating to transport:

... the decisions would increase safety, slash red tape and make it easier for the trucking industry to attract and train new employees.

The Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, has shown a great deal of leadership in confronting the shambolic system we have now and recognising that it needs to go ...

That is what industry has to say. On 29 February under a headline ‘Rudd government listens to the trucking industry’—this is about heavy vehicle charges, which the opposition has blocked in the Senate—the industry had this to say:

... the trucking industry was also a winner from the Government’s $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Plan.

“Minister Albanese has listened to the industry and delivered a strong result for trucking operators and Australian families,” Mr St Clair said.

Well, the opposition’s opposing of this measure, like their blocking of many measures, puts that $70 million productivity and safety package at risk.

But what is all this really about, given that it does not stack up? What this is really about is the split there in the coalition, according to the Manager of Opposition Business, who said this about what united them in question time just this week. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

No matter who ends up leading the Liberal Party, the one thing they are united on, when they cannot be united on who should be in the parliament or who should lead their parliamentary party—

Mr Hockey interjected and it was captured in Hansard:

Is how much we hate Labor.

That is what they are reduced to. They have no ideas and make no constructive contribution. Indeed, the Australian on 19 May reported on the split between the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition over the plan to cut petrol excise by 5c a litre. The article reported that the shadow Treasurer told the Leader of the Opposition that it is ‘bad policy’ and that he would put it in writing in an email to Dr Nelson’s office. The Australian reported that the shadow Treasurer told his colleagues in a leadership group meeting that he did not agree with the policy but he would defend it publicly.

We know also that the member for Mayo, who cannot decide whether he will stay or go, so arrogant is he about the plaything that he regards the parliament to be, also had a few things to say. On Lateline on Monday, 19 May there was this exchange:

TONY JONES: Well, I’ve got to ask you; do you seriously think this particular policy, the cut to the fuel excise tax, will be the Opposition policy at the time of the next election? Do you think it’ll stick around for that long?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Mmm, well it might do, it might very well do.

TONY JONES: You look a bit reluctant to say that it will?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: It’s two and a half years away; I can’t predict everything that’s going to happen in the future.

That is not surprising. The member for Higgins had said way back in 2005 in a doorstop in Washington:

I’m saying that changes in excise will not counteract what is really causing high petrol prices, which is global oil prices and refining capacity.

They have just given up on any economic responsibility whatsoever. They do not know where they stand on Fuelwatch either. Senator Adams at the Senate doors today said:

I think FuelWatch is working. Some places are a lot higher and others are a lot cheaper. Myself I am very aware of what is at the bowser. If there is cheaper fuel at a price somewhere and if somewhere else is 10c dearer I will certainly go there.

Senator Adams, Liberal senator from Western Australia. Unbelievable! The shadow Treasurer who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:

What we are going to do is oppose the key part of FuelWatch, which is the controversial part, that sets prices or requires the prices be fixed 24 hours in advance.

So it is unclear whether they are for it or against it. We gave them the opportunity to vote on it yesterday and they ended up moving a dissent motion just so the member for North Sydney could cover up their tactical incompetence during the censure debate that occurred before the parliament.

This is an opposition in real trouble. Today an email has been sent around to the state executive, federal MPs, Alex Hawke, Scott Morrison, state MPs and MLCs parliament secretariat, from Cecilia Warren of the New South Wales Liberal Party. It outlines the resignation of the President of the New South Wales Liberal Party, Geoff Selig—

See this speech in context