Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise with pleasure to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008, which amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921, because it actually is good news. Contrary to what the shadow minister has been talking about, this bill is good news for consumers and it is good news for the taxpayer because it gives them the opportunity to have a windfall of $2½ billion from what is rightfully their resource and be compensated for private interests reaping rewards from the use of that resource. It actually is a good thing.

I will start with the amendment that the opposition moved. It seems to be broken down into three parts. One, they seem to be very concerned about consultation. They ought to be, because in the nearly 12 years they were in government that was the last thing on their minds and the last thing they ever did on absolutely anything at all. But if they never consulted with anyone in particular, let me just say that they never consulted with the taxpayer. They may have consulted with big oil—that they did plenty of—but when it came to consultation with the consumer and the taxpayer, then there was none. It is that one-sided street and one-sided argument you get from this mob, which used to be in government. When they talk about consultation, it was just consultation for the big oil companies, which is what they were interested in. If you listen to the speech made by the honourable member for Stirling, that was all he was talking about. He was talking about a $2.5 billion tax take. I remind him that it is not actually a tax take from the taxpayer; it is actually a tax take from oil companies from a resource which rightfully belongs to the Australian taxpayer and the Australian community. They are the people who should be sharing in that reward. Again, he got that one wrong, and I thought he most disingenuously represented the actual position of this bill and the position of the government.

He did raise one other issue, which was that gas or the price of petrol might become more expensive. Again, that was very disingenuous. Having been given a briefing from the Treasury, they would understand that Treasury is not going to rule one way or the other or give a decision; the reality is nobody can do that. The reality also is that there is such a thing as price parity. Everyone in Australia understands, and we have made very clear to people—and certainly the opposition did when they were in government—that we are price takers in Australia. We belong to a global oil market, and we pay the same price that is available on the global market. This so-called imposition of a tax is not actually an imposition of a tax; it is an equalisation of a tax where the industry, since 1977, has actually benefited to the tune of over $1 billion. That is $1 billion of Australian taxpayers’ dollars. There was a very good reason that that exemption from the excise was in place and why it dates back to 1977, but the environment and the conditions have changed.

The reason I am happy to speak on this bill today is that it is an adjustment, it is an equalisation. It is a bill about fairness for the Australian taxpayer and the use of their resource. This condensate gas and oil does not belong to the oil companies. They certainly are more than welcome to extract it and to make profits from it. We do not have an issue about the profits, but there should be fair compensation to the Australian community, the Australian public and the Australian taxpayer for the use of that resource by that oil company. And that is what this bill does. This bill is about fairness, so I am very pleased to be speaking on it.

This bill amends and removes the excise exemption from condensate for crude oil under the crude oil excise regime. This measure was applied from 13 May 2008. Currently, oil excise applies to crude oil that is produced from petroleum fields that are located in the North West Shelf project area off the coast of Western Australia and onshore Australia. By making this amendment, we now equalise what happens with condensate under what was the previous exemption regime. Currently, the excise is levied at a percentage of the value of the crude oil that is produced from the petroleum fields, but the first 30 million barrels of crude oil produced are still exempt under the crude oil excise regime and they will continue to be. In fact, I do not know there should be too much concern or any concern at all from the oil industry. In my view, it is quite a reasonable regime, and a regime that was fully supported by the previous government, now in opposition. They are making plenty of noise about how unfair all of this is. This is an Australian resource. I suppose the next thing we will be hearing from the shadow minister is there should not be any excise at all. Again, they are ripping away taxpayers’ funds that are coming in from their own resources but not explaining how the money will be replaced. How does the shadow minister and the opposition expect that that taxpayer money, that $2.5 billion, be replaced?

The reality is there will be zero excise for annual production of 500 megalitres or less; 10 per cent for annual production between 501 and 600 megalitres, which is about 3.8 million barrels; 15 per cent for annual production for up to 4.4 million barrels; 20 per cent for up to five million barrels; and 30 per cent for annual production that is over 800 megalitres or five million barrels. That brings into line condensate. There is no reason today, in today’s environment, for condensate to be treated differently to any other resource—be it oil, gas or any other. Why should it be that there is a special exclusion, an exemption, on this one particular product in today’s environment, in 2008, with global pressure on our resources and record profits being made—welcome record profits by the oil company? I certainly do not begrudge the profits they make, but by the same token they should not begrudge paying a fair share of those profits to the Australian community. That is who the money is going to. It is not going to the government; it is going to the Australian taxpayers, back to them. I am a bit bewildered by why the opposition would come in here and argue against that. Why would they argue against an Australian community resource not being properly taxed and excised so that the community can reap the benefit? Perhaps, when the shadow minister has another opportunity, he can explain where else he would get $2.5 billion to add to the budget to help all Australians if he believes this discount, which has existed since 1977, should continue.

The reality is this is good fiscal discipline. This is exactly what we were elected to do as a government. We were elected to run a strong economy, a responsible budget position, and to be responsible in making sure that oil companies and resource companies are properly taxed on the Australian resources so that all Australians can share in that benefit. I think that is more than fair and more than amply done by this very good amendment bill. The amendment that was moved by the opposition—I do not have a copy, as I said earlier—seemed to cover three areas: consultation, the amount of tax that will be of benefit and reaped for Australian taxpayers, and cost. I was curious to hear that the opposition, who complain every day about inquiries, task forces and so forth, are calling for another one themselves. Now they want the Senate Standing Committee on Economics to have another inquiry. Which way is it going to be? The shadow minister, the member for Groom, is at the table and he is shaking his head. I would too! I have no idea what you guys want to do. Every day of the week you come in here and make plenty of bluster and noise about inquiries, but here you are in the House asking for another inquiry. There is no need to have an inquiry, because this is a really good measure. This is a good measure for the Australian taxpayer because this $2.5 billion is going to them. We are not taking it from them; we are giving it to them. This is an Australian community resource that needs to be properly and equally treated, and this is exactly what is taking place with this bill and in this House today. This bill, as I said, is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context