Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Last week, after making my contribution to a debate on an MPI about Fuelwatch, I received a very thoughtful email from a gentleman who lives in Kellyville in Western Sydney. He was very pleased, I have to say, with the idea that politicians should lead the way when it comes to adopting sustainability measures in their personal and professional lives, such as choosing, as I have, a fuel-efficient, non-standard hybrid vehicle in the form of a Toyota Prius. As a resident of Western Sydney he was also acutely aware of the way in which Western Sydneysiders are being used as the notional victims of the opposition’s bogeyman version of the very sensible Fuelwatch initiative. The opposition might like to hear what a person in Western Sydney actually thinks. The email said:

On the subject of Fuelwatch, it has come to my attention that I have been mentioned countless times in the House over the last few days—those who live in Western Sydney. I would like to say that I and many of my friends, associates and colleagues who live in the western suburbs of Sydney—and the majority of us who have to travel the thirty-ish kilometres in two hours each way to and from the city by car each day—would not only welcome the Fuelwatch scheme but are very enthusiastic as to the potential for us to make an informed decision when making our weekly purchase of petrol.

It has been discussed among my circle of friends and colleagues that we would certainly in the short term benefit slightly from the opposition’s promise to cut the excise on petrol by 5c, but we were fully aware that the international price of oil would likely swallow up that saving in a matter of weeks or perhaps days. We are much more interested in having the ability to make informed decisions utilising the proposed Fuelwatch scheme. I wish you all the best in parliament over the coming days on this issue and would be happy to hear from you if you would like to know more about what Western Sydney is really thinking.

In a follow-up email, this gentleman from Western Sydney said that he is happy to be identified. His name is James Fiander and he is part of a community group called the Hills Against Global Warming. He and his fellow community members feel that they have been significantly underrepresented by the Howard government and by their own local member, the member for Mitchell, on such issues as climate change, Indigenous Australians, transport and education policy. (Quorum formed) As is clear from the achievements of the Rudd Labor government in its first six months, there is a stark contrast between the approach of the former Howard government on the issues referred to by Mr Fiander and the approach of the new Labor government. If we think of the apology, the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, the development of a national emissions trading scheme, increasing the renewable energy target, the budget measures that prioritise commitments to education, infrastructure, health and the environment and we compare this to the wholesale inaction and ‘denialism’ of the Howard government on these issues, there is a significant difference.

So too the question of the extension of Fuelwatch in the form of a national program has shown the government and the opposition in stark contrast. During the past week the members of the opposition have painted bizarre scenes of petrol price apocalypse in an attempt to get some bounce in the polls from a simple extension of the WA FuelWatch scheme. As has been the case in many other areas of policy that are of vital interest to the Australian community, the opposition prefers darkness and secrecy to openness and transparency. They do not think voters should know the source of political donations; they did not believe when in government that the Australian people needed to know the truth about weapons of mass destruction, or the countless warnings that the Australian Wheat Board was party to the greatest trading scandal in Australia’s history. The quite hysterical reaction from those opposite to the idea that consumers might get a bit of information to guide them in their choice of petrol stations is a strong indication that this preference for secrecy remains, and that the sympathies of the opposition lie with big petrol retailers rather than with ordinary Australians who are struggling with the rapidly rising cost of living.

I regret to note that in a very short time histrionics and manufactured outrage have become characteristic of the opposition’s approach in this place to any sensible proposal put forward by the government, whether it is the government’s plan to tackle teenage drinking through the excise on alcopops or the government’s plan to increase transparency in fuel pricing. As other members from Western Australia, including Senator Adams, have pointed out, with WA’s FuelWatch we have moved to a situation where consumers are given the necessary information to allow them to make an informed choice about purchasing petrol. Over the weekend I received a message from a Fremantle constituent telling me that he uses FuelWatch regularly and saves between $6 and $10 each time he fills up. I ask a simple question: how can giving consumers more information possibly be a bad thing?

Contrary to the propositions put by the member for Groom earlier today, this government is about responsible policy, market transparency, consumer support and innovation. It is the opposition that is in disarray, that has no plan for the future. The petrol populism from those opposite aims to obscure the lack of long-term constructive policy from their side. The bigger policy picture, the task for which this government was elected, is to implement long-term policy for Australia. Two of the most critical areas are energy policy and climate change. Transport policy of course bridges these two areas to some degree and therefore presents one of the more complicated challenges.

Last year the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport issued a report on Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. The committee noted that the demand for oil is relatively inelastic because for its major use—transport—there are no easy substitutions. This means that a relatively small shortfall in supply can cause a large increase in price. The committee said in its report that it:

... considers that more needs to be done to reduce Australia’s oil dependency in the long term. This is desirable not only because of peak oil concerns, but also for other reasons—to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions; to mitigate the costs of the expected long term decline in Australia’s net oil self-sufficiency; and to mitigate the risks of supply disruptions as oil production becomes concentrated in a declining number of major oil-producing countries, some of which are politically unstable.

In addition to examining supply-side responses such as oil exploration and development of alternative fuels, the committee looked at demand-side responses such as increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles, alternative forms of transport and integrating transport planning and land use planning.

I am pleased to say that long-term constructive policy on these issues is part of the Rudd Labor government’s agenda. But the opposition are not interested in such complications as peak oil or climate change or fuel efficiency or alternative transport. They are focused on short-term opinion polling and 5c of uncosted excise irresponsibility without regard to the long-term future of this country. A good example of this is their monomaniacal focus on price alone without ever acknowledging that the cost of fuel to every person and every household in Australia is produced as a combination of petrol price and fuel use efficiency. The truth is that price per litre changes to the cost of fuel affect different road users very differently. If you were comparing two identical journeys, or even two weeks worth of car travel over the same total distance, the comparative cost would have more to do with the comparative fuel efficiency of the vehicles involved than with the price of petrol.

In 2006 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that the average fuel consumption for Australian passenger vehicles was 11.4 litres per 100 kilometres. In 1963 the average fuel efficiency of Australian passenger cars was 11.4 litres per 100 kilometres. That was 45 years ago! Since then, humankind has landed on the moon, created the internet, extended mobile satellite telephone technology across the planet and made thousands of other technological advances in the areas of communications, medicine, astrophysics and so on. But the fuel efficiency of passenger cars has remained unchanged, unimproved. How is that possible? Cars in Australia are still commonly marketed for their speed and power. People are buying cars with big engines and bad fuel efficiency, and they are paying for it at the petrol bowser. As a nation, and as part of the global community, we have to recognise that promoting and choosing vehicles for their fuel efficiency, perhaps at the cost of speed and accelerative power, is the easiest way to reduce the impact of rising petrol prices and the toll that burning petrol has on the environment.

There are, of course, vehicles at the smaller, more fuel efficient end of the scale that easily achieve fuel efficiency of around seven to eight litres per 100 kilometres. The WA Sustainable Energy Association has estimated that driving such vehicles will save people around a third of their fuel costs—the equivalent of something like 45c to 50c a litre. A hybrid fuel vehicle like the Toyota Prius that I have, which runs at about 4.4 litres per 100 kilometres, can reduce your fuel costs by half. In other words, a hybrid fuel vehicle which uses at least half of the unleaded petrol to travel 100 kilometres that the average passenger vehicle uses can effectively halve your fuel bill.

I made the point last week that most people are not in a position to change cars in response to petrol price rises. And of course I acknowledge that purchasing a hybrid fuel vehicle is not an option for many people at this stage. But it does indicate the way forward. Much greater fuel efficiency is possible, and delivering much greater fuel efficiency as an accessible, affordable option is the kind of long-term objective that a responsible government will pursue, rather than pinning its own popularity to an irresponsible excise measure. The opposition, even in this debate, is sacrificing the opportunity to discuss and contest the really difficult policy challenges. It is putting its own short-term political fortunes above the long-term future of this country.

The Rudd Labor government is looking forward. The $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund will seek industry contribution on a $1 to $3 basis with a view to manufacturing fuel-efficient cars in Australia. As I have pointed out, fuel efficiency offers cost savings on a scale that makes a 5c excise cut look exactly like the butchers paper and crayon policy that it is. Fuel efficiency is a win-win objective: good for consumers, good for the environment.

The Rudd government has established a Building Australia Fund that will consider, among other things, the further development of public transport infrastructure in our cities. This has been yet another area of severe neglect under the previous government. I note, on that point, an interesting article from the Centre for Policy Development titled ‘Reinvesting in our suburbs: a role for the Commonwealth government?’ written in September 2006. The article makes the following observation about the Howard government’s transport infrastructure inaction:

The Federal Government’s response is to do nothing but offer token subsidies and motherhood statements ...

To long term observers of the Federal Government’s attitude to urban policy this comes as no surprise. One of its first actions on coming to office was the abolition of Labor’s Better Cities program in 1996. Since then the Howard government has shown very little interest in addressing the urban development, or for that matter transport needs of Australia’s suburbs.

Labor actually has in its platform a clear recognition of the importance of public transport. This is part of our vision for Australia’s transport future. As the platform states, we ‘recognise a role for Commonwealth involvement in delivering urban public transport infrastructure, with particular focus on the needs of poor regions in outer urban and regional areas’.

On this point too I am happy to say that Western Australia is showing the way. The southern rail line, which runs through the Fremantle electorate, is an incredible, state-building achievement. It has connected one of the fastest growing suburban parts of Western Australia and one of the fastest growing local government areas in Australia, to the Perth central business district and other parts of the metropolitan area by a fast rail link.

It should not be sacrilege to observe that using public transport is a legitimate way of reducing the impact that petrol prices have on the household budget. It should not be sacrilege to say that the best long-term approach to high petrol prices is for Australia to move, as a community, towards using less petrol. On that point, I noted in the Australian last week a letters page contribution from one of my constituents, Mark Millard of Coolbellup. Mr Millard wrote:

There’s a simple way to save more than 5c a litre on petrol: take the bus, bike, train, or walk.

You cannot argue with that. Of course not everyone can make that choice, but many can, and we are entering dangerous, politically-correct territory if we get to the point in Australia where policy is premised on the assumption that government must support personal vehicle transport at all costs.

In the meantime, this government, on the basis of the success of FuelWatch in Western Australia, and with the support of the analysis by the ACCC, is seeking to introduce greater transparency into the retail petrol market. Fuelwatch as a national program will make a modest but meaningful difference to consumers in Australia, as it has already done for West Australian motorists. It is an economically responsible measure; it will be implemented in the name of good policy rather than good opinion polls—which is, understandably, the current obsession of those opposite—and it fits with this government’s program of long-term and proactive transport and energy policy.

See this speech in context