Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009 as has the opposition spokesman before me. I say at the outset that I think he is being just a little bit disingenuous in his concern that the government have waited 18 months to bring this legislation before the House, given that the review which formed the foundation of this legislation was delivered to the former government more than two years before the last election. In two years they had not done anything, but they are having a shot at us for taking 18 months to get around to what is one of many things to do in a rather packed legislative program that we came to government hoping to pursue, some of which has been, of course, hijacked by matters that have occurred elsewhere in the world and the requirements of having to deal with those. The next review of this act is due to commence this year. I would hope that our government would not wait two years before acting on any of the recommendations that may come through from that review.

This bill, which of course will be important to people watching its passage through the House, of itself should not impact in any way on fuel prices. The impact on fuel prices from the introduction of fuel standards would already have appeared as a result of those standards, which commenced in 2002. I am sure that many of us understand that some of the increases relative to the price of unleaded petrol that occurred with diesel arose as a result of the need to reduce the sulphur in the emissions from diesel, therefore reducing the sulphur content of the fuel itself.

In relation to emissions trading that the shadow minister discussed in relation to this bill, I am confident that the majority of Australians—and certainly all the polling that has been undertaken in the last eight or 10 months shows that—actually understand the need for emissions trading. They understand the need for us to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They understand that there will be costs associated with that and they also understand that our government is telling them truthfully that there will be measures to help offset additional costs for family budgets. I do not believe that, in the context of the debate today, we should have been mentioning emissions trading, but if the shadow minister wants to bring it into the debate I am quite happy to offer him an alternative view.

I think that the introduction of this legislation by the former government was a very good thing. If we are talking about sulphur content in diesel fuels we are looking at a really good example of how people can change their activities to change their environment. Those of us who remember the tragedies of acid rain will understand that in the last couple of decades we have removed sulphur emissions from so many of the smoke stacks and exhaust pipes of vehicles that acid rain is no longer a problem. I believe that we can continue along the lines of removing from emissions what we need to take for the benefit of the world.

Particularly in cities, where there are large numbers of motor cars—for example in Los Angeles—we frequently see the exhaust fumes creating a sort of air of their own. Anything we can do to reduce particulates in the air and to reduce those emissions is going to have a great deal of health benefit for our community. Such reductions are something that, I believe, have been brought about as a consequence of this legislation. Better engine efficiency leads to lower transport costs for households, and that particular advantage is one that is quite welcome.

The main objects of the 2000 act—the reduction of the level of pollutants and emissions, the adoption of better engine technology and emission control technology and allowing for the more effective operation of engines—have really come through. There were, of course, a number of exemptions which could be applied, some of which we are changing in this amendment bill today. The minister had capacity to make some exemptions—generally with reference to the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee, which is a reasonably broadly based group of people covering the interests of most of the groups involved—and we are going to expand that capacity in this legislation here before us today.

For example, as also mentioned by the shadow minister, the minister has the ability to act when there is a necessity to avoid an impending shortfall in supply of fuel. So we can do that. But there are some other very interesting circumstances in which there some changes can be made and those go to the end use of the product. For example, whilst this legislation was not, essentially, set up to capture leaded fuels used in aircraft, they do not fit into the standards that exist. These amendments will allow the end use of the fuel to be taken into consideration when establishing the standard for that fuel. That would also apply, I guess, to biodiesels or other fuels.

While I talk about biodiesel for a moment, I should mention the unfortunate situation that is occurring in my own electorate, where a company which has overproduced biodiesel from a tallow source—a secondary source not in competition with food—is unable to sell what it has produced. It has a stockpile which it needs to get rid of and, in consequence, has ceased production, with the loss of, I think, seven jobs.

This bill is not going to affect that. But it would be really nice if we could, as a group of people, work towards a situation where biodiesel, for example, was considered as a much better proposition by the consumers of diesel products. I note that our own Moreton Bay Regional Council is using biodiesel in its yellow fleet but not in its road transport fleet—for example, the bulldozers and the graders are using biodiesel, but not the utilities. It would be nice if that could come through.

I am mindful of the time and the fact that there are places that people need to be this evening, given the circumstances of the last couple of days. I think I will restrict my remarks to that. These amendments all make sense. They all improve what was a good idea in the first instance, and I am sure that a future review will enable further amendments to be made to make this act more responsive to the circumstances of the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

See this speech in context