Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have two bills here that are in cognate, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 andOffshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2009. As the opposition spokesman on these matters has already said, the coalition sees merit in the legislation proposing some changes in the offshore safety arrangements but expresses concern in regard to the so-called miscellaneous measures—the process by which usually governments slip something under the guard of those who are looking at the principal legislation.

These, of course, are issues of grave concern to persons representing Western Australia and the areas such as mine in the electorate of O’Connor. It is all contained in the third paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy on the introduction of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. It is quite interesting to read the second paragraph. It says:

It is nevertheless an important bill as it progresses the government’s intention to establish a new National Offshore Petroleum Regulator.

That is already covered by the acronym NOPR. That commences, according to the minister, on 1 January 2012. So what is the significance of these miscellaneous measures? They are to be found in the next paragraph of the minister’s second reading speech, in which it is said:

To this end, the bill introduces a measure by which the Commonwealth will retain the industry fees raised under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Registration Fees) Act 2006 in order to use this money for the establishment of a National Offshore Petroleum Regulator.

This is another example we find of this government making promises to the community for delivery in a future parliament. It is now my strong view that by 2012 a coalition party will be the government here in Australia. But, irrespective of that, goodness knows what the make-up of the remaining members of the existing government might be in this House at that time.

What is the House deciding today—to take a significant amount of money? Thank you for the public servants who write the explanatory memorandum. They are not inclined towards spin; they try and tell us politicians the facts. They say under the heading, which they always use, ‘Financial Impact Statement’:

The Bill includes minor policy and administrative changes which will have a slight financial effect on the Australian Government Budget.

Considering the size of it, I guess that is an accurate statement. I will come to the Western Australian budget, which is miniscule in comparison. I continue my reading from the explanatory memorandum:

The retention of the registration fees is estimated to result in a decrease in expenses—

for the Commonwealth—

of $15.3 million in 2010-11 and $7.7 million in 2011-12.

In other words, we have a fiddle by which the Western Australian government, which have just also had the bad news of a very significant drop in their share of GST, are being asked by this government to contribute one-third of the remainder so that it can keep some sort of wobbly promise on reforming the health system, presumably for the better but which is yet to be proven.

So here we are in this House being asked to authorise a reduction in the revenues of the state of Western Australia to ease the Commonwealth’s efforts in creating a national offshore petroleum regulator. The Commonwealth government said that it is a good idea, and the coalition does not argue with that proposal. But now state governments are going to pay for the privilege at a point in time when we do not have a national offshore petroleum regulator—and $15 million is a significant amount of money to be removed from the coffers of the Western Australian government, struggling as it is to meet a significant amount of the infrastructure requirements that apply to the development of the arrangements involved in Gorgon gas and others. In my electorate—as it will be after the next election—people of the town of Kalgoorlie are very anxious that a rail-to-road transport hub should be developed within the town site areas of Kalgoorlie. Why? Because that would considerably shorten the journey that trucks must take—remembering there is no significant rail service north of Perth on the way to the Pilbara. There would be a considerable shortcut if certain infrastructure were improved to interconnect the roads that exist already with the north-west highway—this is the inland road—and if 100-odd kilometres of road were sealed it would be to the economic benefit of all Australians. Trucks could be offloaded in Kalgoorlie from the rail system and continue their journey up a sealed road to the Pilbara and, if necessary, onwards to Browse and other localities.

So here is the state government seeking to do that sort of infrastructure development—it is not cheap; 160 kilometres is quite an extensive length of road—but the outcome would be a huge profit in every regard for the Australian nation in reducing the cost of this form of infrastructure, such as for Gorgon and others, and opening up further opportunities to the eastern states to participate in the supply of equipment and other items that will be required, which, considering the location, can be shipped in from overseas countries. These are opportunities in which the Western Australian government can help out, and I can assure you that if the amounts of money mentioned here—$20-odd million—were applied to that road it would be an excellent start. But here we are being asked to take money off Western Australia for an organisation that does not exist, may never exist and, according to the speech by the Minister for Resources and Energy, is not expected to be in operation until 1 January 2012. I understand that the coalition—with the support of other senators, I am sure—will see this matter go to a Senate inquiry. But no case has been put by the government to grab this cash at this particular time, and I have some doubts in this regard as to whether the Western Australian government could disband the authority within its mines department that delivers this inspection capability at present.

The member for Corangamite made some reference to his own state and, by the way, spent a substantial portion of his speech on climate change. If you can reduce the travel distance as I have already described by way of a transport link and a transport hub out of Kalgoorlie, there must be a reduction in the emissions involved in transferring the goods over a longer distance. It is very significant. As things stand now, the east-west railway line delivers into the Perth metropolitan area and then the trucks take off from there into the north, when in fact the carriages could be dropped off at Kalgoorlie, the semitrailers unloaded at a proper hub and then the prime movers could move in and go straight up the inland road, provided that the connecting link is available and they are not smashing their trucks up on the original standard. Those things need money, and it is inappropriate therefore for us to be considering legislation that reduces the capacity of the Western Australian government to do that sort of good work.

But there are other interesting factors, and the member for Corangamite raised the issue of climate change. Apparently, the benefits to his electorate will arise from placing an emissions trading tax on the very industries we are choosing to speak about today because they are carbon based industries. But, more importantly, as I mentioned in a doorstop interview this morning, the issue of a great big tax has been widened with the coalition’s quite proper initiative to give adequate support to women who wish to have a family and who must lose their employment income during that period. Marital leave and maternity leave is a good process, but some people have tried to talk about the taxes as both being the same. They are not. The proposal from our leader, Mr Abbott, is one whereby the profit of certain big companies will be subject to an income tax, a tax you only pay when you are making a profit. The emissions trading tax is a tax you pay even if you are going broke—that is irrefutable—and it is why the coalition, under Peter Costello, got rid of sales tax. It was because that was a tax you had to pay when you were going broke. The GST gives business a rebate on such taxes as it flows through to the consumer. So this is pretty interesting.

There is another issue relevant to representing the interests of Western Australia. Two-thirds of Australia’s offshore oil and gas resources and over 80 per cent of Australia’s offshore titles are based off the coast of Western Australia. So this is legislation that almost exclusively covers Western Australia, notwithstanding the benefits that will arise with coal seam gas in Queensland and, as the member for Corangamite has said, in Bass Strait, but they are minuscule by comparison. Therefore Western Australian representatives have a big responsibility to put the argument on behalf of their constituencies.

I was in discussion the other day with the member for Canning, who is a member of the coalition and a man of great commitment to the issues I have just raised. He will be opposed in the forthcoming election by the state member for Armadale—not the retired state member for Armadale, but the incumbent state member for Armadale and one-time minister in the Gallop and Carpenter governments. In other words, she still has an office provided by the WA taxpayer, she still has her income and, on retirement—presumably just before the election—she will have a very substantial superannuation payout of an order I wish we federal members could get.

See this speech in context