Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr Speaker, I would like to start on a positive note and say it is good to see you in the chair today after what occurred yesterday. I turn to the subject of the debate before the House, and that is the report that came from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. It was interesting to note the passion that the chairman of the committee had with respect to this particular report and the passion that he had about defending the integrity of the government's budget position. I must say that for members on this side of the House it was a little bemusing. The reason it was bemusing is that the lecture that we got for five minutes from the chairman of the committee was about the importance of budget integrity. The lecture from the chairman of the committee was about how this was coalition policy and how it ought not be changed.

The interesting thing about that for all members of the coalition is that this came from a member of the Labor Party whose Prime Minister sits at the table and, only eight days out from the election, swore black and blue that there would not be a carbon tax under the government that she would lead, and then, seven days later, changed her position. So I say to Labor Party members: if you want to lecture us about changes in position, why don't you address the fact that you had a change in eight days as opposed to our change, which was years and years later and reflects one very fundamental aspect—that is, this is not the time for this change. The reason it is not the time for this change is that there are families across this country facing some very difficult choices. They are facing hard choices because the government has presided over a massive increase in the cost of living.

I noticed as well that the chairman of the committee almost fobbed off the very genuine and real concerns of struggling working families. Members opposite, do you remember those struggling working families in Western Sydney who have to budget to the last dollar? The member opposite completely fobs off their concerns and says, 'This is about 80c on a $20 cab fare.' That is exceptionally disingenuous. For example, we know that there is a fleet of some 700,000 vehicles that have been converted to LPG or run on LPG. The taxi component of the 700,000 vehicles is 18,000, so there are about 682,000 vehicles out there that are not taxis and have been converted to run on LPG because families need to embrace the savings. The evidence that was put to the committee demonstrated that those people would be slugged with an extra $250 to $500 a year as a result of this policy change. That is the reason why the coalition will stand up for those families; that is the reason why the coalition will not support this change. But it is about more than that. It is also because the reforms that the government has laid out will see increases in CNG and LNG. The most vulnerable people in our society are going to be slugged with this new tax.

Government members stand up and say: 'But this is about protecting budget integrity. Why won't the coalition be with us? There are savings of $500 million, or thereabouts.' No, there are not. Do not use economic jargon in here and say that this is about savings of $500 million. Let's call it what it is: a direct tax slug of nearly half a billion dollars. The government say, 'Where is the coalition?' I will tell you where the coalition is: we stand against higher taxes. That is where we are. We stand against this kind of activity because it is about taking money straight out of the pockets of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why we turn our backs on this. We turn our backs on this because the government need to get their house in shape, the government need to make policy changes and the government need to make savings. We will then consider what we can do to have policy integrity, but it will not be through the sweat off the brow of working families in Western Sydney. It will not be off their sweat; it will be because the government start to tighten their belt. When the government do that, we will be serious about so-called policy integrity.

I must say that there is one aspect of this that we are comfortable with. We are very happy to support the fourth bill. That particular bill goes to ensuring that there is equitable treatment when it comes to ethanol and other alternative fuels like biodiesel. We are supportive of that. It is not all about 'No, no, no,' despite what the Labor Party say. We are happy for that bill to go through, but that requires the government to do something. It requires the government to stop being quite so tricky. It requires the government to recognise that the first three bills need to be put to one side and then the final bill will be passed by the House. At the moment, the government are into playing tricky games and are insisting that all four bills be passed or none be passed. As the coalition and the dissenting members of the committee said, we are happy to support the passage of the fourth bill, but we will oppose the first three.

I call upon the member opposite to take that message back. He and all Labor members need to concern themselves with the passage of the fourth bill, which is the one for which time is of the essence—that one can go through the House and up to the Senate—or they can stand in their tricky political way against all four bills and refuse to allow them to go through. We will not support that. We make no apology for the fact that we will stand up for those Western Sydney families, we will stand up for those 700,000 vehicles that have been converted to LPG and, most importantly, we will stand up for the environment. The reason we will stand up for the environment is that we know that this policy will make environmentally-friendly vehicles—those vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint—less attractive. This government policy will see the emphasis return to traditional fossil fuels. This government policy will see the hundreds of millions of dollars that has been invested in the conversion of vehicles from traditional fossil fuels to, for example, LPG effectively junked.

I reinforce the point to the chamber and, through the broadcast, to those listening. Remember that it is the coalition that stands for a smaller carbon footprint, it is the coalition that stands for being environmentally-friendly and it is the coalition, through its position on this bill, that will stand up for those who are trying to do the right thing by the planet. The coalition and all the members of the coalition on this committee stand by our dissenting report because we know that we will look after working families and we will look after the environment. We still allow passage of the bill for which time is of the essence, but we remain steadfastly opposed to the first three bills because they are wrong for Australia at the wrong time. In fact, tax reform needs to be part of a comprehensive energy platform.

See this speech in context