Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am quite surprised that the Greens member for Melbourne had not more to say about the Taxation of Alternative Fuels Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I would have thought that those who pursued the green style of life and embraced the green philosophy would have had a great deal to be critical of in this particular bill, because LPG is a much cleaner fuel that creates far less pollution than petrol. Quite frankly, I am a petrol user, but I recognise that LPG is an advance on polluting petrol in this era of embracing nonpollutants and cleaning up the globe. The member for Melbourne, I would have thought, would have waxed lyrical for a very long time indeed about the benefits of LPG and about making LPG a cheaper fuel choice than petrol. This government's intention to increase the price of this cheaper, cleaner, less polluting fuel by 12.5c per litre seems to fly in the face of the whole philosophy about cleaning up the globe and saving it from damnation caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. So I am caught almost unawares—never absolutely, but almost unawares.

I stand this evening primarily concerned with the aspect of the transport industry energy source of the future. That will possibly be compressed natural gas. It will hopefully be more exotic and scientifically advanced fuel cells using hydrogen, but in the meantime CNG, or compressed natural gas, ticks a lot of boxes. The downside of it at this stage is that we do not have the infrastructure across this nation necessary to allow the users of CNG to access that product as they would like to.

We do need, in our fuel usage, to consider the pollutants as a result. When one is faced with a government with a publicised philosophy about reducing greenhouse gases, it is very odd—indeed, one finds it alarming—that they would add costs to a product that reduces pollution and allow more polluting substances to be at a relatively lesser cost. It beggars belief that a government that is so populist would do such a thing. Of course, often their defence of their decision is that it was a policy of the Howard government that we would increase the fuel tax on LPG. I might clear the record by saying that that was one of many strategies out of a whole mosaic that would have rationalised improved revenue collection in a very different era than we find ourselves in today. Today, families are hurting. Families are facing increases on all facets. There are increases in the cost of electricity at home. They are facing increases in the cost of petrol at the bowser. They are facing numerous increases in addition to the great unnecessary increases in their mortgage costs as a result of this government's excessive spending. Why on earth would they want to be faced with the cost of an increased price of LPG?

I say it again: why would a government that almost prostitutes itself in appeasing the public—

See this speech in context