Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I correct myself. It's not utegate 2.0; it's utegate 3.0. We had utegate 1.0, where they based their entire political strategy on a forged email, and utegate 2.0, where they said that everything was going to 'end the weekend'. Now half of them drive electric cars themselves. Now we've got utegate 3.0, where they're saying that, somehow, giving people cheaper, cleaner cars will 'end the weekend'.

Now, I do thank the member for Fairfax for being here. I was waiting for a good 10 minutes to learn something new in his speech, but it turns out that the Advance Australia talking points don't change from day to day. But I do want to thank you for being here!

What I find fascinating, though, when it comes to talking about debt, taxes and the economic security of the Australian people, is that it was those opposite, not that long ago, that came up with this amazing concoction where they said that the debt levy that they introduced in the first year that they came into government was, of course, not a tax. It was a levy because it was going to pay back all of the debt. Only the Liberal Party could introduce a debt levy on thousands of Australians only to ensure that they got the debt up. They doubled it before the pandemic and doubled it again afterwards, all thanks to their wonderful policy of a debt levy.

But, when we get to the talk of taxes, we know there's a tax that is the shame of those opposite more than any other tax they've proposed in recent times, and they've proposed a few, and that was the tax where the Leader of the Opposition wanted to tax every Australian $7 to go to the GP—his Medicare tax. He wanted to dismantle Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to privatise Medicare, and, once he sold it all off, he was going to tax you to go to the doctor. What we see from those opposite is an absolute failure to acknowledge just how many taxes they introduced when they were in government, and indeed those taxes that they wanted to introduce to the Australian people. But, thanks to Labor, we stopped their GP tax.

But it's not everything that those opposite say that I disagree with. In fact, there are a number of things the member for Bradfield has said in the last year that I do agree with. He wrote a very thoughtful opinion piece. 'Australians love their cars,' said the member for Bradfield. I agree. I love my car. He said, 'Vehicle emissions impact on our health.' I agree with the member for Bradfield once again. He went on to say, 'Noxious emissions from vehicles can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular problems.' I agree again with the member for Bradfield. And he said this, which I think those opposite should, in their private party room meetings, get him to talk them through in detail:

Fuel efficiency standards are about reducing fuel costs and carbon emissions at the same time.

We can reduce the cost for the Australian people and reduce carbon emissions! But the member for Bradfield went on—it's quite a long opinion piece; obviously he has a good relationship with the newspaper that published it. He said, 'But we are behind Europe and the US.' He went on to say:

Making reforms to Australia's fuel efficiency, fuel quality and noxious emissions standards has the potential to deliver real benefits.

I agree.

What we saw was, again, the Turnbull government putting out media release after media release talking about how they had a plan to do exactly what the government is proposing now—that is, to give Australians more choice in the cars that they drive and give them more efficient cars, cleaner cars and cars that require less fuel to run for the same performance. What I find fascinating about this debate is that this is about technology that's already there. These cars are not yet to be manufactured or designed; these cars are already in the market for so many nations.

While this technology is on the table, we have the shadow minister instead going out and campaigning for a technology that isn't yet in the commercial market, when he campaigns for his preferred technology of nuclear small modular reactors. He's said—and indeed the WA Liberals have said very clearly—they want to put a small modular reactor in Collie. What they want to do is put a nuclear reactor in Collie, in the heart of Western Australia—a technology that they've promised they will install if they get elected but that they can't actually buy on the market right now. I find it absolutely amazing that we have, from the shadow minister there, less knowledge about nuclear science than Homer Simpson himself holds.

What we want to do is to work with the technologies that are already there and ensure that people can get the cars that they deserve and the types of cars that they want, because Australians do deserve more choice. And they deserve more than the fearful campaigns that we're seeing from those opposite.

We know those opposite are scared—they've gotten better than in the old days when Tony Abbott used to run out of the chamber to avoid voting—of lower power bills. They voted against them. They're scared of cheaper child care and scared of our Help to Buy policy. Help to Buy is modelled on a very successful Western Australian program which has, over its time, got some 120,000 Western Australians into their own home, but those opposite are scared of Help to Buy. They're scared of fee-free TAFE. They're scared of tax cuts, which they said they wanted to dismantle, they wanted to oppose, they wanted to roll back. They wanted to do all those things so much they voted for them this week! And they're scared of windmills. They're scared of Woolworths. They're scared of solar panels. And today we get the fear campaign on electric cars.

Australians deserve so much more than that. They deserve a government that is focused on giving the Australian people practical solutions to the policy challenges Australians face. That is what this government has done. It's why this week we delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, ensuring 13.6 million Australians get a tax cut. That's 2.9 million more than would have benefited under the old Dutton-Morrison plan—the old Morrison and Leader of the Opposition plan. And 11.5 million Australians, 84 per cent of taxpayers, will get a bigger tax cut because of the legislation that Labor introduced into this chamber. Despite lots of blocking, amendments and everything else that we saw in the Senate, we got it through this week. That is good news for the Australian people.

I am concerned, as the Australian people should be concerned, that, if those opposite get into government, they plan to unwind these. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition no less said absolutely they will unwind those tax cuts.

But that's not all the government has done. I'm proud of our record. We've made the largest ever investment in Medicare bulk billing. We've invested in cheaper medicine. We've invested in the biggest increase to rent assistance in 30 years. We've invested in boosting income support payments. We've invested in fee-free TAFE. I was fortunate to join the state minister Hannah Beazley at North Ridge TAFE in my electorate recently to see what a difference that is making for students, what a difference it's making for people who otherwise wouldn't have accessed training or wouldn't have been able to make the choice to shift careers. Our legislation has expanded paid parental leave, and there have been real results from our efforts to get wages moving again.

What I say is, when it comes to these questions, this government has continued to deliver on real measures to support families feeling pressure on their household budgets, and we'll continue to do so. We might get all the huff and puff from those opposite, who say cheaper, cleaner cars are somehow not in the national interest. What we know is that these cars will save Australian motorists $100 billion in fuel costs to 2050—$100 billion! I'm not going to stand in the way of my constituents getting those sorts of savings. Those opposite shouldn't be standing in the way of their constituents being able to choose a cheaper, more efficient car that will cost less to run, but, unfortunately, that is what we are seeing.

See this speech in context