Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to raise grievances on behalf of the Longman community this evening. There is much to be aggrieved about. The first issue I'd like to speak on tonight is the proposed unfair ute tax. The vast majority of people I've spoken to in the Longman community are very much against this. It's a bordering-on-communist tax that penalises people who make the democratic choice to purchase a vehicle powered by diesel or gasoline or a hybrid electric-petrol car. I can understand this Labor government's thinking behind the proposal, but, again, this is an overreach by a far-left-wing government that seeks to deprive Australians of their basic right to choose—to choose what they believe and, in this case, to choose what they buy as far as a vehicle goes.

The basic premise is that, if consumers don't buy enough electric vehicles, or EVs, then non-EVs will have extra government costs imposed on them to force people into buying EVs. But people have too many unanswered questions on EVs that this Labor government hasn't answered for them to buy into the narrative. The questions and the comments that I've received include concerns about the volatility of elements in EVs like lithium that have a propensity to catch fire. And many of these rare-earth metals in batteries in EVs are mined in countries that basically allow slave labour. Aren't Labor and their coalition partners, the Greens, concerned about this? The cost of an EV is far too expensive for many in my electorate of Longman to afford. People are concerned about charging and lack of charging infrastructure, and rightly so. Constituents are also concerned about the ability of EVs to tow their caravans and boats, and tradies need to be able to tow trailers laden with tools and building materials, which, last time I checked, were pretty heavy items.

Last week I spoke to a representative from Toyota about their new electric vehicle, and I asked him about charging. He told me the battery capacity is 72 kilowatts, and the unit charges at home, on a standard power point, at two kilowatts per hour, which means it takes 36 hours to fully charge. You can use your car on Monday and then again on Wednesday around lunchtime. Even better news: if you fast-charge it, which still takes hours, that reduces the battery life. How good is this? I'd suggest it's not. This vehicle is similar to the Toyota C-HR. That car starts at $47,160, which is over $22,000 cheaper than this new electric version, which starts at just under $70,000. The more affordable C-HR model is also a hybrid, which sadly gets no breaks under this new proposed tax.

I'm also asked: won't EVs contribute to landfill? The simple answer is, 'Yes.' To replace a battery in an EV when the original battery wears out after around 10 years is between $13,000 and $40,000 depending on the model. Who would spend that sort of money on a 10-year-old car? I would suggest no-one. Not only do we end up with hundreds of solar panels from solar farms and wind towers in landfill; now it will be EVs as well.

Let's clean up the atmosphere and poison the ground and the waterways! Where is the so-called party for the environment in all this, the Greens, sticking up for the environment? Their silence is just more evidence they are wolves in sheep's clothing, pretending to care for the environment when really they are just a social justice communist party who want to indoctrinate our younger generations with misleading and fearful propaganda so they can control them through fear. For that they should be ashamed.

I'm also asking on behalf of the single parent, the uni student or the battler who currently buys a $2,000 second-hand Corolla for a car what they're going to do. There will be no older second-hand cars, as they won't be worth repairing. So what do these people do? Australia used to be a proud democracy where people could make choices based on their individual needs. If someone's lifestyle suits an EV and that suits them, I say, 'Go your hardest.' I won't tell you what to buy, and nor should any government. All the rest of Australia expects is the same freedom to choose what vehicle suits their lifestyle without more government interference and manipulation through unfair taxes in their lives. I say to the people of Longman and Australia: sign my position and boot the ute tax.

Secondly, I'd like to speak about the remarkable cohort of people in our country—those who live with the effects of thalidomide, which was taken by unsuspecting pregnant women back in the early 1960s. As we now know, the drug was completely unsafe, and as a result many babies were born with birth defects, including shortened or absent limbs, blindness, deafness or malformed internal organs. I was so pleased that both major parties were able to come together on this and officially recognise and apologise to these Australians. Former health minister Greg Hunt started the ball rolling, and late last year the Prime Minister made the long-awaited apology those living with the effects of thalidomide had been waiting to hear with the bipartisan support of everyone in this House.

There is still more to do for these people. I have a strong advocate, Trish Jackson, who lives in my electorate of Longman along with her husband, Trevor. Trish is an inspiration and a great example of overcoming adversity. A thalidomide survivor herself, Trish was instrumental in progressing the apology process, with many discussions and meetings with former minister Hunt and myself. Trish also has her own business called Footsie Photos and Limbitless Art—a play on words. I was fortunate to receive one of Trish's calendars this year. All the art is terrific, and it's done with her feet. Trish has explained to me some of the bureaucratic rubbish she and her other survivors have to endure, which I will share with you now. These are the words of the survivors themselves.

No. 1 is medications. The processing for both survivors and the admin and office is likely costing more than some of the medications. I would suggest it would be easier to give all the free medications by adding the safety net switch that already exists. I'm not sure how that would work for survivors without a Health Care Card, but it should be easier to solve and cheaper for the government. The additional medications some may get for free for non-thalidomide issues, but I would expect it would be less than the current refund processing costs, and, for all their suffering, this should not be an issue.

No. 2 is that remittance advice should be electronic. That's probably fair enough.

No. 3 is that the form is out of control. It's a full Centrelink application form each and every time. Why couldn't this be added to the NDIS app as a funding or claim type for survivors so the documents can be easily uploaded each time? Why couldn't the login be the signature instead of the manual process in Adobe? The process is manual-heavy and confusing for those who don't do forms often, and some are not claiming because of this. I'm sure this was no-one's intent.

No. 4 is that the limitation in the online submission means that, after one receipt alone, the form often exceeds the limit. The other option is to email, but there's a statement with that that says privacy could be compromised, and many won't use it. No. 5 is the development of a working group of survivors, similar to the process that the NDIS has, whereby a group of survivors help to shape the outcomes. We have amazing advocates who are not survivors; however, it would be great to get some different perspectives directly. It could be an annual program in which a group of survivors are brought together on topics and provide feedback during the year, with an application process designed to also reach those who aren't claiming. Personally, I reckon it's a great idea to actually engage with the people who have lived experience—it's a new concept, I know!

No. 6 is that all thalidomide survivors should be given a healthcare card regardless of their financial status. This would reduce the cost to be recovered as much as it would help survivors. Some survivors do not have these items, as their partner still works and has income assets that prevent this. The survivor then struggles with being a burden on their partner, even if it is just a cashflow issue until a claim is provided. No. 7 is that EAF claim options can be better explained. There is a disparity in what is being claimed, as some understand extraordinarily better than others and the process appears to be subjective in review.

No. 8 is that requiring doctor forms every 12 months assumes the situation will improve. The reality is that disability and pain only gets worse with age. They need receipts to claim, so they can't claim something a doctor hasn't prescribed. The form should only be needed once. If the specialist, treatment or medication expenses continue, the cause has not changed. The assumption is incorrect. When it was explained to me, I was aghast that we subject anyone to this level of stress and stupidity.

Finally, there's No. 9: the proof of life. The numerous Medicare and HCAF claims appear to prove life. Maybe there should be something linked to that—that is, a proof-of-life form is required if, in the system, there is no evidence of life. Registering a death is required for most of these processes, so this seems weird to everyone involved. Our chemist thought it was hilarious. Let's listen to these people and do all we can to make their lives easier, because they deserve it.

See this speech in context