Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he came to office, petrol has increased in price by more than 13c a litre? How can the Prime Minister assert in his Adelaide declaration that he has done as much as he physically can to provide additional help to the family budget? Don’t Australians deserve better than a Prime Minister who is a quitter?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. Had the Leader of the Opposition been listening attentively to my answer to his first question, what he would have heard me say was this: the budget announced by the government contains a range of measures to assist working families. I will repeat them: $55 billion as a working family support package and, on top of that, a package of $5 billion plus to assist seniors and carers. We have also said quite clearly that we will continue to be attentive to other measures which can assist working families into the future. That is what I said in response to the first question, had the honourable member been listening. That is why the Henry commission has been established to undertake a comprehensive, long-term review of Australia’s tax, income and retirement income support systems.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another review.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘Another review.’ I notice that in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply he is depending on precisely that review to construct his position on the future of retirement incomes policy and the position on seniors. If it is such a bad review, why is it that those opposite are depending on the selfsame review to deliver their own policy outcome? It would help if those opposite could develop a coherent position.

On the question of global oil prices, which the honourable member refers to, and their impact on Australia and at the bowser for working families, petrol prices are going through the roof and that is affecting working families right across the country. It is affecting all those working Australians and it is affecting those who are doing it tough in Australia as well. Therefore, it is important to place into context what is happening on oil prices. If you look right across the spectrum and across the world, what we have seen since the Iraq war is global oil prices having gone up by 400 per cent. We have had oil prices double in the last year. We have had the biggest increases in global oil prices since the 1970s when we had the double oil shock of that decade. So what we have today is oil prices at their highest point in history, taking into account all inflationary factors. That is the global economic reality, and the impact on Australians at the bowser is acute. Based on the analyses that we have been provided, we have now had Australians paying $30 more per month over the last seven months. This is a big slug on the family budget. Right across the world we see prices going up as well. In the UK they are now paying $2.35 a litre and $2.95 a litre in France.

In terms of a proper analysis of what is happening with the global oil challenges, what are we therefore confronted with? Across the world today, we have a huge number of supply and demand factors at work. On the demand side, with the rise of China and India, the same factors which are fuelling the demand for Australia’s energy based resources are fuelling global demand for oil—hence, the oil price is going through the roof. You see that with India bringing on stream something like 1.3 million new automobiles every year. There is a similar development in China.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Nelson interjecting

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member interjects about what this has to do with the price of petrol in Australia. It is called the global oil price, and the global oil price directly affects the Australian oil price. I would suggest that they refer to their own statements on this matter over time. When you look at these challenges, on both the supply side and the demand side, it is important that we have an integrated response. On the supply side there are continued problems in Nigeria, and it is only recently that, after five years, supply from Iraq has begun to catch up with its pre-war levels of oil production. On the question of a proper response to this, it must be one which deals with long-term global factors and immediate national and short-term cost pressures for families as well. We need to look carefully at what is happening with overall global supply and maximise our leverage on organisations such as OPEC, as the President of the United States is seeking to do at present, backed by other heads of government as well, including this government. We must look also at the overall pattern of global demand. If we continue to have a lack of efficiency in global oil consumption, that will also have a cumulative impact on pushing the oil price up. In Australia we must also deal with practical challenges. The number of Australians who are currently sitting in queues in traffic around the country because of urban congestion—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming in on cue, the Manager of Opposition Business says ‘blame the states.’ We have a Building Australia Fund, which is designed to confront the challenges of urban congestion. Why don’t those opposite come up with a positive response to the challenges of urban congestion, for example, in dealing with what we do with the future of urban metro? Beyond that is an alternative fuel strategy, such as never emanated from those opposite, which is currently being developed by my colleague Minister Ferguson. On top of that, what are we going to do in terms of automobile design? We have the green car innovation fund, with half a billion dollars to assist in the production of an Australian hybrid car. Then you have domestic competition policy arrangements. What we have done on our side of the House is the appointment of a petrol price commissioner, the application of formal price monitoring in relation to the petroleum retail industry and the proposed introduction of FuelWatch by year’s end, endorsed by the state Liberal government of Western Australia, who introduced it, and the state Liberal leadership of New South Wales—and it seems that the federal leadership once again have parted company with their state colleagues. On the question of taxation treatment, as I said before, these matters are before the Henry commission and we wait for their report.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. What is the government doing to promote competition and transparency in the petrol industry? Does the government foresee any obstacles in achieving this transparency?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. As the Prime Minister has said, rising oil prices around the world are causing concern for Australian motorists. I can report to the House that, with a rise of $8 in the last week, the current price for Malaysian Tapis oil is $139 a barrel. Increasing transparency and competition in the fuel market has been a priority for this government. That is why we have substantially increased the powers of the ACCC, and that is why we have appointed Australia’s first Petrol Commissioner. An important result of the ACCC’s petrol inquiry was to suggest the consideration of a national FuelWatch scheme. FuelWatch was introduced by the Court Liberal government in Western Australia in 2001 and has received bipartisan support in that state since then. FuelWatch is a scheme which will put motorists back in charge and will give them more certainty when buying petrol. It is a scheme which will enable motorists to map their route between work and home to determine where the cheapest petrol will be today and tomorrow and to make their decision on that basis. We know that there is a big gap between the most expensive and the cheapest petrol in any capital city on any given day. Today in Brisbane the gap between the cheapest petrol and the most expensive petrol is 24c a litre. On 15 May, the day the Leader of the Opposition responded to the budget, the gap in Melbourne between the cheapest and the most expensive petrol was 30c a litre. FuelWatch will enable motorists to find that cheap petrol from their home or from their work on their computer. This will put motorists back in charge.

I am asked if there are any obstacles to the introduction of FuelWatch. I regret to inform the House that there are obstacles to the introduction of FuelWatch, and they sit opposite, because FuelWatch will require the passage of legislation through both houses of the parliament. Obviously, it will be a lot easier with the support of honourable members opposite. Now, we are not sure where they stand. The Leader of the Opposition and others have criticised FuelWatch. Yesterday the leader of the opposition in the other house said they have yet to make a decision about where they stand on FuelWatch, so we are not sure where they stand. But on this side of the House we stand for the Petrol Commissioner. On this side of the House we stand for giving the ACCC real teeth and we stand for FuelWatch while the opposition prevaricates. Some of them say that the better policy is to reduce the excise. The Leader of the Opposition says that. We are not sure if that will be the policy at the next election. They are not sure whether FuelWatch will be their policy, and they are not sure if reducing the excise will be their policy at the next election. The shadow Treasurer was asked whether it would be policy at the next election to cut the excise and he said, ‘Well, it might if Brendan—look, if that is our policy then I will argue for it as eloquently or not as I can.’ That is as certain as they could get.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Assistant Treasurer was not asked for an alternative view. In the first question the Prime Minister was asked for an alternative view.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister was asked about obstacles. I call the Assistant Treasurer.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know the shadow Treasurer could not bring himself to say this was good policy. The best he could do was say it was good politics. We know the member for Flinders has misgivings, we know the member for Mayo has misgivings and we know the member for Higgins opposes the policy, so why don’t they just get behind FuelWatch? We had an indication as to their thinking yesterday. We know that, on excise, they have more positions than you would find on a cricket field. But, on FuelWatch, we have an indication as to their thinking when the leader of the opposition in the other house, Senator Minchin, whom we understand is a man of very great influence on that side of the other house under current arrangements, said, ‘We don’t support FuelWatch because it is very expensive.’

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Assistant Treasurer was asked about obstacles; he was not asked for alternative views. Therefore, I would ask you to bring him back to the original question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Assistant Treasurer will return to the question.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I was asked about obstacles. And it is an important obstacle that we may not be able to get FuelWatch through the upper house. Yesterday the leader of the opposition in the upper house said that they have misgivings about FuelWatch because it is so expensive. Honourable members opposite would have read the budget papers. They know that FuelWatch will cost $20 million over four years. Apparently that is too expensive. But $8 billion over four years is not too expensive. I know the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education has a great concern about the quality of maths teaching and teaching standards in this country. I have referred this to her as a case study for studying value for money—that is, that $20 million over four years is actually cheaper than $8 billion over four years.

But I am pleased to report to the House that there is one leader of the Liberal Party in Australia who has shown leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, it is not the honourable gentleman who sits opposite, but it is one well known to members from the great state of New South Wales. Mr O’Farrell has said of FuelWatch:

This will ease the burden on families and pensioners by helping drive down petrol prices.

He went on to say:

This is about putting the interests of motorists’ wallets ahead of oil company profits.

We will soon know where honourable members opposite stand on that particular equation when they announce whether or not they will support FuelWatch in the upper house.