Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cowper proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of FuelWatch to provide cheaper petrol for motorists.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There could be few matters of greater interest at the moment than the cost of living and, more importantly, the cost of fuel. It affects every family; it affects every single parent, every self-funded retiree, every carer, every pensioner. Every visit to the shops provides a reminder of how well or how poorly we are doing against rising prices. And we are not talking about luxuries; we are talking about necessities. We are talking about putting food on the table. We are talking about putting petrol in the car to get to work or to take the children to school or to sport. It goes to the question that every parent, pensioner or carer asks themselves every time they visit the supermarket or the petrol station: can we go on living the way we are? We have no proposals from this government on grocery prices other than to launch yet another inquiry, which is grinding away as we speak. On fuel the government has taken some action. It has proposed to put up the price of diesel on heavy vehicles, which will, in turn, increase the price of fuel and, in turn, increase the price of groceries. And it is going to give us a national version of the FuelWatch scheme which has failed so dismally in Western Australia.

Let me start by looking at the performance of the FuelWatch scheme in WA, where the scheme began in 2001. There is no evidence that it has reduced prices. Recent evidence shows that weekly prices are generally higher in Western Australia than in other mainland states. In the week ending 6 April, WA averaged a low of 138.4 compared to a national average of 137.2. The week ending 13 April saw WA with an average of 141.7 compared to the rest of Australia, with 138.9. And so it goes on. The week ending 20 April saw WA with 141.9 compared to 140.4 for the rest of Australia. The week ending 27 April saw WA with 142.4 compared to 142.2 for the rest of Australia. And today, the day when Mr Ferguson’s writings were so clearly exhibited in the media, the price in Perth is higher than in any of the eastern capitals. Where is the benefit?

The Assistant Treasurer told the ABC in April that Fuelwatch would lower fuel prices by 2c per litre. On the same day, Graeme Samuel of the ACCC said Fuelwatch was not about saving motorists money. He said it was ‘not a process whereby consumers might be able to save 1c or 1.5c per litre off their fuel costs’. Petrol Commissioner Mr Patrick Walker, on the other hand, said it would save motorists a whopping 5c a litre. Who is right? They cannot all be right. In fact, on current figures it appears only Mr Samuel is correct. He said it is not about saving motorists money. In fact, the Fuelwatch scheme is about costing motorists money. In the major eastern capital cities, motorists take advantage of the weekly fuel cycle and they tend to buy on ‘cheap Tuesday’. In WA, due to FuelWatch, there is now a two-weekly cycle. The cheap day therefore only comes around once a fortnight. With 76 per cent of motorists filling up weekly or more than weekly, there is a large cohort of motorists who are being denied the opportunity to purchase cheaply every week and have to pay a higher price each other week.

Mr Samuel was asked at a press conference on the ACCC’s report into unleaded petrol in December last year how motorists would minimise their petrol costs. He said:

Watch the price cycles and take advantage of them ... [They] can provide significant advantage to consumers.

But not in WA they can’t. If you have to purchase fuel every week, every other week you have to pay a higher price. So, if FuelWatch goes national, huge numbers of motorists will be denied that opportunity.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More expensive fuel all over the country.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All over the country motorists would be denied that opportunity. There is evidence that FuelWatch in WA has given motorists less choice, not more choice. In an all-party report to the Queensland parliament in 2006, it noted that an independent fuel retailer, Matilda Fuel Supplies, urged the committee not to introduce price mechanisms as in Western Australia because it would be, in their words, a disaster for independents. The CEO of the Service Station Association, Ron Bowden, said of service station operators:

If they’re not sure what the market’s going to be tomorrow, they are naturally going to be conservative and make sure that they don’t have to discount any more than they have to. We think this could actually increase average prices rather than lower them.

Paul Stinton, the former owner of a service station at Mt Lawley, told the West Australian:

All my life I’ve been discounting petrol and then all of a sudden FuelWatch appeared and that hurt me so badly it wiped me out. The public don’t realise but the first thing [a national system] would do is to wipe out the independents and take competition out of the market.

To sum up the experience in Western Australia, we find that petrol does not cost less, it costs more. We find that motorists lose out on buying on cheap Tuesdays and have to pay more every other week. We find that independents are priced out of the market and the market becomes less competitive.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked by the member for Wentworth whether he was aware of evidence that independents had been disadvantaged by FuelWatch in Western Australia. This was part of his reply. The Prime Minister said:

The key thing is that, when this matter was subjected to analysis by the ACCC, the conclusion was clear that this particular proposal of the government was worthy of implementation.

But let us look at exactly what the ACCC did say in its report on unleaded petrol. It said a number of issues needed to be considered. The ACCC had concerns on the limitations in the analysis already undertaken which might influence the direction of a recommendation. The ACCC was concerned at the effect of a price commitment arrangement on independents. It was concerned as to whether regional and country markets are sufficiently competitive to benefit from increased price transparency. It also expressed the concern that the effect of Fuelwatch on price cycles, and therefore on some consumers’ ability to predict days of the week when prices would be relatively low, would not be enhanced. There was also the issue of dependence on the media to realise the full benefits of the Fuelwatch scheme and it was concerned about the administrative and compliance costs associated with a national scheme. That does not sound like ‘worthy of implementation’ to me. That sounds more like considerable reservations. So when we hear the members opposite say that the ACCC is all for this, the ACCC wants it implemented, they are really gilding the lily.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not true.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just not true. What the ACCC did say is, ‘We have very real and very grave concerns with regard to the implementation of this proposal.’

With regard to motoring organisations, the RACV said in March this year that it believed that the introduction of a 24-hour rule for petrol pricing as used by the Western Australian government’s FuelWatch scheme would be detrimental for Victorian motorists and would create higher average fuel prices. The RACQ said in April that the government needed independent expert advice that a WA style FuelWatch program really would deliver low fuel prices across Australia. Later in the month the RACQ said:

The Federal Government’s desire to get fuel prices off the newspapers’ front pages—

and they certainly had some assistance from the member for Batman this morning—

at any cost could be at the expense of most motorists.

And it went on:

If news reports are accurate, the Government has conceded [Fuelwatch] will be difficult to implement, that it is not foolproof, and that it only ‘hopes’ it will deliver cheaper petrol. In effect, the only certainty being offered to motorists is more uncertainty.

Again in April the RAA of South Australia said that most experts pushing the WA FuelWatch scheme seemed to be poorly informed. An Australian Automobile Association press release in March said that an analysis of fuel price cycles in the eastern mainland capital cities reveals that motorists could pay a lot less by buying on cheap Tuesdays.

Let us move to the NRMA. It is an organisation that is oft quoted by the Assistant Treasurer. I must admit that the NRMA is a supporter of Fuelwatch.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surprise, surprise.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it does support the scheme. There were some interesting comments on Mr Alan Evans, a keen advocate of Fuelwatch on behalf of the Assistant Treasurer. Mr Terry McCrann said of Mr Evans:

Thank goodness for the RACV. Able to use intelligent analysis and common sense to counter the destructive nonsense pumped out by the NRMA’s serial idiot Alan Evans.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A direct quote.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a direct quote. Do the voluntary organisations agree with the Prime Minister that the scheme is worthy of implementation? No, they do not indeed. Do the ACCC agree with the Prime Minister that the scheme is worthy of implementation? I do not believe they do. I think at best they are saying there are some very considerable reservations.

Let us look at one more quote that really has resonated today. It is from the Australian about the Minister for Resources and Energy. The good old minister for resources. You can always depend on the minister for resources. The Australian today said:

Mr Ferguson attacked the Fuel Watch scheme as an anti-competitive waste of money and predicted it would leave battlers out of pocket, despite Government claims it would lead to lower fuel prices. “The biggest losers—

I repeat, the biggest losers—

...would again be working families in places like Western Sydney,” Mr Ferguson wrote in a letter to Consumer Affairs Minister Chris Bowen. So, do his Ministers agree with the Prime Minister that the scheme is “worthy of implementation?” Well no, not all of them.

So it seems. The Prime Minister led voters to believe he would bring down fuel prices, he led motorists to believe he was going to bring down fuel prices, but on his watch we have seen prices rise by an average of 17½c a litre since he was elected, the highest on record. He says he cannot do any more. In his infamous Adelaide declaration he said he had done all he physically could to help Australian families. On a local angle, it was interesting to note how my local newspaper, the Coffs Coast Advocate, reacted to that. They wrote:

Believing Kevin Rudd when he says he has done all he can to control rising household prices is akin to believing there are pixies at the bottom of the garden. Mr Rudd is either totally oblivious to the pain being felt by Australians ... right now or he is a liar.

It is clear that the Prime Minister reached for Fuelwatch like a drowning man clutching at straws—determined to be seen to be doing something about fuel prices when in fact his intention was to do nothing. There are only a few phrases I think you can use to describe Fuelwatch. One is ‘a cruel hoax’; another is ‘a fraud’; another is ‘a confidence trick.’ It is about the Prime Minister attempting to give false hope to battlers who are being hit hard by rising prices. He just needs to consult with his resources minister.

The latest research that has come out shows quite clearly that motorists in Sydney and Melbourne are able to purchase petrol at a cheaper price than motorists in Perth. So what price is Fuelwatch? It is going to cost motorists right round the country extra money every time they fill their tank. When they drive their Commodore onto the service station driveway, the cost in tax that they pay when they fill their Commodore is around $35. I think this House should, as a matter of principle, believe that the pain of increasing prices should not be borne solely by motorists, by struggling families, by pensioners, by self-funded retirees; it should be borne by the entire community, and that includes corporate Australia and government.

Government has a role to play in bearing its share of the pain of increasing fuel prices. That is why the opposition’s proposal—the only proposal to provide real relief to motorists of some 5c a litre—is so important to Australian families and Australian pensioners. It is giving real relief, not waiting for a committee to report in 18 months time; not another inquiry; and not, potentially, years of negotiation with the states trying to come up with a solution. This proposal is a real reduction for motorists—5c a litre every time they fill their car. It is a proposal that should be taken up by this government as a matter of urgency.

They were elected to office on the basis of putting downward pressure on fuel prices and on the basis of putting downward pressure on grocery prices. Whatever spin the Assistant Treasurer wants to put on this, whatever spin the Prime Minister wants to put on this, and whatever spin the Treasurer wants to put on this, at the end of the day the people of Australia are looking to this government for relief. They are looking to this government to assist them in balancing the family budget. It was they who put the issues of the kitchen table so firmly on the agenda during last year’s election campaign. It is they who are so disappointing the Australian people. I was at a meeting in my electorate just on the weekend and there were quite a number of people who said clearly and unequivocally, ‘We want our votes back.’

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next speaker, the member for Cowper accused the Prime Minister of being a liar. I think it would assist the House if he would withdraw that comment.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a direct quote.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter if it was a direct quote; it would help the House if you would withdraw it.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the remark.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Remember John Howard used to say, ‘Love me or loathe me, at least you know where I stand.’ It is true: love him or loathe him, and you know we loathed him, at least you knew where he stood. You cannot say that about those opposite anymore. They are divided over Kyoto. There are a few over there who still believe that climate change is a fantasy. They are divided over Work Choices. Many could not even bear to go into the chamber to vote on Work Choices. They are still divided over the apology. I seem to remember that there were a couple of MPs who could not even turn up for the apology. They are divided on pensioners as well.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. This is an MPI relating to fuel. The member has certainly strayed from the matter for debate before the parliament at the moment and he should be brought back to order.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dickson. I am listening to the member for Blaxland. He has been going for two minutes, but I will be listening closely. The member for Blaxland has the call.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue that has been canvassed in this chamber today is about division—division over petrol prices, and that includes the division about petrol prices within your own party. The shadow Treasurer has one opinion in private in email and another position in public. That is the point I am making today. Interestingly, I understand in the joint party room—or maybe it was just the party room—today that there was more division going on. I read in Crikey that half-a-dozen MPs met to demand that the leadership group stay focused on government rather than internal divisions. They were complaining that MPs were failing to keep leadership speculation to themselves.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance again. This speaker has now been going for four minutes of his allotted time and he has not once mentioned petrol prices, which actually are of relevance to his constituents in Western Sydney.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. He was referring to petrol discussions in the joint party room. He did mention the word ‘petrol’. I call the member for Blaxland.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was making that point and I thank you for that wise ruling. It is no wonder that they cannot even make up their minds in the party room because they cannot even make up their own individual minds. The member for Mayo cannot even decide if he wants to stay or he wants to go. One day the member for Wentworth—(Quorum formed) I thank those opposite for giving me a crowd to support me. Just to remind honourable members of what I was saying, it is no wonder they cannot make up their minds over there because they cannot make up their own individual minds.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the members are an audience, they might resume their seats; otherwise, they should leave the chamber.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo cannot even decide if he wants to be a member of this place.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People of taste—out they go!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blaxland has the call.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But no audience.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is all right. You just stay there and listen; you will enjoy this. The member for Wentworth flips and flops. He cannot decide whether inflation is a fairytale or a problem. He tells us the sky will fall in if there are extreme spending cuts in the budget, and then on budget night accuses the government of a big-spending budget. Flip-flopping Turnbull turns around again. But he is not the only member opposite who cannot make up his mind, who keeps changing his mind. Remember this bloke: ‘I have never voted Liberal in my life’? I think he is the same bloke who said, ‘I have voted Liberal in every election since 1987, even though in 1988 I rejoined the Labor Party.’

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We are now more than halfway through this member’s allotted time and he has not once referred to the substance of this issue, which is the failure of Fuelwatch to bring down petrol prices across Australia. I ask you to actually draw him back to the topic of this MPI.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rule on the member for Stirling’s point of order. This is a discussion; it is not a question. If you look at practice on this, it has normally been a very wide-ranging discussion rather than a question. But I would remind the member for Blaxland, as I call him, of the discussion before the House. The two members who are having a discussion up there, the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Fadden, might like to take a seat or leave the chamber.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I am making is that, love him or loath him, at least with John Howard you knew what he stood for.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had conviction.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had conviction. You knew what he stood for. We did not like it and the people of Australia did not like it, but at least you knew what he stood for. Now we have got a Leader of the Opposition who attacks us for having summits and then holds his own summit. He says Work Choices is dead, but then a couple of weeks ago he said John Howard got it right. This is a zombie policy that is coming back to life again. Remember that they had a lot of trouble apologising to people who had been stolen from their families, but they had no problem apologising to the banks by saying, ‘I am sorry that you have to repossess people’s homes.’ That is what happened over the last few weeks. Of all the people to feel sorry for, it should not be the banks. I feel sorry for the 300 families in my electorate who lost their homes last year, not the banks. That is what this Leader of the Opposition said.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. What is this? He has rolled out the wrong speech. He has not mentioned fuel once. This is an MPI about Fuelwatch. With only four or five minutes to go in his contribution, he has not mentioned the word ‘fuel’ once. It is unbelievable. The people of Western Sydney would be asking their member to talk about the issue of fuel.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson will resume his seat. We do not have a question but a discussion before the House. I once again call the member for Blaxland and remind him of the discussion. He should try and bring his discussion to the matter of public importance.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We certainly know where John Howard stood on petrol. He is the former Treasurer who introduced the excise tax in 1978 and he defended it for the next 30 years. But who knows where the Liberal Party really stands on this anymore? Do you have a position on the luxury car tax? I do not know. Do you have a position on means-testing the baby bonus? I do not think so. How long will your petrol policy last? No answer. Maybe you can answer this question for me: are you going to vote against the Fuelwatch legislation?

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are going to vote for lower petrol prices.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No answer. They are still smudging. They voted against it today. Are they going to vote against it when it becomes legislation? You would think they should vote for it, because it is Western Australian Liberal Party reform—they are the ones who introduced it. Barry O’Farrell thinks it is a great idea. He said Fuelwatch would ‘ease some of those wild fluctuations in weekly pricing’. Catherine Cusack, the Liberal Party spokesperson for fair trading in the New South Wales upper house, supports it. Good on you, Catherine. You are on the right track. We heard also from Choice magazine. Before the coalition attacked Alan Evans from the NRMA, we heard from him. We know that Alan Evans supports Fuelwatch. He thinks it is a good idea. He thinks it will help people that are out there battling with petrol prices. What about the RAC WA? I think they support it as well. They support it because it will increase competition.

The ACCC conducted an inquiry—we did not ask them to do it; the former government asked them to do it. I think the member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, commissioned the work. What did it say? It found that current conditions were conducive to anticompetitive conduct. That means that petrol companies were passing information between each other but people buying petrol were none the wiser. They did not have the information they need; they had to rely on pot luck.

I did a little bit of research on fuel today in Sydney. The Leader of the Opposition extolled the virtues of buying petrol on a Tuesday—how important it is, the cheapest day of the week—and said that there were going to be people lining up. I think he described in quite some detail people lining up to get petrol today. I asked myself: how much is petrol today in Sydney? It depends on where you go. The cheapest price is $1.47 and the dearest is $1.62. That is the point. There is a big differential: almost 13c difference in the price depending on which petrol station you turn up at in Sydney today.

Effectively, you have got to rely on pot luck. People are not given the information they need to make the decisions they need to make. After mucking around in the chamber today and trying to delay the vote until after the TVs go to air, the question is: what are you really going to do on Fuelwatch? Are you going to frustrate the legislation? Are you going to pass it in the Senate? I can see members opposite suddenly going very quiet, not wanting to give me an answer one way or another. I just want a yes or a no.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will get your chance to speak if you like. Give me a yes or a no. Are you going to vote in favour of the Fuelwatch legislation? Will you pass it through the Senate? They do not want to give us an answer, because they have not decided yet. This goes back to the original comments that I made at the start of my speech today. They are a party divided. They do not know what they stand for anymore. What happened to the party of John Howard—’Love me or loathe me; at least you know where I stand’? What happened to that? It is a bit like the Hydra from Greek mythology: if you cut off the head, two heads rise up; if you cut off the leader, two more leaders rise up; if you cut off the policy, a multitude of other policies rise up. At least with John Howard you knew where you stood. There was not this flip-flopping on climate change, petrol and industrial relations. The only thing they stand for anymore is vote-buying. I never thought I would say this in this chamber, but with John Howard—love him or loathe him—at least you knew where he stood.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to talk on fuel. That is a revelation because, if you listened to the contribution of the previous member, you would have thought this debate was about anything but fuel. Speaking particularly as a person who comes from Western Sydney, where families will, under Fuelwatch, be paying more to fill up their tanks, I think families would be disgusted at the contribution that this person made to this debate. The member for Blaxland embarrassed himself and, I think, frustrated his constituents because he did not address the issue of how Fuelwatch is going to help people, apart from saying that, where petrol varies in price, they are going to fix the higher price. How that is going to be of benefit to constituents in Western Sydney or in outer metropolitan or rural areas—or any areas in Australia—or make a better situation for consumers, for motorists, is way beyond anybody who is part of this debate.

It is important to recognise the history of this debate to understand why it is that the Prime Minister is in a dilemma over petrol at the moment. Before the last election and in the lead-up to this budget, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that he would bring downward pressure on petrol prices. He promised the Australian public that he would bring downward pressure on grocery prices. And he promised the Australian people he would deliver more affordable home loans and housing affordability to first home buyers in particular. He has delivered nothing of that promise. The reality is that in the run-up to the election, the Prime Minister and this government knew about the issue of world oil prices. They knew about the way in which prices operate in the domestic market in relation to fuel and the way that people pay at the bowser. They knew all of those external and internal factors at the time that they made a promise to the Australian people that petrol prices would be lower if they voted for Kevin Rudd. The reality is that, six months into this term, this government has thrown its hands up in the air and said there is nothing more practical that they can do to provide assistance to motorists who are suffering at the moment with bowser prices at record highs.

They lifted expectation, they promised the Australian people and they are suffering at the moment as a result of that. It is a very similar story to the way in which they conducted themselves in the inflation debate. They built up expectation that there was going to be a budget which would cut through government spending and deliver downward pressure on inflation in this country. It did no such thing. They did a similar thing in relation to pensions. They went out to the Australian public before being elected, and since, promising pensioners that they would offer support to people who were finding it difficult to manage their household budget, as pensioners are, understandably, with the pressures of cost of living at the moment. They ramped up expectation that they were going to deliver cheaper prices—both petrol and grocery prices—to pensioners. In this last budget they delivered no such thing. That is why there is so much anger about this very tricky and clever political strategy by the Rudd government in relation to petrol. They ramped up expectation. They promised Australian families, Australian small business and the public at large that they would bring downward pressure on interest rates, on inflation and on petrol prices. They failed on all of those counts and that is why we find ourselves having this debate today.

The person we lovingly refer to as ‘cygnet’ on the other side of the chamber—Baby Swan—is in the mould of Daddy Swan, the incompetent Treasurer. He is the person, the genius, who came up with the Fuelwatch scheme. He is the person who authored this disastrous policy. He walked into cabinet and said: ‘Prime Minister, we need a political fix for petrol because we’ve got one big problem out there. We promised the Australian people we would deliver cheaper petrol and we have got no hope of doing so. So how can we cloud this debate? How can we suggest to people that we are doing something when in reality we are doing nothing?’ He had a look at the scheme in Western Australia. He had a look at the only politically viable option that they had, and that was to create this political belief that somehow Fuelwatch was going to deliver cheaper prices across the eastern states where it currently does not operate. Any forensic analysis of the way in which FuelWatch has operated in Perth and in Western Australia over recent years quickly arrives you at the position of realising that petrol has indeed been dearer in Perth than in the eastern states over the time that FuelWatch has operated. This scheme would deliver higher petrol prices to Australian families. That is why this Rudd government should be condemned.

There is no doubting that this is a clever and tricky political manoeuvre but it is certainly in the avenue of style and not substance, which this government has come to stand for. This is a clever and tricky political strategy by a clever and tricky political Prime Minister but it is not going to deliver one cent in savings at the bowser for Australian motorists. The Prime Minister in question time today refused to take up the opportunity to say that motorists would not be worse off financially under this Fuelwatch scheme if it is implemented eventually by this government.

There are people who have different views about Fuelwatch. One of the most informed views as part of this debate is indeed from the Minister for Resources and Energy. The minister for energy, with the resources of his department, has researched Fuelwatch. He, like other cabinet ministers, including the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy—and no doubt others, of whom we are not yet aware—opposed this policy in cabinet. They opposed this policy in cabinet and they opposed it, in the case of the minister for energy, in writing as well. He felt so aggrieved by this Fuelwatch scheme that he put his concerns in writing to the Treasurer, to the Prime Minister and to the Assistant Treasurer. Having researched this scheme, he realised that it would reduce competition in the marketplace, that it would take away the cheaper day in the cycle that particularly low-income motorists use to fuel up their cars under the current system and that it would have a negative impact overall on Australian motorists.

As part of his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition realised that the only way the federal government can have downward pressure on fuel prices is to reduce the excise. The reality is that, with his announcement of 5c, he has caught this Prime Minister out, because the public understand now that this Fuelwatch scheme is nothing more than a political stunt. It was extended over the last couple of days by sending off the issue of GST on excise to the Henry review, which will not report back for 18 months. Families are suffering at the moment and they cannot be told that they need to wait another 18 months before there is any possibility of them receiving some sort of relief in the amount of money that they have to pay to fill their cars with petrol. That shows how cynical this Prime Minister is, it shows how he is not concerned legitimately about the pressures that apply to families at the moment and it shows that he has squibbed his only opportunity to bring downward pressure on petrol prices—that is, by adopting the stance of the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the excise.

This government says that the opposition does not have a right to talk about bringing excise down. But they realise that it was this opposition when in government, under John Howard and Peter Costello, that froze excise in 2001 and that reduced the excise in the year 2000 when the GST was implemented as part of the new tax system. Had we not done that, petrol today would be almost 18c per litre dearer than it is at the bowser for families. So I say to families: when you are filling up your car tonight, add 18c a litre, because if it were not for the action on excise by the coalition government over the last few years, those petrol tanks would be 18c a litre more expensive to fill up today than they are at the present time.

The reality is that this is a government that realises that if they are to deliver on their promise of reducing petrol prices they have to cut excise. They do not have any other power. Fuelwatch is a political stunt that has been dreamt up by an Assistant Treasurer desperate for attention, because he knows the Treasurer is a person that probably will not see another budget and he is auditioning for that position, like the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at the moment. They are both auditioning and trying very hard for the position of Treasurer. Fuelwatch is a political stunt. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am always pleased to speak on the issue of petrol prices because it is a matter of tremendous significance in my electorate of Lindsay. There has been much discussion today about the impact that petrol prices are having on residents in Western Sydney. I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and to bring forward some of the views that I have picked up in my discussions with people throughout my local community. I was interested to see a bit earlier in the debate on the censure motion the member for Wentworth come forward and embark upon a discussion about how petrol prices and Fuelwatch would cripple the working families of Western Sydney. As I saw the member for Wentworth talking about the working families of Western Sydney, it almost sounded like a David Attenborough documentary—talking about some exotic species in a far and distant place that he had encountered once or twice before on his travels to the outer west. Unfortunately though, as brief as those encounters may have been, the member for Wentworth has very little understanding of the issues affecting families and all residents in parts of the world such as Western Sydney.

In the discussions I have had with local residents in my community over many years, when it comes to the issue of petrol prices one of the single biggest issues that they raise is the fluctuations in petrol price. The fact that you can leave home in the morning and the price of petrol is set at one price and on the way home that evening it can be 10c, 15c or 20c more expensive is a real issue for families. I know that those on the other side say, ‘Cheap Tuesday. Cheap Tuesday is what you currently have access to, but if we had Fuelwatch then you would not get cheap Tuesday’. As much as people do flock towards service stations when prices are cheaper, the reality is that people do not only fill up their cars once a week, particularly in parts of the world such as Western Sydney where you are travelling many—and in some cases hundreds of—kilometres each week. The convenience of filling up on Tuesday is something that cannot always be accommodated within the daily lives of working people. If you do happen to need to fill up a little bit later in the week, it is not a matter of saying, ‘We will just not go anywhere till Tuesday. Cancel the swimming lessons on Saturday. We are not going to the footy on Sunday. We are going to wait till Tuesday when we can fill the car up again.’

These are the realities of what is going on out there in the real world. This is a very artificial debate that we are hearing today. A lot has been said by those on the other side, but the one thing that these people have not said is where they stand. Do they support Fuelwatch or are they going to vote against it? They have not said that. They have had 25 minutes in this debate to articulate their position. We are still waiting. I am looking with some anticipation, in the hope that if it is the member for Stirling that is to follow then he may bring forward the pearls of wisdom that will enlighten us as to what the opposition’s thinking is.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apparently he does not want to. In my local community, people have welcomed the prospect of Fuelwatch. I will quote from a local newspaper an opinion piece written by one of the local editors shortly after the Assistant Treasurer and the Prime Minister announced Fuelwatch in the Lindsay electorate. Mr Bernard Bratusa, the editor of the Western Weekender, on 17 April 2008—and I have to say that Mr Bratusa and I do not always agree—aptly articulated the perspective of the residents of Western Sydney with these comments:

Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen was on the money when he identified the ‘daily fluctuation’ frustration—

I will just pull that part of the quote out: ‘the daily fluctuation frustration’. I think Bernard Bratusa has actually hit the nail on the head. That is the source of so much anger and so much discontent in the community. That will be one of the evils that this particular proposal—Fuelwatch—will strike at the very heart of. That is why I support it. The quote continues:

… the daily fluctuation frustration shared by all motorists with pump prices increasing by upwards of 15cents a litre from the morning drive to the evening crawl. Clever really, in the morning we bust our butts to get to work showing little regard for the fuel tank needle thinking (more so hoping) the pump price will hold for the return trip. Never happens.

These are the comments of someone who lives in the real world, someone who lives in the outer suburbs of Sydney, someone who has a family, goes about the business of their daily lives and understands in a very real sense the impact that petrol prices are having on families throughout this country, but particularly in areas such as Western Sydney. These are the people who have embraced and endorsed our proposal for Fuelwatch. I am not receiving any complaints from those people, and I would be willing to bet that those on the other side are in the same boat. That is why, when there was a suggestion today that they had voted against Fuelwatch, so many of them were scrambling to try to deny that that had occurred—scrambling to deny that that is what they had just done. The reality is that they might be told what to do in this place but at some point they have to go back to their electorates. When they do, the people in their electorates will be telling them the same thing as the people in my electorate—that is, they want more competition. They want a government that is going to be prepared to give the ACCC the powers that we have granted it—the powers that those on the other side were afraid to give. They were afraid to give them because they are anti competition. They have never supported competition. The Labor Party has always been the party of competition. That is why we are extending that commitment to competition through Fuelwatch. Why is it that consumers in my electorate should have less information in the marketplace than the people setting the prices? That is something we intend to tackle. We want to give the consumer the power to know where the cheapest prices are. Having an informed consumer in an informed marketplace is how you will achieve competition.

The fuel companies may well not want to see that happen. But we are not here to represent sectional interests; we are here to represent the broadest cross-section of people in the community. There are people who are not being given that access and they are the people we are here to represent. They are the people for whom Fuelwatch provides some comfort and relief, because at least they will know where the cheapest prices are.

I have to say that the whole notion of Fuelwatch seems to be something that the Leader of the Opposition is struggling to come to terms with. I think that the reality of why that is the case is that Fuelwatch is not a thing that is occupying his attention at the moment—it is actually ‘Malcolm watch’. In the same way that intense scrutiny of petrol prices is one way to keep them honest, he is looking over his shoulder on ‘Malcolm watch’. He is making sure he keeps a close eye on the one person in this place who is doing the best job of undermining his leadership.

When it comes to alternative proposals or alternative policies, the people on the other side know—the member for Higgins, who sits there for a few very brief moments throughout the day, and the member for Mayo know—that this is a fantasy and this 5c cut is illusory. It is illusory because it will be sucked up before they make the cut, but of course they never will.

Those on the other side were pretty good at spending money when they were in government but they seem even better at doing it when they are in opposition—raiding the surplus to get their greasy hands on that $8 billion in order to achieve this so-called cut, which we all know will deliver no relief and no benefit in the long term and certainly not in the medium term. This is the sort of opportunism that we have come to see as being very much a part of the approach that the opposition, as they now are, have embraced. I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition needs to try to consolidate his leadership, but surely this sort of short-term, short-sighted policy, which will achieve no real benefits in the longer term, is not the way for him to be demonstrating to the residents of places like Western Sydney that he is a serious economic manager and someone who is capable of running this country. That is somewhere where this government has demonstrated that it is prepared to run this economy in a reasonable and sensible way and in a financially viable way.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In politics, as in life, we reap what we sow. Having promised the Australian people that they will bring down petrol prices in the lead up to the last election, the Rudd government is now reaping the barren harvest of their empty rhetoric.

It is extraordinary that we have a Prime Minister who so readily dismisses the concerns of average Australians and who is prepared to wave the white flag without ever making a serious attempt to address the issues that just six months ago he was labelling as core business for this new government. The Prime Minister did that when he made his Adelaide declaration. In it he shamelessly said that the Labor government had done as much as it physically could to provide additional help to the family budget. That is an extraordinary thing to say, considering that they have done absolutely nothing about the things that they were raising as issues prior to the last election. But now that they are elected, they are not interested. They are just waving the white flag and saying, ‘There is nothing further that we can do.’

The issue of the rising price of petrol provides a perfect metaphor for this government and the way that it operates. They raise an issue, then they feign concern about that issue, then they make some gesture—in this case the ludicrous Fuelwatch scheme—and then they blithely move onto the next thing without ever making one iota of difference to the problem that they first identified.

This is why we have a Prime Minister who seems to have invented his own language and finds it increasingly difficult to talk in plain English as he struggles with issues that he obviously does not understand or comprehend. This is why he never seems to know the detail of his own government’s policies and why he obviously fails to understand the consequences of the decisions that his government takes. This is why, I think, he reverts to this bureaucratically based language. It is something that, on the surface, is relatively funny, but it is something that ultimately protects him from ever stating a clear view. It is a language that always allows him to hedge his bets and it makes him never responsible for things. That is why he always says things like ‘I am advised,’ and it is why he does not have relatively simple facts to hand about his own government’s policies. This is why we get ridiculous policies such as Fuelwatch. This is a scheme that has been brutally unmasked by the resources minister today—a minister who often stands out, I think, as a beacon of common sense on the other side and who actually takes the time to understand the consequences of the decisions that cabinet makes.

Members will know that this scheme has been in operation in Western Australia for some time. I asked retailers in Stirling what they thought of the Fuelwatch scheme. One independent retailer gave me the example—

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

Mr Bowen interjecting

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be very interested if the Assistant Treasurer wants to respond to this. The independent retailer furnished me with the example of how he asked the authority that oversees this scheme whether he could decrease his petrol prices at the pump. This authority said that if you were to decrease your petrol prices, they would fine you for it. This is the ridiculous policy that this government now wants to impose on the whole of Australia. What an absolute farce.

This is a scheme that will not bring fuel prices down. You do not need to take my word for it. Let’s see what the Minister for Resources and Energy has to say. He actually understands a thing or two about the way the world works. He is the minister who wrote to the Prime Minister, to the finance minister, to the Treasurer and to the Assistant Treasurer to expose this policy as anticompetitive, a waste of taxpayers’ money and a policy that will not lead to lower prices. This is a very important point to make for the Assistant Treasurer and the members for Blaxland and Lindsay. He also said that the biggest losers from this policy will be working families in places like Western Sydney. So the resources minister in this government has confirmed what we already know and what is slowly being revealed to the Australian people: that there is always a yawning gap between what this government says and what this government does.

This is a Prime Minister and a government that made promises to Australian families to bring down the price of petrol, and it has completely and utterly failed to implement that promise. Now they have raised the white flag and said, ‘There’s nothing more we can do about it.’ Australians deserve better than this. They deserve more than spin and stunts. They deserve a government that stands up for their interests and does something about the rising price of petrol. (Time expired)

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary fatuous contribution that was by the member for Stirling. And it was a disappointing one from a fellow Western Australian. I think it is indicative of the standing of shadows ministers like the member for Stirling and the member for Dickson that they cannot get a question in question time. The only time they can get into a debate in this House is to take up the valuable time of backbenchers on a fatuous MPI such as this. It is an extraordinary MPI in some respects because it appears to be attacking the failure of Fuelwatch to achieve a particular outcome. I might just inform the member that, unless I have missed something, the national Fuelwatch scheme has not yet been introduced. It is something we are hoping to have introduced by December.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Stirling interjects and says, ‘We’re referring to Western Australia.’ Let us talk about Western Australia, because it seems apparent to me that members opposite just do not understand how the scheme works in Western Australia and how Fuelwatch is supposed to work. It is a comprehensive fuel price monitoring and reporting system. It places an obligation on petrol stations to advise consumers about the next day’s fuel prices. It allows the information to be made public—that is, available to consumers—to allow consumers to make an informed purchasing decision about the purchase of their fuel. I am at a loss to understand what it is about that monitoring and reporting service that is so reprehensible to members of the opposition.

It may help members opposite if they go and visit the website that has been made available by the government—www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au—to see how the scheme actually works in Western Australia. As a WA member of this House representing an outer-suburban seat, I can inform the House that many of my constituents regularly utilise the FuelWatch scheme in Western Australia. Ironically it was implemented by the then Liberal state government with bipartisan support in early 2001—an election commitment prior to the February 2001 election. It still receives bipartisan support. It is a popular consumer tool in Western Australia.

Just to give you an indication of how popular it is, not only does the website get over 200,000 hits per month but there are over 30,000 people who subscribe to the email service alerting people to prices and FuelWatch is actually shown during the evening news on the commercial TV stations in Perth. Because it is so popular, the commercial TV stations know that the people who watch their channels are very interested in the information that FuelWatch provides. It allows them to make a better choice about where they purchase their fuel. It allows them to make sure they are not ripped off by local service stations. You can sit there the night before and make a decision about which particular direction or route you are going to take in the morning to go to work so that you can go past the petrol station with the lowest prices that day. Or you can make sure that the direction you take to pick up the kids allows you to go past the petrol station with the lowest prices in your local suburb.

Daily prices of petrol in Perth can fluctuate as much as 15c to 20c per litre, and if motorists can go and shop where they can make savings of that size it is a valuable contribution for them. It creates an opportunity for greater information and greater choice about where a motorist—that is, a consumer—chooses to purchase fuel. It is not guesswork. It is not a matter of hoping, ‘Today I’ll drive past that petrol station and prices will be lower.’ It is published data and, contrary to the rhetoric we have had from members opposite, there is simply no independent advice that has reached a conclusion that FuelWatch increases the price at any end or any time in the fuel cycle. On the contrary, the only thorough examination of the scheme, as members have heard today, was one undertaken by the ACCC. That examination concluded that the government should consider implementing the scheme nationally. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allocated for this debate has now expired and the discussion has concluded.