Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing better illustrates the shamelessness of this Prime Minister than the remarks we have just endured. Here is a man who says, ‘FuelWatch is designed to take on big oil.’ Of course, while the Leader of the Opposition was focusing on what matters most, the price of petrol paid for by motorists at the bowser, what did we hear from Lord Albanese opposite? ‘Populist nonsense,’ he said. Really! He should be with the visiting Secretary of State in the UK in the House of Lords. He is wasted here in the House of Representatives. ‘Populist nonsense,’ says his lordship. Let me tell his lordship, it is not populist nonsense to talk about the price of petrol that people are paying.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing orders people must be referred to by their correct name. I will not cop being called an elitist by Malcolm Turnbull!

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

The member for Wentworth will refer to members by their titles in this place.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; absolutely! Any peer in this House has to be referred to by his ministry or his constituency and not his noble title, however recently acquired. What we have is a plan that has been opposed by every single expert department in this government. Each and every one of them giving fearless, independent advice to the government has said that FuelWatch will reduce competition and it will put prices up. In other words, the entire expertise of the Commonwealth Public Service—independent, expert and informed—supported the criticism of the member for Batman, the Minister for Resources and Energy, when he condemned this plan. So why is it being proceeded with? What is the argument?

The only case—the only justification—for FuelWatch that the government could make, the only argument for this extraordinary exercise in price fixing, this extraordinary exercise in market manipulation, could be that it will reduce petrol prices. But will it reduce petrol prices? We know what the departments say; they say that it will put them up. We know what the member for Batman said; he said that it will put them up. What did the Treasurer say? Karl Stefanovic asked:

A guarantee from you, if you don’t mind this morning, FuelWatch will categorically lead to lower fuel prices?

The Treasurer: I can’t give that guarantee. That’s a silly guarantee.

I am amazed that he did not throw in ‘populist nonsense’ but then he is probably only a baronet; he has not got into the peerage yet. And then, look at the shamelessness that goes right through this government—their preparedness to look the people of Australia in the eye and say that black is white—to say the exact reverse of the truth. On 16 April the Assistant Treasurer wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and he said:

There is simply no independent analysis that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices through FuelWatch.

No independent analysis other than the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. Weren’t they independent? Was the Assistant Treasurer telling the truth when he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition? Clearly not. The Assistant Treasurer has written to the Leader of the Opposition and told a clear falsehood that has now been found out. He said that there is ‘no independent analysis’ and in fact there was a truckload of it and the Leader of the Opposition has been misled.

One of the most remarkable efforts in spin and shamelessness that we have seen here was the claim from the Prime Minister that this measure was designed to take on big oil. Oh, yeah! He is a real champion for the battler is the Prime Minister.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member—He’s more a champion for the butler!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s right. He’s a champion for the butler! Let us have a look at what big oil says. Michael Luscombe is the CEO of Woolworths. That is a big oil retailer. Remember, chief executives of public listed companies are under enormous legal regulation about what they say about the affairs of their companies. If they say things that are wrong the consequences are huge—penal, incredibly damaging to them, their companies and their reputations. So they choose their words very carefully, much more carefully than the Prime Minister chooses his. This is what Mr Luscombe said:

Look, we provided the government with some information that showed quite frankly the inability to actually match the lowest price in the market place in Western Australia during the day has meant that our margins in Western Australia are stronger than most, if not all, other states.

So, thanks to FuelWatch, Woolworths make more money in Western Australia than in any other state.

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

Mr Bowen interjecting

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chris Bowen says that if you believe that you will believe anything. That is charming! The member for Prospect is accusing the chief executive of Woolworths of lying. That is the level of desperation; he will say anything. I have quoted what he said. The government will say anything. Day after day we have had this report from the ACCC misrepresented by this government. Yesterday I gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to highlight the passages that recommended the introduction of FuelWatch. There are none. He froze. He was not able to do anything because he knew that on pages 17 and 18, right at the beginning—he did not have to get into the depth; he could just read the executive summary—all that the ACCC said was that there are big issues surrounding FuelWatch, big issues about prices and about competition and that a great deal more detailed assessment has to be done before a government could confidently embark upon it. That assessment has not been done. The only assessment that has been done by the government, by its own departments—the departments which the Prime Minister said he would put front and centre in his new style government; he said he would take notice of public servants, give them credibility and listen to their views—was to conclude that FuelWatch was a dud. As the member for Batman said, in words that were so heartfelt, this will punish people on lower incomes, people who need to buy petrol at the lowest price.

Remember that the member for Batman comes from an old Labor family. I remember his father, Jack Ferguson. He was a good, old trade unionist, Labor politician and Deputy Premier of New South Wales, and he was full of very commonsense wisdom. Some of that wisdom is in his son Martin. He knew that this ambitious, arrogant Assistant Treasurer, so keen to get into the cabinet, so keen to run over the top of his colleagues, was going to trample not just on the integrity of the Public Service, not just on his colleagues, but on the interests of the people he represents. So when Martin Ferguson, born in the western suburbs of Sydney, representing a Melbourne seat, writes to the member for Prospect and says, ‘This will hurt the people of Western Sydney the most,’ he is saying—and he did not need put that in the letter because it is implicit—‘Western Sydney are the people you represent, you dope.’ That is what he is saying, and that is what the member for Prospect has forgotten.

The ACCC has done a so-called econometric analysis. It has been done by an economist called Stephen King. We met with him last night, as we did with Mr Samuel and Mr Cassidy, the chief executive. The ACCC does not argue for the adoption of FuelWatch in this report. That much is plain. Subsequently, it is true that Mr Samuel has been rather more supportive since December, and Mr Ferguson was very critical about that in his letter. But the fact is that not even Mr Samuel is prepared to say that Fuel Watch will result in lower prices. The most that Mr King, the economist, could say was that, on their analysis, they felt that prices in Perth would have been 0.7 of a cent lower were it not for FuelWatch. That is on their analysis. Their analysis has not been published, not been analysed by others and not been peer reviewed, and nobody has been able to assess it. It has not been published in the report—and we all know that different analyses can come up with different results. There are serious flaws in the analysis which the ACCC acknowledges. For example, it compares prices and calculates the average price by looking at the prices charged by every petrol station and then averaging that over the number of petrol stations. Of course, nobody pays the average petrol price, as my colleague the member for Cowper very wisely observed—nobody gets the average rainfall either. The real issue with averages is: what is the distribution? What is the spread between the lowest and the highest price?

The member for Batman was smart enough to work this out. Even if the average is the same between one market and another, if the distribution around that average—the range from the lowest to the highest—is greater, it means that, for those people who are really focused on saving a few cents a litre, there is more opportunity for them to get that lowest price. And, inevitably, a price-fixing mechanism like this will compress the range of prices. That is completely overlooked in the analysis.

The other factor is that a price that is averaged over the number of petrol stations is meaningless because petrol stations do not all sell the same amount of petrol. The only average that matters is volumetric, and the ACCC say, ‘We don’t know that data; we can only work with what we’ve got.’ Just because their data is the best they have got does not mean it is any good. This is a government of shameless spin. I have often wondered about the difference between the Prime Minister and his predecessor but one, Mr Latham. I have realised today what it is: the only difference is that this leader of the Labor Party got found out after the election.

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

On 24 November, we were elected to make a difference. On 24 November, we were elected to take charge. On 24 November, we were elected because we listened to Australians on cost-of-living pressures.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order!  The Assistant Treasurer has the call. It is not an invitation for those on my left to make comments.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Southcott interjecting

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

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

The member for Boothby and the member for Stirling!

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

On 24 November, the Australian people elected a government which did not believe that they had never been better off and which asked them to do something about cost-of-living pressures. The Australian people elected a government to take action on fuel prices. They did not elect a government to sit in Canberra and be cloistered from the real world like you had become after 11 years. They elected a government to hold retailers to account and to give motorists a fair go. That is what happened on 24 November, and we know you are having trouble coming to terms with it—but that is the reality, and it will continue to be so.

The opposition is talking about process. Let us have a little talk about process. Let us have a talk about the cabinet process. Let us have a talk about a robust cabinet debate where views get tested. Let us talk about a robust cabinet debate where people’s analysis is put to a rigorous test. And let us talk about when that does not happen. Let us talk about when you take a $10 billion water plan and do not put it to cabinet. You will not find any coordination comments on a $10 billion water plan, because it did not even go to cabinet. Let us talk about what the coordination comments from cabinet would look like on a little policy to spend $2 billion a year cutting petrol tax with no offsetting savings. Let us have a talk about what the Treasury, what the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and what the Department of Finance and Deregulation would think about that. Let us have a talk about real rigour and real process. We will not go around the cabinet process—we have a debate in cabinet and views are tested. What happened in this process? I brought forward a policy proposal—

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

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

The member for Stirling!

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

on the advice of the ACCC. The ACCC’s views were tested. The Chairman of the ACCC came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet. The petrol commissioner came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet.

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

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

The member for Stirling is warned.

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

One of the most respected competition economists in the country, Professor Stephen King, came to the Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet, and the views of departments were put to them—and they satisfied those concerns. When you look at the concerns of some of the departments, you will see they said, ‘We think that more work needs to be done on and more rigour needs to be put into the initial ACCC report,’ and the ACCC agreed and did that further work, and it came up as being robust.

We were elected to make a difference. We were elected to make the tough decisions. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not appear on a ballot paper on 24 November. The department of finance did not appear on a ballot paper on 24 November. An Australian Labor Party which believed in making a difference for the Australian people appeared on a ballot paper on 24 November. We said when we announced FuelWatch that this would be controversial. We said when we announced FuelWatch that this would draw criticism. But we said, ‘This is a bold step, and we do not walk away from tough decisions; we do not walk away from bold decisions.’ We knew that vested interests would rail against FuelWatch. We knew that people whose business was to share information on a secretive website would rail against FuelWatch. What we did not expect was that the opposition would be brought into their arguments hook, line and sinker. We do not outsource our policy development to people with a vested interest. If you choose to, that is your interest. If you choose to, that is your right. We will never outsource our policy development to people with vested interests.

We, on the other hand, give the ACCC some teeth. We, on the other hand, went to the election with a policy of saying that the ACCC is the people’s watchdog. The ACCC was neutered by the Howard government. The ACCC has asked for increased powers, and those were denied to them by the honourable members who sat opposite. The ACCC begged for increased powers and begged for the law to be improved. The opposition when in government would not do it, and we are doing it. We appointed a petrol commissioner to hold oil companies to account and to ensure transparency in the marketplace. We then said to the ACCC and to the petrol commissioner, ‘What more powers do you need?’ The ACCC said, ‘We are very concerned about the way the fuel market operates. We are very concerned that there is a situation in place which is conducive to anticompetitive coordination. We are very concerned that there is a website on which retailers are sharing information and the motorist is locked out.’ The ACCC said, We want to do something about that, and we think FuelWatch is the right answer.’ And what is the opposition’s response?  To say no to the regulator, to say no to the petrol commissioner—to neuter the people’s watchdog. That is what they do and, and I suspect that is why they are sitting over there. They are sitting over there because they sat in Canberra and they lost touch with the Australian people—something we will not do.

They did not go around and hold cabinet meetings in Penrith to hear about the cost-of-living pressures. They did not go around and hold cabinet meetings in Mackay to hear about the cost-of-living pressures, because they were out of touch. Well we are not and we never will be! We know what concerns the Australian people and we will always consider any policy proposal which helps them. We will put it through a rigorous analysis and we will not skirt around the cabinet process. We will not say, ‘This is a $10 billion plan, but you can’t tell Treasury and we won’t take it to cabinet.’ We will not say, ‘We’ll just secretly work this up in the Prime Minister’s office.’ We will go through the process, but at the end of the day we will make the decisions. We will decide, based on the evidence and based on what the Australian people tell us is concerning them, what the appropriate policy response is. They say, ‘Ignore the ACCC, ignore the Australian people.’ But we say, ‘No, we have a different approach.’

We hear a lot from the Leader of the Opposition, a lot of crocodile tears about real people. We heard it the other day. The Leader of the Opposition loves the fuel price cycle. Based on his comments, he loves the fact that fuel prices can spike on a Thursday or a Friday before a long weekend or a normal weekend and the Australian people have no notice. I am the member of the government who, on behalf of the government, gets the emails on petrol prices. I am the member of the government who responds to the concerns of the Australian people, and I can tell you what the real people think about your plans. Let me share a few with the House. Listen to this, from a real person from the electorate of Cunningham:

I’m really angry that profiteering isn’t being stamped out. To change the cost of petrol from $1.35 a litre to $1.47 a litre, a jump of 12c between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock, just after children are getting out of school and just before the workers from BlueScope Steel change shift at 4pm, is indeed profiteering, and anybody who says it isn’t is obviously getting a bonus from such practices. Prices should not be allowed to change during the day.

That is from a real person, saying to us, ‘Please do something.’ There has been a very interesting debate on news.com over the last couple of days about this—real people telling their views. Well the House should hear from some real people. Brad from Perth says:

Wake up Dr Nelson! FuelWatch works extremely well in Western Australia. Also, think outside the square too. If it even breaks the discount cycle, people can fill up any time they want. It’s good for the environment!

Todd from the Sydney says:

A 24-hour notice for fuel prices is a good step. It will further assist us to manage our already stretched budgets.

Jules from WA says:

It works fine here in Perth. You know the day before when prices are going up so you can go and fill up with the cheapest petrol. Stop complaining about nothing.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Kev from Treasury!

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

Peter says:

Well the only people complaining about the idea are service stations who claim it will close them down.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Martin from Batman!

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

Sparky from Melbourne says:

One of the biggest issues for petrol prices is the lack of information for consumers. Give a little power to the people.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

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

They do not like hearing from real people, do they? Mick from Sutherland says:

One of the big benefits of FuelWatch here in Western Australia is that we no longer have the situation of you being in a queue to fill up because it is discounted and then the price suddenly goes back up before you turn up at the browser.

JoJo of Perth says:

Living in Western Australia, I often use FuelWatch. Prices are still lower in the middle of the week here, but by using FuelWatch, I can often find prices later in the week and on weekends at the same low rates as Tuesday.

And they go on. This is from a woman who emailed me at Easter:

Dear Minister,

I am concerned about the price rises in petrol. Just before Easter, when I was taking my family away on holidays, I lined up at the service station and as I was lining up the price went up 15c a litre while I was in the queue.

Mr Speaker, I have to confess my life is a  lot easier now. Now, whenever I get an email, I am going to press the forward button and I am going to type in Brendan.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au and say Mr Nelson is stopping FuelWatch, and I am sure he would be happy to explain himself to you. I am sure he would be happy to explain why you should not have information about the cheapest place to buy petrol. I am sure he would be able to explain to you why, when petrol prices are about to go up 10c or 15c a litre before a weekend, you get no notice. I am sure he would be able to explain to you that the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive petrol in any city could range from 15c to 30c a litre but he does not want you to know. He would be happy to explain it, and so now the forward button on my keyboard is going to get a real workout as I forward it to Brendan.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au, because they are the ones standing in the way of more information for Australian motorists. They are the ones saying, ‘We can shrug our shoulders and do nothing to help you.’ They are the ones saying, ‘We don’t care about volatility in fuel prices and we don’t care about giving you more information to manage it.’ They are the ones saying, ‘We don’t care what the consumer watchdog thinks. We don’t care what Graeme Samuel thinks. We will ignore him, like we did in government, because we don’t care about consumers.’ That is the message from the opposition today. That is what they say. They say, ‘We’re going to sit in Canberra and we’re not going to listen to the people who stand up for Australian consumers and we’re not going to listen to the Australian consumers themselves!’

There is a reason why they are sitting where they are, and that is because, after 11 years in office, they lost touch. They did not listen to the Australian people about cost-of-living pressures. They have a shadow Treasurer who waltzed into this building and said: ‘Interest rate increases are overdramatised. It’s not such a problem.’ He probably thinks fuel prices were overdramatised as well when he was in office. He probably thought grocery prices were overdramatised when he was in office. And I can understand why he would think that, but the Australian people do not think that.

The Australian people are looking to a government to say: ‘There are cost-of-living pressures and they are not easy to fix. There are worldwide trends, which are not easy to fix. But we can make a difference, we can give you more information, we can put you back in charge, we can give you an even break and we can give you a chance to drive your dollar further.’ This government believes it. We will continue stand by it, we will continue to pursue it and we will continue to pursue you for your policy bankruptcy.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate. It is a very important debate, a very substantial debate, a debate that demonstrates the complete difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. The difference between us and them is very simple. We sit around the cabinet table working out how we look after working families. That is what this side of the House does. We sit around the cabinet table having a debate about how we can help working families with cost-of-living pressures. What did they do through their period in government, around the cabinet table? They sat around working out how they could rip away their wages and working conditions. That is the difference.

The difference is that we, on this side of the House, understand what life is like around the kitchen table and those on that side do not. Most particularly, the shadow Treasurer does not have a clue what life is like around the kitchen table in this country. He is so out of touch he is in outer space. This man said that inflation was a fairy story. When inflation is at a 16-year high, anybody who could say that it is a fairy story is just completely out of touch. He has lost contact with planet Earth. Is it any wonder, when people look at the way he is stalking the Leader of the Opposition, they think back to the 1980s? And what picture do they get in their mind? They see it very clearly. It was on display at the Press Club the other week. They thought: Andrew Peacock; Andrew Peacock without the suntan—absolutely no substance, all front. For him to get up in this debate and accuse members of the government of being shameless is just extraordinary. He knows no shame. Only a few years ago he was trying to join the Labor Party. He does not have any conviction. He has no conviction or any values that go to the core of this debate—none whatsoever. For him it is all about his slick debating tactics. That is it. It is not about cost-of-living pressures for Australian families.

The proposition being put here today by the opposition is a simple one, and everybody is expected to believe it because he thinks he is so brilliant. What he wants people to believe is that suddenly at 9am on Monday morning, 26 November last year, everything in the economy went bad. What he wants people to believe is that suddenly the cost of living went up. Suddenly, on the very first day that the change of government took place, the cost of living went up. That is what it wants everybody to believe—it did not happen under their 12 years. Working Australians had never had it so good, according to everyone over there. He sat in the cabinet, along with the Leader of the Opposition, and said working Australians had never been better off. The hide of them to have done that, at a time when inflation, as we now know in retrospect, hit a 16-year high! They sat across there when inflation was at a 16-year high and told working Australians they had never been better off. What gall! The pretender from Point Piper is out there pretending he understands cost-of-living pressures.

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. I am really concerned about the Treasurer’s unhealthy obsession with the member for Wentworth. I would ask that he come back to petrol and not the member of the Wentworth.

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

There is no point of order.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly am speaking to the motion and most particularly to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister because of the failure of the opposition to put forward costed budget proposals. This is where it all leads to. They now want the Australian people to believe that somehow they have got some solution to petrol prices—but we know that the member for Wentworth does not support the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. And we know that because emails can be powerful, can’t they? We know what he said in his email to the Leader of the Opposition. Yes, we do! We certainly do. We know he does not support it: it is unfunded, uncosted and undeliverable. And they know it. Every one of them knows it. It is absolutely undeliverable, because it is uncosted. They are happy to sit back and blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus, which is essentially the surplus this country needs to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates.

It was their neglect, their reckless spending, that gave Australians eight interest rate rises in three years on the back of rising inflation. Shame on you! How could you have the gall to come into this House and talk about cost-of-living pressures, when that is your record? How could you have the gall to do it? But how could you have the gall to say this, at the Press Club, about the Leader of the Opposition’s policy on excise? This is what the shadow Treasurer said when he was asked what would be the Liberal Party policy at the next election. He said, ‘If I am, er—if Brendan, er—if that is our policy, er, then I will argue for it as eloquently, or not, as I can.’ End of story. How do they expect people to take them seriously? This is what the shadow Treasurer said at the Press Club. There was not one line in that speech—

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. It is a really unhealthy obsession that the Treasurer—

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

Order! There is no point of order. The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, that is the second time that the member for North Sydney has done that during the Treasurer’s speech.

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney should be very careful about the way he approaches the chair seeking the chair’s indulgence about spurious points of order. I think enough is enough. The Treasurer has the call.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For 12 long years they did sit around the cabinet table, but did they talk about cost of living pressures?

Government Members:

No!

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did they talk about doing anything about what is going on in petrol retailing? No. What did they talk about?

Government Member:

Themselves.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Themselves, that’s right. There was a lot of talk about themselves, because they had their eye on each other. They did not have their eye on the Australian people. Otherwise they would have known and they would have acted, and they did not choose to act at any stage in those 12 long years. In contrast, what have we done in just six months? Let us just run through it—it is quite worth while. We have agreed to a $4.4 billion education tax refund—they never did. We have agreed to a $1.3 billion childcare tax rebate—they never did. We have agreed to a $1.2 billion first home saver account—they never did. We have got the runs on the board when it comes to delivering for working families under financial pressure and for seniors. For 12 years they neglected them.

We understand that when it comes to the price of petrol, when it comes petrol retailing, we do need a new approach—an approach that you could not manage to come to in 12 long years. The Manager of Opposition Business over there spent his last 12 months in government ripping away at the wages and working conditions of average Australians. Shame on him! We make no apology for supporting FuelWatch. This is an important initiative. It just shows how much contempt those opposite have for the Australian consumer, because this proposal at its very core gives knowledge to all consumers in a way in which nothing has been put in place in this vein before. What it does is give every motorist who wants to look for the best price on any given day the potential to get there and achieve it—that is what it does. What it does is to take the sale of petrol and democratises it so that consumers can find the cheapest price. At the moment it is a racket. The way in which the fuel price cycle works works to the disadvantage of most consumers. Some are lucky to take advantage of it. Some may get it on Tuesday. Our proposal gives consumers the capacity to get the benefit every single day. We are up against powerful vested interests who do not like this proposal, because this proposal does empower consumers. Knowledge is power. FuelWatch will put before motorists the essential pricing information they require to get the best price on any given day. You treat Australian consumers with such contempt that you do not even understand the very basis of this proposal.

There has been some comment about how there is differing bureaucratic advice coming forward to the government. We welcome differing advice as part of a very healthy policy debate that this government is having, because we have set a new direction in this country. It is a direction which will deliver benefits to working families in a way in which you never, ever contemplated. That is why FuelWatch is so important. And we did follow the evidence. We followed the evidence from the ACCC, and this is very important, because the ACCC is the body with the expertise to do the necessary evaluation of what is required. It has done that. The chairman, Mr Samuel, will be placing that before all of you to see. You will not have a leg to stand on, because the work is in. The consumers in Western Australia know it, the ACCC knows it. The only people who do not understand these issues are those opposite, who are so out of touch they are simply incapable of analysing this issue.

Essentially the current arrangement has removed competitive risk from the marketplace. FuelWatch is going to empower consumers to get the best price. Where does this all fit in to the approach of the opposition? Where it all fits in is that this opposition is so bereft of ideas and so out of touch, all we have is short-term political opportunism. What we do not have is a fundamental framework that meets the needs of the economy, that tackles the inflationary challenge, that does something about putting downward pressure on interest rates and that sets this country up for the future.

But what do we get in the face of responsible proposals from this government? We bring down a responsible budget to try and clean up the mess that they left us. Did we accept responsibility for cleaning up their mess? We accepted responsibility for cleaning up their mess on day one. I just wish they would accept some responsibility for creating it—the 16-year high in inflation and zero productivity growth. This is the legacy of those opposite. And they are so embarrassed about it that all we get is a flood of short-term, opportunistic stunts in this parliament. But I tell you what: we have been over there for a while and we understand—they do not work. We have tried a few in our time, and I tell you what, they do not work—and they are not working for you. They are not working for you because what you are doing simply does not add up. You are not credible on economic policy. It does not matter how many speeches you have at the National Press Club, you will not be allowed to get away with the fraud of pretending you had a budget response. There was not one costed alternative proposal in 4,365 words at the Press Club—not one.

I do not think in the last decade or so there has been a shadow Treasurer who has had the gall to go to the Press Club and not present an alternative budget reply. But this guy did. It was not a budget in reply, it was a Brendan in reply. That is what it was—out there stalking his leader because he does not actually have the time or the desire or the understanding to come to grips with the fundamental policy challenges this country has to tackle. What are they? Tackling inflation, lifting productivity, investing in the future—all of those things are at the heart of a credible economic policy. Those opposite have become utterly irresponsible and it has taken this shadow Treasurer just six months to shred their remaining cred when it comes to economic policy, just six months to completely shred their economic credibility. They should be censured.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate because for a whole year we heard the Prime Minister and the Treasurer hold a conversation with the Australian people during the 2007 election campaign. They came into this parliament and they have been trying ever since to match up with the rhetoric that they put in place during the election campaign. During the election campaign they held a conversation with the Australian people. Every night on the TV screens they came into people’s homes and they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on the cost of living, they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on petrol prices and they claimed that they were going to put downward pressure on grocery prices. What do they do when they get into government? They give up. They throw up their hands after only six months and admit they do not have a solution to the problems that people face. I think that the people out there are absolutely disappointed.

We heard the shadow Treasurer talk about the issue of the ACCC analysis, which is based on averages, not based on a volumetric average. So averages can create a very curious outcome and sometimes a very inaccurate outcome. The ACCC did not seem to be aware of the relative volume sold across the price cycle in a range of places. But I can help. I can tell this House that in Sydney in a sample month 34.5 per cent of motorists were purchasing fuel in the lowest 10 per cent of the fuel cycle. So 34.5 per cent of motorists were able to take advantage of discounts that were available on the day. In the next 10 per cent percentile band, 14.9 per cent of motorists were able to take account of the next 10 per cent of the percentile band. Then between 20 and 29 per cent, the lowest 30 per cent of the range in the price cycle, some 65.3 per cent of motorists purchased their fuel. No FuelWatch—this is the market at work.

What happened in Perth, where allegedly there is all this extra information that is going to allow motorists to make an informed choice, that is going to put power in the hands of the consumer, that is going to make the world an allegedly better place? What happened? Let us look at the situation over the same time period in Perth. In the lowest 10 percentile band only 18.1 per cent of consumers bought fuel compared to 34.5 per cent in Sydney. What happened to FuelWatch? They should have been all down there queued up ready to take advantage of these allegedly low prices because of all of this extra information. Let us look at the next percentile band. In Sydney it was 14.9 per cent; only an additional 8.5 per cent of motorists purchased in the 10 to 20 per cent percentile band. The third percentile band, which I mentioned, between 20 and 30, in Perth only 9.8 per cent of motorists purchased in that band. So in the rough and tumble of the marketplace in Sydney we have 65 per cent of motorists being able to purchase in the lowest 30 per cent of the fuel cycle; in Perth we have 36.4 per cent. What happened to all this extra information? What is it doing? Is it empowering consumers to get the very best price and buy at the bottom of the cycle? Apparently not.

But let us look at the other end, at the highest end of the cycle. What was happening there? It is an interesting observation. In Perth 11.7 per cent of motorists paid the top price, paid in the top percentage of the percentile band. What was the figure in Sydney? Was it eight per cent? No, it was not. Was it five per cent? No, it was not. It was 3.1 per cent of motorists in Sydney who paid the top price, when 11.7 per cent of motorists in Perth paid the top price. It seems absolutely amazing that members of the government can come into this House and can crow about ignoring the advice of four government departments and about alleging to be working on behalf of the consumer. And the figures are stark, that under a conventional market operating in a conventional way we have more people taking advantage of the low point in the cycle and fewer people paying at the top of the cycle, whereas in Perth it is a completely different result. We have an overwhelming shift up the price cycle in the Perth market. That is allegedly good for motorists, just as it is allegedly good for motorists to fine fuel stations for reducing their price. Will the Prime Minister come into this House and explain as clearly as he can how it is in the best interests of the motorist to fine a fuel station for providing motorists with cheaper petrol? It is clearly absurd.

When we look at the issue of FuelWatch, we see a range of commentators around the country concerned about its implementation. We have heard about the RACV, we have heard about the RAA in South Australian, we have heard of the concerns of the RACQ. These motoring organisations are very concerned about it. They are very concerned about the impact of competition. They are very concerned about the potential to lose independents from the market. We hear a range of commentators and departments commenting on the anticompetitive effect of this measure. Yet this government comes into this House and extols the virtue of a scheme which is nothing more than a fraud. It is nothing more than a cruel hoax on Australian motorists by a government which has given up, which does not have a solution to the problems that people face. It is all about providing a lower level of pressure on the Prime Minister rather than a lower level of pressure on working families. We see a Prime Minister who is more concerned with his own personal situation. We see a Prime Minister who is more concerned about taking the heat off, so much so that he is willing to perpetrate a fraud on the Australian people, a fraud which will push up the price for motorists, a fraud which cannot be justified, a fraud which is not supported by the evidence and a fraud which they are all too keen to come on board with.

I really think that the members of the backbench of this parliament should put some pressure on the Prime Minister to let him know very clearly that people want access to cheap Tuesday. The only reason there are motorists in long queues at service stations is not for some imperial edict from the Prime Minister but that they believe that in the marketplace it is worth their time to actually queue up and get the savings that are available at the particular service station. That is the only reason they queue up. They are not drafted and forced to go down there and take their places in a queue. They queue up because they have made a commercial decision of their own volition that it is worth it for them to queue up and get the benefit of that discount. They do not need to be told that. They actually make their own decision on that basis.

What we have now is Big Brother saying: ‘We are going to take that all away. We are going to take away the opportunity to buy on Tuesday and absorb those savings. We are going to replace it with a flat price structure that is good for you. Believe me, I am from the government, I know what is good for you. I will take away cheap Tuesday. I will get everyone paying up the price cycle because it is in my best interests as Prime Minister of this country to get fuel off the headlines and to get fuel out of the limelight. That is what I need. It is not what you need as motorists. It is what I need because I have come into your lounge room everyday, through an entire election campaign, promising cheap petrol. I am delivering nothing. I am under pressure, so I perpetrate a fraud so that you will all believe that I am actually doing something when in fact I am doing nothing.’ The Prime Minister’s logic is that FuelWatch is a system that you have when you are doing nothing about the price of fuel except pushing it up. FuelWatch is a system that will create a higher cost to the motorists of Australia.

You only have to look at the prices in Perth yesterday. We saw a price in Brisbane of $1.40. We saw an average price in Melbourne of $1.49, in Sydney of $1.50 and in Adelaide of $1.51. It increased in Perth yesterday to $1.55. Perth has not been performing favourably compared to other capitals. The ACCC inquiry did not result in an overwhelming endorsement for FuelWatch—far from it. It did not result in a recommendation for FuelWatch at all, yet this government persists with a misrepresentation and persists with this fraud. The people of Australia will not wear it. The media today is full of stories calling the bluff of this government. They are awake to your fraud. They are awake to your misrepresentation. They are awake to the fact that you have rejected the advice of four government departments. Whatever happened to the use of frank and fearless advice? I am afraid frank and fearless have left the building. What we have is the perpetration of an elaborate hoax—a hoax that is going to result in motorists paying more right around the country. I would like to reflect a moment on the words of Mr Luscombe of Woolworths. He said:

We provided the Government with some info that showed that quite frankly our inability to match the lowest price in the marketplace in WA during the day has meant margins in WA were stronger than most if not all states.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Sullivan interjecting

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

The member for the Planet of the Apes interjects.

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

The member for Cowper will refer to the honourable member by his seat.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I take offence to the electorate of Longman being called the Planet of the Apes.

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

It will assist the House if the member for Cowper withdraws his remark.

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

I will withdraw that remark. I was not reflecting on the people of Longman. The people of Longman were not interjecting. Mr Luscombe said the margins in Western Australia were higher than in other areas. The interviewer said:

I was interested in the comments on FuelWatch and you said that the analyst’s call that you tend to get a better profit margin in the west than you do elsewhere because you do not have to take prices down.

Mr Luscombe’s comments were:

That is not because we want to. It is illegal to take prices down during the day.

He goes on to say:

If you put in a price but someone is a cent cheaper than you down the road then you do not have the opportunity to match that price.

If someone down the road has put in a cheaper price you do not have the opportunity to match it. I put that to the ACCC in a briefing yesterday. I asked, ‘Can the ACCC advise: is the tender effect of service stations putting their price in the day before greater than the market effect of service stations competing during the day?’ I asked whether they had any information on it. They said no. Part of the basis for FuelWatch is that service stations put in a price the day ahead and are prevented from competing during the day. But the ACCC, who the government are alleging are so strongly in support of FuelWatch despite there not being a recommendation in the report, were unable to comment on whether motorists would be better off having service stations tendering the day before as opposed to having service stations competing in the market, matching the competition down the road and matching the competition in the next suburb. I put another proposition to members that were present at the briefing. Mr King made the comment that information was useless with regard to the pricing of petrol in an information regime if it was not fixed for 24 hours. He made the statement that information was useless to consumers if it was not fixed for 24 hours. I said, ‘Why is that?’ He made the same statement as I think the Prime Minister that the price could change before you get down to the service station. That is an unsubstantiated value judgement.

We have markets right around the country that fluctuate during the day. We have markets where people will become aware of a price and take advantage of that price in a range of ways. They do not have to be fixed for 24 hours. Yet the representative of the ACCC was putting forward an absolutely unsubstantiated value judgement that, by somehow not fixing a particular price for 24 hours—if that was not so fixed—then the information would be absolutely useless.

I sit here in amazement that the only measure that this government has entertained of any note in relation to fuel is the introduction of this fraudulent scheme. The opposition on the other hand put forward a proposal that will reduce the costs to motorists by 5c a litre; it is a proposal that will provide a real reduction in the price of motoring; and it is a proposal that would be welcomed by many consumers around the country. It is a proposal that the other side decries. There is a stark contrast between a 5c reduction in excise, which would provide real reductions for motorists and real savings for families who are struggling to fill their cars, and the scheme the government is perpetrating, which is merely a fraud.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we are seeing an opposition in disarray—hysterical and in disarray. Walking into the parliament and moving a censure motion on the Prime Minister is supposed to be an important thing to do. In terms of the weaponry given to an opposition, censure motions, particularly those on the Prime Minister, are the biggest weapon they have. And here we have an opposition that has walked into the parliament using the biggest weapon at their disposal, and they do not have enough speakers ready to talk to it. They missed the jump. We have been treated to a speech by the member for Cowper, who was clearly unprepared, and none of the senior leadership team, with the exception of the shadow Treasurer, is even in the parliament. These people are asking the Australian people to treat them seriously when they cannot even organise themselves to get an opposition tactic ready on a Thursday morning. This is a laughable display from an opposition that is in disarray.

And why are they in disarray? It is because they have not come to terms with the fact that they lost the last election. Even more than that, they are trying to perpetuate a collective fraud and get the Australian people to believe it. The collective fraud that they are trying to get the Australian people to believe is that somehow they fell out of the sky on 25 November and fell into the seats on the opposition front bench. They want the Australian people to believe that none of them ever had a moment in politics before 25 November—that somehow they were all born new on 25 November and turned up on the opposition front bench.

But of course that is not true, and because it is not true the Australian people can judge them by their record. It is a record that they are desperately trying to twist and turn and get away from, but the Australian people can judge them by their record. All of this emotional, hysterical, feigned concern about working families that they have engaged in since they lost the election stands in stark contrast to their complete indifference to the plight of working families before the election. These are not political novices; these are people who sat around a cabinet table and made decisions to the detriment of working families. There was no feigned concern about the plight of working families then. There was no feigned concern when they were sitting around the cabinet table.

Let’s go directly to the performance of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. He has been in here in question time highly emotional about people queued in cars at petrol stations with kids in the back and dogs in the back—highly emotional. And let’s reflect: this is the same man who sat around a cabinet table for six years, and during those six years what did he do on petrol? Absolutely nothing. Six years around a cabinet table—apparently highly emotional about the state of working families and petrol prices—and he did absolutely nothing.

Of course, we are going to see more hysteria and more cover-ups by the opposition of their past. They do not want people remembering their past. All those years around the cabinet table: six years for the Leader of the Opposition, two years for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and around the same time for the shadow Treasurer. They are all interested in petrol prices now, but when they were sitting in the chairs that would have enabled them to do something about it, what did they do? Absolutely nothing.

And at the same time that they were sitting in those chairs with all this feigned concern about working families, what did they do? They brought Work Choices to working Australians. All this feigned concern about working families and what did they do around that cabinet table when the evidence came in that working families were getting ripped off by Work Choices? What did they do—squeal with delight, laugh, backslap each other, do a couple of high fives and say: ‘Exactly what we wanted. We wanted working families to have their penalty rates ripped off. Good on us’? Is that what was happening around the Howard cabinet table? The people who now feign concern for working families delivered that to working people.

So let’s get away from all of this cant, this hypocrisy, this fraud, these feigned emotions and this fake concern. This opposition is so phoney. I have seen knock-off Chinese Rolexes that are more genuine than the members of the opposition. At least you can say that a knock-off Chinese Rolex does the job, which is more than you can say about this lot.

Amongst the things we have seen them emote about and be concerned about was Bonnie Babes. Do we remember that? The Leader of the Opposition was so paralysed with emotion he could hardly move, on Bonnie Babes. He is the same man who sat around a cabinet table for six years and, when it came to deciding what to do with $121 million, did he say, ‘Let’s put that into Bonnie Babes,’ or did he say, ‘Let’s put that into Work Choices propaganda’? We know what he said. He made a choice when sitting around that cabinet table. Fund Bonnie Babes or fund Work Choices propaganda? He chose Work Choices propaganda. That is what these people did when they sat around cabinet tables. That is what they will be judged by.

And of course we have had an insight through this motion into the dying days of the Howard government and how they must have conducted themselves. Gee, it must have been easy to be a Howard government minister in those dying days, because apparently, according to those who sit opposite, the responsibility of a minister is to come in—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This censure motion is about fuel prices and the inability of the government to deliver on the promise it made to the Australian people. The Deputy Prime Minister should return to the subject of the motion.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was another of the opposition’s hysterical tactics. They do not like government speakers, so they seek to interrupt them day after day. It truly is pathetic.

In relation to the Howard government cabinet ministers—and one is sitting at the table now, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—in the government’s dying days there must have been some good times, mustn’t there, just sitting there taking public service advice, driving up in the big white car at 9 o’clock, having a cup of coffee and a little bit of a look at the newspapers, having public servants come in with a brief? Presumably they always accepted public service advice. Presumably the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Oh, I do not even need to read that; I’ll just sign it. It’s public service advice; I’ve got to sign that.’ So you would do that until elevenses, presumably, and then a couple more briefs would come in and it would be: ‘Oh, it’s public service advice. I am absolutely going to sign that; I will not even read it.’ Then at about one o’clock you would be looking to have lunch with Alexander Downer. That would have been a day’s work in the Howard government when they were stale, out of touch with working families and making sure that working families were bearing the burden of Work Choices. That is what they were doing.

This is ridiculous behaviour by the opposition. We were elected to govern. We were elected to make decisions in the interests of working families and we are doing it—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

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

I warn the honourable member for Mackellar!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Their hysteria does not worry me, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an example of how irrelevant they are. Their points of order, their interjections, have complete irrelevancy.

Let us come to the question of FuelWatch. What we can say about the Howard government is that there was a period when the Australian public believed that the Howard government was competent to manage the economy; I absolutely concede that. There was a period when the Australian people believed that. What has happened since the last election is that the Liberal Party has destroyed any reputation it ever had for economic responsibility. It has completely destroyed it. It destroyed it on budget reply night with its smash-and-grab raid on the surplus of $22 billion, inevitably putting upward pressure on interest rates and inflation—and high interest rates and high inflation are simply enemies of working families, the people they feign concern about now.

In relation to FuelWatch, the opposition also seem to have forgotten even the most basic principles of economics. Let us have a little recap of those basic principles. What economics tells you is that markets are tremendously efficient mechanisms for delivering supply and low prices if participants in the markets have perfect information. That is why, when you are at the open stalls of a fruit and veg market and you have people competing in front of you for your business and all the prices are known then you will get the best price. What was happening in our petrol market and what is still happening today is that the suppliers of petrol and diesel have great information because of a service called Informed Sources, which they subscribe to and which means that they can track petrol prices in their region and indeed across the nation.

Suppliers of petrol and diesel have all of that information at their disposal. But the other participants in this market, the consumers, do not have access to that information. We want to get this market to work properly by ensuring that consumers also have access to that information. And we want to do that through FuelWatch. It is a very simple concept, even though the opposition seems unable to grapple with it—a very simple concept. What I know from my electorate on Melbourne’s urban fringe is that people need to buy petrol and they are highly price sensitive. They understand that petrol prices and diesel prices in this country relate to world factors. They understand that, but what absolutely drives them to distraction is the sense that they are being treated like muppets by the oil companies through price manipulation. That is what they hate. They hate the Friday spike before the long weekend. They hate it, and they feel misused by it.

We are trying to make sure that those price sensitive consumers who need petrol and who need diesel have good information. What FuelWatch would enable them to do is, in the evening, log on—or even do it through their mobile phone—and check what petrol prices are going to be in their locality, at the petrol stations on their drive to work or to school or to the childcare centre the next day. Because all the petrol stations need to file their price at the same time they do not know what others are going to be pricing, so they are putting in their best price to sustain their sales on the next day, and people can then survey across the petrol stations in their locality or along the routes that they commonly drive and assess which one they want to go and get their petrol from.

What FuelWatch in Perth tells us is that variability in prices between petrol stations on a given day can be 10c, 15c or 20c a litre. If you are a highly price sensitive consumer, if you drive perhaps from Werribee to the city every day—a very common journey for people from my electorate; it is more than 30 kilometres—you would be able to identify which petrol station you would want to stop off and buy at. You would, of course, buy from the one that on that day was 10c or 15c cheaper than the other ones. Why would the opposition want to deny consumers access to a system like that? They have not explained it. They have not explained it because they cannot explain it. The amendment moved by the government talks about how the opposition are playing the game of big oil in relation to the stance they are taking. It is certainly not a stance in the interest of working families. It is a stance in which they are being manipulated by big oil.

I want to take members of parliament to a very interesting article by Steve Lewis that was published earlier this year in the Courier Mail. It relates to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is here in the chamber. It talks about how she made up her mind about Australian workplace agreements. It talks about how she went to an opera, hosted by mining companies, in the Margaret River area. At the opera, she consulted on what to do about industrial relations. Well, I am not opposed to the opera. And I talk to mining companies. But, when you are making a decision, you should also talk to working families. The one thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not do, that the opposition have never done on industrial relations, is talk to working families. They are not in this parliament today representing the interests of working families with this flawed motion that even they have not taken seriously in their performance.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The events of this week have revealed that this is a government that will be defined by its lack of belief in the policies which it seeks to espouse. This is a government that will be characterised by its focus on spin over substance. This is a government that does not care whether a policy is right or wrong, does not care whether it is economically sound or economically weak and does not care whether, in this instance, the policy will drive up the price of petrol and hurt families living in Western Sydney and outer suburbs. This is a government which does not care whether its policy is right or wrong but only whether it can get a cheap headline, a five-second grab on the nightly news. We have never seen a government so driven by spin as the government that occupies the treasury bench today. We have never seen a government that disregards the advice of the four most significant economic advisers in the Public Service. It ignores that advice, all for the sake of a cheap headline—another symbol—as if it is doing something.

What an extraordinary revelation there was this week: we have a government that is prepared to ignore the advice of the experts in government—its own economic advisers, its own experts—for the sake of covering its position, which it took to the last election, that it could do something about petrol prices, when it knew it had no policy to do any such thing. It is extraordinary that after just six months the government has been revealed as a sham. It is in disarray; it is in denial that it is promoting a fundamentally flawed policy. Why should the Australian people listen to the novice Treasurer, a man who is still on probation? Why should the Australian people listen to the Treasurer when the economic experts in the government say that this FuelWatch scheme is fundamentally flawed? We know that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advised that the scheme might result in a small price increase. Why should the Australian people listen to the Treasurer, who is still on training wheels, rather than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who advised that the scheme might result in a small price increase?

The Prime Minister went around the country before the election promising that he would do something about petrol prices. He spent six to eight months telling the Australian people, ‘Put me into office and I will do something about petrol prices.’ And they believed him. They took him at his word. They gave him the benefit of the doubt. We now know his own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says that the quick fix that the Prime Minister has happened upon—a national FuelWatch scheme—in fact might result in an increase in petrol prices. Why should the Australian public listen to a Prime Minister who has no background—no experience, not even a passing acquaintance—with economics? Why should they listen to him when Treasury estimated that the scheme would result in ongoing increased operating costs of around $4,000 per annum to affected small businesses?

Small businesses are the lifeblood of this nation. They are the backbone of the economy. And you have advice from Treasury that estimates that this fundamentally flawed scheme would result in ongoing increased operating costs of around $4,000 per annum to affected small businesses. Don’t small businesses come within the definition of ‘working families’? Isn’t this government concerned about putting an extra $4,000 a year on small businesses? What impact will that have on small businesses around the country? Does the Treasurer even care what would happen to the small businesses that would have an increase of at least $4,000 as a result of this madcap scheme? Why should the Australian people listen to a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who have only been in the job for six months, when their Department of Finance and Deregulation advised that under this national FuelWatch scheme the price commitment rule might result in higher average petrol prices? The department of finance has advised that the price commitment rule might result in higher average petrol prices. Why would you introduce a scheme that may result in higher average petrol prices? You have got Treasury advising that it would result in ongoing costs of $4,000 per annum for small businesses; you have got Prime Minister and Cabinet advising that the scheme would result in a price increase; you have got Finance advising that the scheme would result in higher average petrol prices. Why would the government introduce a scheme that will result in higher petrol prices?

Finance went on to say that it would add over $20 million to business costs in the first year, with the impact likely to fall disproportionately on independent retailers. We know the government’s attitude to independent retailers. We heard the member for Leichhardt yesterday saying that he does not care about the impact on independent retailers. Why won’t the Prime Minister and the Treasurer admit that this scheme would result in higher average petrol prices and add $20 million to business costs in the first year and that the impact is going to fall disproportionately on independent retailers?

Independent retailers are family businesses as well. Don’t independent retailers come within the definition of ‘working families’? Are these another group to be excluded because of this government’s ideological fix on trying to get an answer to cover the spin that it so misleadingly put to the Australian people at the last election? They promised people—and this is what they believed—that the government would do something about fuel prices. We assume they were not promising to drive fuel prices up, but that is exactly what this national FuelWatch scheme will do. This is the advice from no less than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the department of finance.

Then we turn to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, and we know that this department is supported by its minister, the member for Batman. The department of resources and energy is concerned that the scheme will reduce competition and market flexibility, increase compliance costs and has more potential to increase prices. So now you have another department saying that the scheme will reduce competition and market flexibility and increase compliance costs on small business and on independent retailers and has more potential to increase prices. So you have got Prime Minister and Cabinet saying that it will increase prices. You have got Treasury estimating $4,000 in increased costs on small business. You have got Finance advising that it will result in higher average petrol prices and $20 million in the first year of increased costs on independent retailers. And you have got Resources and Energy concerned that the scheme is reducing competition and market flexibility and increasing compliance costs, with the potential to increase prices.

With this mounting evidence against the scheme we then get the department of industry describing it as ‘anticompetitive’ and saying that it will ‘increase petrol price coordination amongst retailers’. In other words, it will have the very opposite effect from that which the government tries to tell the Australian public it will have. This is breathtaking hypocrisy, when it has received advice from the economic heart of the government, from the people who actually know what they are talking about—not a prime minister who has not even a passing knowledge of economics, not a Treasurer who is still on probation and still on trainer wheels. This advice comes from the heart of the economic advice within this government and it is being wilfully and blatantly disregarded.

What has happened since the election? Why has this government become so arrogant that it believes it can dismiss the views of the Australian Public Service that are experts in the very field that the government is seeking to ignore? Not 12 months ago the Labor Party, when in opposition, was referring to Treasury and Finance as the Commonwealth’s top economic advisers. Before the election they were ‘highly regarded by the opposition as the Commonwealth’s advisers’. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, said in March 2007, ‘If you are serious about national economic reform, if you are serious about it, you ask the Treasury for advice.’ So back in March 2007 if you were serious about economic reform you asked Treasury for the advice. So we take it that when you are not serious about reforms you disregard Treasury advice. Is that what we take from what has happened this week? When you are not serious about economic reform, when you just come up with a madcap scheme like a national FuelWatch, you ignore Treasury advice.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the WA Liberal Party scheme?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come to that. Then the Treasurer said that he wanted to quote an ‘eminent authority’ on this, and he was talking about an eminent authority on economic reform. Who was he talking about—himself? No, not at that time. Was he talking about the Prime Minister? Certainly not. In May 2007 he said that the eminent authority was the Secretary of the Treasury. What has happened in 12 months? Why is Ken Henry no longer the ‘eminent authority’? The Treasurer, then the opposition Treasurer, said that the government’s pre-eminent economic adviser was the Secretary of the Treasury. Now he has been relegated to the back bench and is no longer the pre-eminent authority for economic advice.

It is capped off by a piece written by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, when before the election he described the role of Treasury in the heart of government. He said:

The commonwealth Treasury is no ordinary agency of state . . .

And then he went on to say:

As a former Commonwealth public servant, I know—

this is the Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister—

from experience that the Treasury is staffed with the most competent policy elite that can be attracted to the Australian Public Service.

The only thing that the Prime Minister knows about economics is that the best economic advisers in the country are within the Treasury. He said that it is ‘no ordinary agency of state’. It is not advice that you take when you feel like it and you disregard it when you have got a cheap stunt that has to grab the evening news and the next headline. The Prime Minister said that he knew ‘from experience’—the only experience that he has got in this area—that the Treasury is ‘staffed with the most competent policy elite that can be attracted to the Australian Public Service’. And now he is trashing their reputation, ignoring their advice, wilfully disregarding Treasury and the other economic advisers within government.

In this article the Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, went on to say that Treasury:

... are part of a tradition that sees their role as the continuing custodians of the nation’s long-term economic wellbeing, providing robust advice to the government of the day, irrespective of the political complexion of that government.

That is what they said before the election. Now when they are in a jam and their national FuelWatch scheme is unravelling before our very eyes, they start trashing the Public Service. The minister for finance dismissed them the other day as ‘fat cats’. Don’t think that didn’t get around the Public Service! The Treasurer has dismissed their advice as ‘academic’ and then today—this was a doozy—we had the Assistant Treasurer revealing that the four departments that advised the government against the implementation of the fundamentally flawed FuelWatch had been ‘captured’ by the vested interests of the big oil companies. What is the Prime Minister going to do about his four departments that the Assistant Treasurer says have been captured by the vested interests of big oil companies? This is what the government is saying: anybody who disagrees with their fundamentally flawed FuelWatch scheme has been captured by the vested interests of big oil.

That means Ken Henry and the Treasury; Terry Moran and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; and all those people in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. They are all captured by the vested interests of big oil companies. This is how silly the government are appearing now. This is how ridiculous their argument has become. Why do they not just admit that the evidence is overwhelmingly against FuelWatch and that their own departments have pointed out the fundamental flaws?

The Treasurer used to have on his website the statement that the coalition would ignore Treasury advice at the economy’s peril. That is what he used to think—that you would ignore Treasury advice at the economy’s peril. And now this government, in its quest for cheap populism, for the five-second grab, for a cheap headline instead of cheap petrol, is ignoring the very advice that it says puts the economy at its peril. This scheme is fundamentally flawed and should not be introduced nationally. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister to censure the Leader of the Opposition for:

(1)

his failure to stand up for the interests of Australian motorists and consumers;

(2)

capitulating to the interests of big oil companies;

(3)

failing to put forward fully costed budget proposals; and

(4)

continuing the practice of economic irresponsibility.

In their last budget the Howard-Costello government shovelled a record $40 billion out the door in new spending—$40 billion in just one budget. It is no wonder that inflation hit a 16-year high. They denied in government that inflation was a problem even though there were 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank, and they are still in denial. Now they want to punch a $22 billion hole in the surplus that we need to fight inflation. We delivered a budget that was economically responsible but that addressed the long-term task of dealing with the infrastructure bottlenecks and the skills shortages that were in the economy.

The shadow Treasurer, of course, is still in denial that inflation is an issue—they say it is a fairytale—but of course this is the same shadow Treasurer who thinks that a 25 basis points increase in interest rates is overdramatised in terms of the impact it has on working families. They were out of touch in the lead-up to the last election, which is why they lost office, and they remain absolutely out of touch. The fact is that the opposition, when they put forward their budget response, put forward a grab bag of unfunded, uncosted and undeliverable promises. It was all about appealing to their backbench rather than the broader community. The community knows that without economic responsibility you cannot deliver on social programs and on long-term economic needs.

Indeed, the opposition have even gone so far as to criticise the Building Australia Fund. In his National Press Club speech the shadow Treasurer criticised the BAF for having no rules and no investment benchmarks. But it took them 20 months to issue an investment mandate for the Future Fund. They announced the Higher Education Endowment Fund in the 2007-08 budget but six months later at the election there was still no mandate. But they think that you can just make promises, more promises and then make some more promises without saying where the money is coming from.

They have blocked in the Senate the heavy vehicle charges that they called for, that were initiated by the white paper of 2004. That was supported by COAG in April 2007. On 28 June 2007 the then transport minister, the member for Lyne, said:

The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.

That was initiated by them in government but opposed by them now that they are the opposition. And they speak about advice from the Treasury! This is what Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury, had to say about this issue. On 21 May he said:

The road user charge for heavy vehicles is not the most important structural policy matter likely to confront the nation’s parliaments this year. But it would be one of the easiest ... and it is a pre-condition for other, more important, land transport reforms.

A ‘precondition’ is what the Secretary of the Treasury said about this important reform. Of course, when we announced it this is what industry had to say; we sat down with them. The headline on their 29 February press release by Stuart St Clair of the Australian Trucking Association was ‘Rudd government listens to the trucking industry’. I spoke to the ATA yesterday. This is the Australian Trucking Association, the industry body—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That Hockey thinks is a union.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that the member for North Sydney thought was a union. I spoke to 600 of them yesterday, and I addressed their dinner last night. It was terrific to spend time with these Australians who do so much to contribute to national productivity. This is what Trevor Martyn, Chairman of the ATA, had to say yesterday:

Of course it has been suggested the Australian government could reduce fuel excise but it would be just a gesture. The price of diesel has already gone up by 48 cents and it is likely to rise by an extra 20 cents. A tax cut of even 10 cents per litre would hardly be noticeable. Instead the best approach the Australian government can take is to focus on the long-term and fix the road transport laws that are stopping us from using the latest and most fuel efficient truck designs.

I say to the opposition: listen to the Treasury, listen to the industry, listen to all those who recognise that this is an important reform. If you cannot listen to any of that, listen to yourselves of fewer than 12 months ago and get out of the way of this important reform.

We heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that she was going to outline in her speech the issues of why the operation of FuelWatch was a problem in Perth, and then she said nothing. This weekend is a long weekend in Perth, and consumers will be watching their TV news tonight to see what the lowest cost petrol in their area will be. It is on every commercial news channel, just before the weather every day. I want the good people of Marrickville, the people of Parramatta, the people of the Central Coast, the people of Launceston, the people of Melbourne and indeed the people of Hurstville to have that opportunity as well.

What FuelWatch does is pretty simple. The oil companies now collect the information and then the information is made available to consumers. It is simple. How could you possibly object? That is why the ACCC found in their econometric modelling that it will put a downward pressure on prices. I listened to the ACCC chairman very carefully this morning reinforcing that advice. But of course the opposition were offered briefings weeks ago but they were not taken up, because they do not want to be informed about this issue.

We have had a lot of talk from those opposite about the importance of advice. They know that governments receive a range of advice and the cabinet processes are there. They have referred to some media reports about the cabinet advice of some departments—one would suggest because it is inappropriate to talk about cabinet advice. There are other departments as well that provided advice that clearly does not suit their particular argument. When you have conflicting advice you make a judgement of what is in the national interest, and that is what the Rudd Labor government has done. The sanctimonious nonsense from those opposite about departmental advice is extraordinary.

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The nong opposite asks: which departmental advice asked me to breach cabinet confidence? He asks me to break the law, which says a lot about where they are coming from. We know that when it comes to departmental advice there is one section in my department in particular—the Regional Development Section—that stands out as a hallmark of what their attitude was to departmental advice. The Australian National Audit Office found, in volume 1, page 20, that the manner in which the program had been administered over the three-year period to 30 June 2006, examined by ANAO, had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration. On pages 35 and 36 they said:

A feature of the program’s administration ... was the frequency with which practices departed from the published program guidelines and documented internal procedures. This was reflected in funding being approved for projects notwithstanding the absence of a completed Regional Partnerships application or a departmental assessment against the program criteria, and departmental assessments being truncated or fast tracked or assessment procedures not being rigorously applied such that DOTARS did not adequately scrutinise applications before providing advice to ministers; projects being approved for funding notwithstanding that one or more criteria had not been satisfied; ministerial funding decisions being taken or advisory processes other than those provided for in the program guidelines in procedures advice to applicants.

Listen to this:

Of particular note in these respects was the significantly higher tempo of funding appli-cations, project approvals and announcements that occurred in the eight months leading up to the calling of the 2004 federal election compared to the remainder of the three years examined by the ANAO. A surge in grant approvals and announcements occurred during this period notwithstanding that many of the projects recommended and approved for funding were underdeveloped such as they did not demonstrably satisfied the program assessment criteria.

On 2 February 2004 the former Prime Minister announced his government would commit $845,000 to the Peel Region Tourist Railway. Funding was to be provided from the Regional Partnerships program. The only problem was that no application had even been submitted. They did not get around to signing a contract until 24 January 2007. It was an absolute farce. The first payment of $517,000 was made on 2 February 2007, exactly three years after Mr Howard’s announce-ment, except that only four days later the rail line burnt down. Did the Commonwealth get back its money? No. But we know that is consistent with the 51-minute spending spree before the 2004 caretaker election mode. Former parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly approved 16 projects worth $3.3 million.

But it is not just that. With regard to the ARTC, the Audit Office found that the government managed hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds just before June each year. They made three special grant payments: $450 million in June 2004, $100 million in June 2005 and $270 million in June 2006. The Audit Office says the payments were ‘in the context of assisting to reduce higher than expected budget surpluses’. So if they think there is going to be a surplus they just shovel the money out the door. Note: there was no proper departmental advice, there were no contracts, there were no funding arrangements or documented governance arrangements that required the ARTC to use the $820 million on any particular projects or in any particular time frame. That is what the Audit Office found about the way that they dealt with public funds. We on this side of the House have produced an economically irresponsible budget—I should have said res-ponsible budget: an economically responsible budget. Those opposite stand condemned for the fact that they have thrown out any economic credibility whatsoever. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard out of the mouth of the Leader of the House opposite that the government had brought in an irresponsible budget, and I have to say we all agree with that—totally irresponsible. That has to be perhaps one of the best Freudian slips that we have heard in this parliament—an admission by the manager of government business that the government brought in an irresponsible budget. This FuelWatch scheme is also irresponsible. It has grown out of the fact that, prior to the election, we had the now government, the then opposition, going around and promising to the Australian people that they would bring down the price of petrol, the price of groceries and interest rates. That was the promise that they made to the Australian people. Since they have come to government—in the six months that they have been here—we have seen a rise in petrol prices, a rise in grocery prices and a rise in interest rates.

We are in the situation where they thought they must be seen to be doing something—anything—so they have grabbed onto this concept of FuelWatch. It can probably best be described as the streaker’s defence—it seemed like a good idea at the time. Quite clearly, what FuelWatch is designed to do is to level out the bumps in the peaks and troughs of petrol over the cycle. It will get rid of the top peaks, the top price, over the cycle but will also get rid of the most discounted price, the bottom peak. That means that, if you are interested in paying an averaged price, you will say the average price will be less. But, as was pointed out by speakers earlier today, none of us buys at the average price. We buy at a point in the cycle where we can get the most effective price for ourselves.

There are great differences between motorists—great differences between the people who are buying fuel. You have those people who are up at the top end of the scale and do not really care what the price of fuel is—they will simply buy it. It might be put onto an expense account, it might be part of their contract price or they might think their time is more valuable than to be spent in queuing to get cheaper petrol. They really do not care at what point in the cycle they are going to be buying. They certainly do not care whether the price would be frozen for 24 hours. But there are an enormous number of people—retired people, veterans, people who are on fixed incomes, people with a disability who have a car adapted so they can drive it—a whole army of people, who need to buy petrol at the cheapest price they can get it. That is why, in Sydney in particular, if you are driving in the left-hand lane of the road and come across a petrol station, you will inevitably find you have to get out of that lane because there will be a queue waiting to get into that petrol station, usually on a Tuesday evening, in order that they can buy their fuel at the cheapest end of the cycle.

For the government to come in here and say that they are relying totally and utterly on Graeme Samuel’s view of the ACCC report really says a lot about the structure of their scheme and the paucity of their arguments. The fact of the matter is that the inquiry that the ACCC did began in June 2007 and was supposed to report in October but then reported in December. When it did report, it said some quite significant things. One of those most important things is on page 257 of the report, where it says:

Assessing any system in the style of FuelWatch that incorporates increased price information and price commitment requires great care due to the potential for anti-competitive as well as pro-competitive benefits. Although the inquiry gained a preliminary assessment of the impacts in Perth from the scheme, it is clear that a case-by-case approach is required to assess the potential impacts on competition of any similar scheme. In particular the ACCC has not analysed the application of such a scheme to rural and regional areas. Apparent extra considerations here include the increased potential for anticompetitive effects due to the more concentrated nature of the market, the extra cost in initialisation, administra-tion and compliance and how to decide which areas to cover.

In other words, this report posed more questions than it ever answered; yet the government have seized upon this like a man drowning in the ocean.

The fact of the matter is that once that report was made available the government departments which are central to any decision-making process in government—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Prime Minister’s own department; the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism; the Department of Finance and Deregulation; and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—all said that this was not a scheme that should go forward. Indeed, it would be anticompetitive and it would not deliver the benefits that the government says it would deliver.

Now the government has chosen to ignore its own departments. The one minister who did not ignore his department was the member for Batman, who wrote to the Prime Minister and told him that they should not go ahead with this scheme because it was anticompetitive and it would punish people. You can well ask the question: why has the government chosen deliberately to penalise those people—veterans, pensioners, a variety of pension holders, people to whom every cent counts—by ensuring that the cheapest petrol that is now on the market will disappear, forcing them to pay more? One could be kind and say that perhaps they announced the scheme and did not under-stand the implications of it. One could be less kind and say, ‘Oh well, it means people who are earning more money, who are in the Prime Minister’s definition of working families, can afford to pay a bit more.’ It does bring to mind this whole focus on the rhetoric of the Prime Minister about only being interested in working families—that is, people in the paid workforce. He seems to have no care at all for people who are retired or outside the workforce. Whether they are on pensions or are self-funded retirees or disabled or single parents, they obviously fall outside his definition of care, which is only for this narrow group of working families.

This is totally inequitable, totally against the interests of the Australian people and totally against the idea that this government put out when it was in opposition that it was going to care for those people and bring in policies that would not only not penalise them, but somehow would assist them. The censure motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition this morning states that the Prime Minister and the government should be censured because they were letting down the Australian people and deceiving them over record high petrol prices by:

(1)

describing petrol prices at over $1.60 a litre as “a little problem” for Australian consumers and giving up on them …

(2)

… misleading Parliament and the Australian people on the contents of an ACCC report—

ignoring the Prime Minister’s own depart-ment and the departments of other ministers that advised that this scheme should not go ahead and refusing to immediately lower petrol prices, which is the only way in which government can have an actual effect on what price is paid at the browser, by cutting the 38c a litre in tax on $1.60 a litre.

We have said, quite sensibly and rationally, that we would reduce the excise by 5c a litre. The government then put out a little thought that it might perhaps remove the GST from the bowser price. But then we have the situation where the leaders of the Labor Party governments in the states would have to agree to that before it could be changed, and of course they would not agree unless they received compensation and so that would result in a reduction in price of about 3.7c per litre. So the bottom line is that in trying to catch up to the sensible proposal of the opposition to lower the petrol price by reducing excise tax, it came up with a scheme that would in fact deliver less and would be more inefficient. But that seems to have gone by the board also, and we are back to FuelWatch.

When one reads further into the report of the ACCC, which the government have chosen as the be-all and end-all basis for this policy, one sees the government have not taken the advice of the ACCC, set out on page 17, that says that the government should conduct a detailed assessment of important issues raised by FuelWatch, including whether it had anticompetitive effects, reduction of predictability of prices and costs. Again and again, when they say they rely on the ACCC report, they are ignoring the major findings of it, which is to say that it is at least imprecise in the sense that it has more information it must gather. I go back to that quote relating to the fact that there has been no work done by the ACCC relating to rural and regional areas.

So we have the situation now where people are being excluded from consideration because this government is only focusing on people who are in the paid workforce; pensioners, veterans, disabled people, single parents are all outside the purview of this government. People who live in rural and regional Australia are also outside consideration in this report, and I repeat: the ACCC has not analysed the applica-tion of such a scheme—that is, FuelWatch—to rural and regional areas. Extra considerations here include the increased potential for anticompetitive effects due to the more concentrated nature of the market and the extra cost of initialisation, administration and compliance, and how to decide which areas to cover. It is a very big agenda that is being put by the ACCC to be considered subsequently before any decision was taken. But I would again point out that four government departments, whose advice would normally be heeded, have said that this scheme should not go ahead. These four government departments have had the advantage of studying the ACCC report and making their comments and remarks after having studied that report.

The net result of pursuing this FuelWatch scheme—or should we call it a ‘foolwatch’ scheme?—is that those people who rely now on getting cheaper petrol by being able to go to the lowest peak in the cycle and buy cheaper petrol are the people who are going to be disadvantaged. Those are the people who now queue on a Tuesday night in Sydney and on whatever the day in the other states is where the lowest price in the cycle is being charged. They are the people who fill up then. They are the people who are then able to maintain their purchasing power through the grocery prices which the government said it would bring down and has not. They are being penalised on all counts.

This government said it would lower petrol prices, lower grocery prices and lower interest rates. It has done none of those. (Time expired)

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you are in opposition for a prolonged period of time you go through some difficult periods, and often you have some serious discussions about how you can get yourself back into the political contest and how you can improve your performance. I would have to say that, having spent 11 or so years in opposition, we had a few of those discussions in the Labor Party from time to time. But, equally, over the past few weeks the performance of the Liberal Party on the key economic issues of the day has brought back some interesting memories for me—one in particular.

I vividly recall a debate some years ago in our caucus about our economic positioning, which ended up being reported in the media. The contribution I made in that debate was to argue that you cannot sign up to economic credibility; you cannot simply stand up and assert that you are economically credible; you have to earn it. You have to build econ-omic credibility. It is the accumulated outcome of decisions and positioning over an ex-tended period of time. It is particularly difficult to build credibility but it is very easy to lose it.

Over the past three or four weeks, the opposition have been engaged in a mad venture to try to destroy what is left of the lingering economic credibility that the Liberal Party has. They have been seen to take every conceivable position that is designed to play for cheap cheers and for short-term popularity but not in the long-term interests of this nation’s economic standing and not in the long-term interests of working people in this country.

The underlying inflation rate in Australia is 4.2 per cent. That is above the Reserve Bank’s target zone, as we all know, and, as a result of that inflation pressure, the Reserve Bank has in recent times been putting up interest rates. That pattern has been occurr-ing for an extended period of time—we have had 12 rate increases in a row—but it particularly gathered momentum in the latter half of last year. That momentum, of course, has continued on into the beginning of this year.

There has been one important area, amongst the various factors involved in those interest rate increases, where the former government had direct control over, negligently failed to deal with and, as a result, has contributed very significantly to the increase in inflation and the increase in interest rates, and that is government spending. Government spending has been increasing at over five per cent in real terms per annum. In the middle of a mining boom—a situation where the world is paying ever-increasing prices for our mineral exports—which is pushing more and money into our economy, government spending has been growing at an unsustainably fast rate. In particular, that spending has largely not been directed to building economic capacity to enable Australia to increase its productive capability and therefore to absorb the additional spending. As a result, the Rudd government has inherited a budget which was set in a very wasteful, inefficient and loose fiscal position, a budget that was pushing upwards on inflation and interest rates.

We had no choice but to take action to drastically slow the rate of government spending in order to push back against rising interest rates and rising prices. That is why the government have delivered a surplus of almost $22 billion, or 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product, for the forthcoming financial year. That is why we have slowed the rate of growth in government spending from over five to 1.1 per cent in real terms. That is why we have cut government spending as a proportion of the total economy by around one percentage point of GDP. That is actually a very substantial reduction in government spending as a proportion of the total economy and, in fact, it is the smallest that government spending as a proportion of our total economy has been for almost 20 years.

There have been some commentators who have argued that we have not gone hard enough, that we should have tightened even further. There are many who have argued that we have roughly got it about right. But there are hardly any serious economic commentators that I have seen who have suggested that the government have tightened the fiscal settings too much and that we should be spending more. The only significant players in public debate—the only significant contributors to political and economic debate in this country—who have been arguing that spending should be increased more rapidly, that we should loosen the purse strings, have been the Liberal opposition. In doing so, they are in the process of completely trashing their economic credibility.

The opposition want to go soft on inflation. The opposition want to go soft on the battle to keep interest rates as low as possible. They are the only significant group in Australian public debate who are calling for softer fiscal policy, who are calling for more government spending. They want to restore various tax lurks. They want to revive the notorious Regional Partnerships program. In spite of all the holes in the proposal, they want to bring back the access card that was going to cost over $1 billion. They want to hand out various tax reductions. We saw in the budget reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition that they had a variety of tax reductions they were offering, including one that was not even costed: a change in the capital gains tax treatment for small business owners where there was not even an attempt made to identify what cost that would be to the budget.

In all of this there has not been a single cent in savings, not a dollar, not a cent—no attempt whatsoever to identify where the money is going to come from. Having been in opposition, having been a shadow finance minister for a total of 5½ years, I know only too well how tough it is. But in opposition we did identify savings. Over a year ago we were putting out savings packages of $3 billion—and copping flak and criticism for a number of the proposals in it. But Labor tried to do the hard stuff in opposition, tried to ensure that when we were putting forward spending proposals we were also advocating savings.

The so-called party of economic responsibility, the party that sees itself as Australia’s economic managers, is standing before the Australian people today advocating higher spending, advocating a huge hole in the budget surplus—around $4 billion in the forthcoming financial year and $22 billion over the course of the next four years—and not identifying any offsetting savings at all. It is admitting that the spending, this loosening of the settings of the budget, would actually come from reducing the surplus. That is simply a recipe for higher inflation, higher prices in the supermarket and higher interest rates. That is all that that means. You will not find a serious economic commentator who will dispute that proposition. If you ask serious economic commentators, ‘If there is to be a substantial loosening of fiscal policy from where the government has set it in the budget that has just been handed down, what effect would that have on inflation and interest rates?’ they will tell you that the effect would be upward pressure—it would increase inflation and increase interest rates.

It is not that long ago that the key players in the opposition who are now proposing a cut in fuel excise were part of the Howard cabinet, part of the Howard government, which refused to cut fuel excise and rejected that proposal. It is extraordinary how the opposition has suddenly discovered the merits of cutting the excise on fuel without any kind of offsetting saving and therefore putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. It is extraordinary how it has suddenly discovered the merits of this proposition, after having rejected it when it was actually in charge of the nation’s government literally only months ago. Even the wasteful, spendthrift, lazy former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, did not support this proposal when he was in government, and to his credit it is clear that he does not support it now—as a number of key players in the opposition do not support it. The opposition’s approach on petrol, on other issues and on the wider economic front is simple—spend, spend and spend again. More spending, a lower surplus, let inflation rip and therefore allow interest rates to be pushed up even further. This has all been put forward in the context of a very appealing grab bag of giveaways. But that is not an economic policy.

I will turn to the competing positions that we have in the public debate on the issue in a more specific sense—that is, on the one hand the opposition’s position with respect to fuel excise and on the other the government’s FuelWatch proposal. The opposition, as I said, discovered the merits of this position relatively late in life after having had many years in government and many long months of opportunity to actually put it in place. They finally discovered the merits of taking 5c off the fuel excise, having found themselves in opposition. The taxes on fuel actually consist of two separate things: the excise levied by the Commonwealth; and the GST, which is levied by the Commonwealth and passed on to the states. The excise, of course, is fixed at a set sum and is not indexed, so it is falling in real terms and will continue to fall in real terms. That means that over time it gradually becomes smaller and smaller relative to wages and prices and everything else in the wider economy. It only falls very slightly each year but it is slowly eroding in real terms. The GST, of course, was imposed by the former Liberal government, and the issue that arises from its interaction with the excise is a consequence of decisions taken by the former Liberal government. At the time of the inauguration of the Ken Henry-led commission into Australia’s tax and transfer payment systems, we did indicate that one of the many issues that was in play was that specific question of the GST and the excise interconnection.

In reality all we are dealing with here on the part of the opposition is a desperate attempt to shore up the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and to ward off the shadow Treasurer, who famously sent an email saying that the policy was wrong. The Leader of the Opposition has shredded the Liberal Party’s remaining credibility by in effect standing up and saying, ‘The surplus should be $4 billion less than it otherwise would be and the Liberal Party is quite happy to carry the impact on inflation, on prices, on interest rates that that inevitably involves.’

Finally I will turn to the government’s policy on FuelWatch. Much has been made of the fact that coordination comments for the cabinet discussion from several departments actually criticised the proposal in various ways. There is one really important thing that we have to emphasise here. Those coordination comments were all about one page long—and in 1½ spacing, from memory. So they were all a few hundred words each. On the one side we have a routine process where individual departments, without being approved by their ministers, routinely put comments attached to cabinet submissions giving their views. Ministers in some cases disagree with their department’s comments. In many cases the comments that come from different departments will actually be in conflict. Some departments will support a proposal, some will oppose it. There will be differing angles. Some will only pursue the specific matters that are relevant to their area and so forth. So it is hardly unusual that you get differing points of view from government departments as part of a process of cabinet discussion of an issue, and in some cases—as in this one—the view being put by an individual department was not the same as the view being expressed by their minister. I refer to my own situation.

The key difference is that on the one hand you had four pages in 1½ spacing, about 1,000 or maybe 1,500 words, and on the other hand you had hundreds of pages, economic modelling, serious research, serious analysis by the competition watchdog—the key pool of expertise in the government that is designed to advise the government on these matters: the ACCC with serious research and analysis of this issue. The conclusion they have reached, and the position the government has adopted on their advice, is that FuelWatch has been successful in Western Australia, that it has had the effect of pushing petrol prices lower than they otherwise would have been by somewhere between 1c and 2c per litre and that that can be replicated across the rest of Australia.

It is important to note that divergent views in the government and the bureaucracy about these issues are actually symptomatic of a wider situation. There are divergent views in the Liberal Party, there are divergent views across the states and there are divergent views within motoring organisations, because this is a complex issue. You are dealing with a complex phenomenon, petrol pricing, which is affected by a wide variety of factors. You are dealing with a complex market; you are dealing with consumer behaviour and information. This is a complex issue. It is hardly surprising that you get different views. We know the Liberal Party in Western Australia introduced FuelWatch, we know Senator Adams supports it and we know the leader of the Liberal opposition in New South Wales supports it. So there are different views. But we stand by the position that we have taken. We are going to pursue FuelWatch. We do not claim that it is some kind of magic wand or silver bullet that will solve petrol price issues overnight. There are no guarantees, nor were there guarantees given about petrol prices by the then opposition when we were in opposition prior to the election. On numerous occasions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were asked, ‘Can you guaran-tee?’ and they said: ‘No, we can’t guarantee. All we can guarantee is that we will make an effort to do the things within our power to have an effect.’ And that is precisely what we are doing. This problem is occurring in developed countries all around the world. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. The debate that is taking place at the moment is a censure motion on the Prime Minister and then the mirror image censure back on the Leader of the Opposition. I will be supporting neither because I think both individuals and both parties have got something of small significance to say on this particular issue. I would like to firstly address the FuelWatch issue. I do not think it will make a lot of difference, and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation alluded to the fact that they did not think it will make a lot of difference either. But I do not think it is going to do any harm and I do not think some degree of scrutiny of the fuel companies will do any harm. It will probably make, at best, 1c or 2c a litre difference at some periods throughout the year. If that happens, that is a positive. It is not worth wasting the last three or four days on, but let us suggest that it is not a negative.

On the other hand, we have the Leader of the Opposition proposing a 5c reduction in excise. Most people would be aware that currently the excise is 38c a litre. It is fixed, it is not indexed anymore. Over and above that we have the goods and services tax, which would be running at about 15c. So there is about 50c to 53c in every litre we buy in terms of some form of taxation. The Leader of the Opposition is proposing to reduce the excise by 5c a litre. The tax-on-a-tax proportion of the 38c excise with the GST interaction is 3.8c, which the opposition, the then government, put into place, so the double taxation effect was taking place under that particular regime. So we have this proposal to reduce fuel tax by 5c. I do not think that is a bad thing and I would support that, so I will not be censuring the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting it. Many members of the public question why we have a regime in this country that actually uses fuel as a cash cow, why that has lasted so long. I am pleased to see that the government is going to have a review into taxation, but it has to have this fuel debacle on the table and it has to have the goods and services tax on the table. It is an extraordinary anomaly where fuel users in this country are paying 33 per cent fuel tax at least. That is an extraordinary thing. For people to suggest, as some from the government do from time to time, that it would be economically and politically irresponsible to reduce that magnitude of taxation on the means of production, the energy that drives the nation, I find quite extraordinary. So I support the Leader of the Opposition on the 5c, given that there is the double taxation of 3.8c in there anyway. It is not much but it is in a sense a positive.

From today’s wasted hours we have probably got two minor positives that ignore the elephant in the room, which is the 33 per cent taxation that all Australians are paying. We have the argument, and the finance minister put it again, and I understand his logic, and the Prime Minister has been putting it and a number of others have been putting it: ‘If you move on that cash cow, what does it do to the budget surplus? How do you come to grips with that? The opposi-tion is being irresponsible by suggesting that a $2 billion hole in the budget suddenly appears.’ I think the present government made a serious error when it me-tooed the Howard government tax cuts. It was a very clever political strategy by John Howard. It actually drained the Labor Party of opportunity to create a new future in how it addressed things. It removed those opportunities in relation to fuel taxation and some of the other taxation anomalies that it will be reviewing in 18 months or two years time. So it took away in one fell swoop a lot of opportunities in terms of the budgetary process. But I think the taxation review that the government is going to embark on really does have to include fuel.

Years ago Malcolm Fraser articulated the idea that we need to have a regime of taxation on fuel to try and dampen down people using it. Some others in the last weeks have argued the same thing again, and I imagine the Greens would do the same. How long is that logic going to prop up this tax on energy? V8 cars are put forward as the bane of society in terms of fuel consumption. The suggested solution for dealing with these V8s is to apply a tax that impacts on everybody to try and reduce the impact of these gas guzzlers. I think that is a fairly ridiculous reason for justifying this tax regime, particularly on top of yesterday’s luxury car tax debate. Yesterday we had an absurd proposition put by the government and agreed to by the opposition. People in the country who need to pay more than $57,000 for a basic model four-wheel drive were sent the message that they could avoid the luxury car tax. Four-wheel drive vehicles in the country are a necessity as a result of the roads because out of the $14 billion that we raise only $2.6 billion gets returned to roads—and the other argument for fuel excise originally was that we needed road maintenance and construction. Well, only about 16 per cent of it is remotely connected to road maintenance and construction. We had this absurd position yesterday where we sent a message in the opposite direction: if you do not want to pay, or you want to pay very little of, the luxury fuel tax for a vehicle that is a necessity, buy a gas-guzzling V8. What are the messages that the government is trying to convey in relation to all these issues?

Overlaying that we have this overarching climate change agenda where, we are told, we have got emissions trouble. We are told that we have carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and a range of other global warming gases that we have to try and come to grips with. We have got an energy crisis, and some people suggest that there is a global food crisis. Of course if the price of energy goes up the price of food is going to go up. If we assume that we are moving to a different level of energy prices, what can we do about it here? I would suggest that we can do a bit with excise; a third of the cost of petroleum and mobile fuels is tax. Obviously we can do something about that. Maybe we have to look at the goods and services tax provisions and include fuel in that. That would be uncomfortable for some—probably for everybody in here—but maybe that debate has to be on the table. If we are moving to a new plateau of energy prices, we are going to tax ourselves into a comparative disadvantage globally. We will quite deliberately put ourselves into a disadvantageous position. Then in the next breath the farm sector—and I am pleased the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is here—will be told that they are needed to produce food for the starving millions.

Then we have the climate change agenda. We are told that transport movements and production—and there is one member here who heard this last night—are going to have some sort of carbon footprint. I will use my example again for the minister for agriculture because I think it is important. We have our Walgett wheat farmer. He has a footprint on his own land. He will have a footprint getting his wheat to the Walgett silo. He will have another footprint getting it to the port by train—or truck, perhaps, in New South Wales fairly soon. Then the boat from the port—Newcastle to Egypt or wherever it goes—will have some sort of carbon footprint. The grain that it carries contains starch, which is carbon, and that will have a significant footprint. Who pays for that? I do not know. We have not developed the emissions-trading arrangements yet, but it is something we should know. We export 80 per cent of what we produce; in fact, we overproduce. The transaction is then made. The wheat is cashed in and maybe the odd bribe is paid to sell it to acceptable markets. Then we move into another corrupt market and bring a boat load of oil back from the Middle East. It has a carbon footprint, I would imagine, as it is a fossil fuel. We do not cart oil on trains anymore, so it will be on a truck back to the Walgett farmer so he can go around in a circle and produce grain to send to Egypt to buy oil.

Maybe there are ways we can avoid some of these things, not just with excise and dependency on international factors but maybe internally. The minister for agriculture and others are well aware of the potential for biofuels. Rather than continuing with the ridiculous convoluted energy chase that we are on, surely we should be looking at cutting that corner and looking at local options. We could value-add to what we do well and have an impact on the energy market locally. If we are starting to say that shifting all these things all over the world—a baked bean tin travelling to 17 different countries before it gets to its eventual destination—and having a carbon footprint is problematic, then what are we going to do about it?

One of the things I was pleased to see in the recent budget was some money for research into cellulosic ethanol—biomass. There are techniques out there now. They are in their infancy but they are working in Canada, in the States and in other parts of the world. If people are afraid of using grain for fuel because it has got to feed the starving millions then why don’t we move to biomass? I think the government has got to encourage that. But we cannot keep the tax system the current government has—it has taken on board the previous government’s tax system—where, if you are a renewable energy producer in this country, in 2011 you will start to pay a fossil fuel tax. How is all that going to fit within this so-called emissions-trading and carbon debate? I do not know the answer to that but I think a lot of people do want this tax system, because we have got an absurd debate going on at the moment about little things at the margin when there are big things that need to be addressed, not the least of which is the solar debate.

That was another mixed message in the budget. We means tested it. We have been trying to encourage people to get into solar energy, and what do we do? We turn the sun off in terms of their capacity to access the incentives. Either we have got to have some incentives to do these things in this country or we have got to tell them not to bother: ‘We are not going to have a climate change debate,’ or ‘We don’t believe in emissions trading anymore because it is all too hard.’ We cannot keep running these mixed messages that are out there at the moment.

A document came into my hands this very morning about a pilot cellulosic ethanol plant being developed in New South Wales. The point I would like to make from this document—it relates to this debate quite well—is this:

If the commercialisation program is successful, and research is being undertaken by the govern-ment, production time could be slashed from days to minutes—

That is the issue with cellulosic ethanol—trying to ferment the starch in a reduced period of time so that you can get the unit costs down. With grain it can be done now; with cellulose it is around the corner but close. The document continues:

... and fuel ethanol production costs dramatically reduced. Feasibility studies have concluded that fuel ethanol produced through this process will have a crude oil equivalent cost in the range of US$36 to US$50 per barrel.

If we are serious about having an impact locally, centrally and cutting down on a whole range of transportation issues, we have to start to get serious about renewable energy and do the hard yards, and not exclude it because of this ridiculous food-fuel debate. If we are serious about food in the world, why aren’t we encouraging and helping the Sudan, which has the potential to produce six times the grain production that Australia will ever have? The soils are there. We should be doing those things rather than having this ridiculous debate. (Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge up front the importance of renewable fuels and a number of the issues that have been raised by the member for New England. Both the member for New England and the member for Kennedy have been at the forefront of making representations to both me and to the Minister for Resources and Energy to make sure that the government are well apprised of, and to make sure that we are taking seriously, the issues surrounding energy security and, in particular, the opportunities that may well be there with respect to the different possible uses of biofuels into the future.

There is no more serious motion that a Leader of the Opposition can move than the one that the Leader of the Opposition moved today. When the debate began members opposite were all calling out, ‘Why hasn’t the Prime Minister arrived yet?’ not understanding of course that when a debate is to be held first thing in the morning, and not by a suspension of standing orders, it will regularly appear on the blue and on the Notice Paper for the morning. They chose not to do that.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you always put it on the blue!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When this sort of motion is moved it frequently can come out of the back of what happens in question time.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 15 years, I have never seen a censure motion—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that members opposite interject about what has happened in the last 15 years. I would like to know when the last time was that a Leader of the Opposition thought it was so important for them to move a censure motion that they did not remain in the chamber for the conclusion of the debate. I cannot think of any other occasion on which a Leader of the Opposition has played the most serious card that is open to them and they have known that the motion is going to be moved—but, obviously, when it does not appear on the Notice Paper, the Prime Minister does not know it is going to be moved. I would certainly hope that it had occurred to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to move the motion, that he had decided to play the most serious card open to a Leader of the Opposition, yet for some reason could not be bothered remaining in the chamber for the duration of the debate.

What is at the core of what the opposition have said today and of the arguments that they have put forward, what is at the core of this entire debate, is whether or not it is right and proper for a government to act independently, having received advice from their departments to form a different conclusion. We know from the speech made earlier by the Leader of the House that when those opposite were in government they would frequently depart from the advice of their departments. But what were the sorts of programs for which they would do it? They would do it for some pork-barrelling exercise here or there with respect to the Regional Partnerships program. That is an example of where they thought the public policy parameters were so high. But if those opposite have so quickly changed their position that they believe the proper thing for a government to do is for ministers to just match everything that comes forward in departmental advice, I am not sure what they think the point of having cabinet meetings is.

For the millions and millions of Australians who do not get the opportunity to be public servants and who do not get the opportunity to contribute to coordination comments, surely there is some role for ministers to listen to them. But apparently not, from what those opposite say. When we hold community cabinets, when we conduct consultation and when I spend day after day going through regional Australia and listening to people on their own properties, apparently, the moment I walk into the cabinet room, I am meant to put all of that to one side and say, ‘Okay, what are the departments telling me to do?’ because that is the policy outcome I am meant to get to. That is the core of the objection from those opposite. Essentially, every argument they have wanted to run is about the concept of whether or not it is right and proper for a cabinet to ever depart from the advice that is brought to it.

We do need to consider the advice that comes from departments; we do need to consider the advice that comes from other agencies, such as the ACCC; and we certainly need to consider the rights and the interests of the millions of Australian motorists and the millions of Australians who rely on petrol and other forms of fuel—most notably diesel, certainly in my portfolio—and to look at how we can, in different ways, provide downward pressure for the difficulties that they currently face. The cost-of-living pressures are real—there is no doubt about that. As the Prime Minister has said continually, this is not a silver bullet and we have never pretended for it to be more than what it is.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Casey can look at plenty of transcripts before the election. It is an extraordinary misrepresentation to claim that that was not said prior to the election—extraordinary. There have been quotations made from this very dispatch box, in transcript after transcript, where the position before the election was made patently clear. The difference is that, while we do not believe that there is a silver bullet on this, where we can help we will—where we believe we can provide some sort of assistance for the pressures that motorists face.

It is not just petrol. They just keep hearing: ‘Petrol, petrol, petrol.’ They need to understand that diesel prices matter too. Get out of the capital cities and talk to someone reliant on diesel. Talk to the fishermen at the moment—the fishing industry—and the pressures they face with respect to diesel. Talk to the people who are trying to run a tractor and look at the pressures that they face with respect to diesel. This is a FuelWatch debate. This is a critical problem with respect to the different difficulties that people are facing.

There are global pressures—of course there are global pressures—but that is not an excuse for doing nothing. That is not an excuse for the previous government’s neglect year after year and simply coming back with the view that working Australians have never been better off, ignoring all the pressures that come to bear on the cost of living. The cost-of-living pressures come from both directions: they come from the need to make sure that the market is as competitive as it can possibly be, and they also come from making sure that people have the financial resources to be able to pay. The previous government took them out at both ends. They decided to do nothing on cost-of-living pressures, they decided not to give extra powers to the competition regulator and, at the same time, they introduced Work Choices so that people had a diminishing capacity to pay in the first place.

When it comes to the balance of what you do for people’s entitlements and the industrial relations debate, we say, ‘Give them fairness in the workplace’; those opposite say, ‘Give them Work Choices.’ When it comes to the cost-of-living pressures at the other end of how the family budget gets squeezed, we say, ‘Give the competition regulator every extra power that we possibly can and introduce schemes like FuelWatch so that you can transfer the power from the oil companies to the consumers’; they say, ‘Do nothing.’

Let us not pretend for a moment that the information is not made available at the moment. At the moment, through Informed Sources, the oil companies get the information. The oil companies and the petrol stations can log on and find out what the price of fuel is at different stations around the country, and yet, at the same time, those opposite do not want to give that same power to motorists. They took a long time to make up their minds and decide. Finally, they decided whether the information should be available to the petrol stations and the consumers or whether it should only be available to the petrol stations. They decided to keep a system that locks consumers out of the information equation. That is the path that the opposition have gone down. Of course, it is the opposition in this place that has that view, but it is certainly not the view of the Liberal Party around the country. You only have to look at the comments made by Barry O’Farrell to see the view of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. They quite sensibly came to a view and said: ‘This won’t be a be-all and end-all, but we should help where we can.’

The most telling point about how this scheme could work was when we asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make clear how her views differed from those of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. She responded across the dispatch box: ‘Oh, I’ll get to that later.’ Well, we did not realise that she meant she would get to it later—as in not during her speech, not during that day, not during that week. She did not get there at all, and the reason the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not get there at all is that when she goes home to Perth she gets to watch the news. She gets to watch the news and find out that consumers get told where the cheapest petrol prices will be the next day. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets provided with that information. Instead—

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

Mr Keenan interjecting

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The great example now is that we have the member for Stirling interjecting across the table and wanting to offer the arguments that his deputy leader decided were not worth advancing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave a guarantee to the chamber that it will be explained to us why the position of the Liberal Party in this place is different from the position of the Liberal Party in WA, but she never told us how much later. I am looking forward to one day getting an explanation from the Western Australian members. We have had an explanation from one of the senators, who was very happy to provide that explanation, but certainly the deputy leader decided that at no point would that happen.

On all of those cost-of-living pressures that families are facing—that working families face, that Australians doing it tough face—the key issue remains: making sure that government policy does not contribute to the problems with respect to inflation. It is extraordinary to see how quickly they have been willing to throw their economic credibility away. What is left of the group that had previously wanted to claim economic credibility—and yet handed us the highest inflation rate for 16 years—now wants to blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus. People know exactly what that means. People know what a $22 billion hole in the surplus means. It is clear: the $22 billion hole in the surplus puts upward pressure on inflation, and that is what those opposite want to deliver. When it comes to it, they do not care about being able to provide downward pressure on inflation. When it comes to it, they have no interest in trying to provide power to consumers. When it comes to it, they still do not get the cost-of-living pressures and understand the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing in all parts of this nation, because their attitude is to still be the party of Work Choices. Their attitude is to still be a party that says, ‘You should earn less and, when it comes to cost-of-living pressures, we won’t care what gets done about it.’

You can tell that their hearts have not been in it from the moment the Leader of the Opposition decided to play his biggest card and then leave the room. He left the room. I challenge anyone to let me know when the last time was—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that a Leader of the Opposition moved a censure motion and then left the chamber.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is going to be a vote. If they think their censure motion has disappeared from the debate entirely then they just do not understand it.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moncrieff and the member for Sturt are warned!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we hear those opposite desperately calling across the chamber asking for this debate to be brought to an end. At the end of a debate on a censure motion, they are actually calling for the debate to be brought to an end. They are calling and interjecting across the chamber now, saying, ‘It’s all over; let’s just end the debate.’ Those are the catcalls that are coming across the chamber right now. I can now see why the Leader of the Opposition decided to leave. The people here, his alleged frontbench, do not have any interest in the motion that he moved. He decided to leave. They are asking for the debate to be ended. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition decided to tell us what was in her speech and then make sure that she ran out of time before she got to defend any of it.

We have got a system here at the moment where the government are making sure that, where we can help, we do; where we can provide power to consumers, we will. The alternative from the members opposite is an agenda to blow a $22 million hole in the surplus.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party conned the Australian people at the last election that they would establish a new culture of transparency—

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

Would the honourable member for Sturt resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.