Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business notice No. 1 given for Wednesday, 26 June 2013, Renewable Fuel Bill 2013 standing in the name of the Member for Kennedy, being called on immediately and being given precedence over all other business until all stages of the bill have been concluded.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A member of the opposition said, 'Is everybody going to support it?' I suspect that, yes, we will not get any support in this chamber. I held up yesterday a map of the world, and all of the countries in the world outside of Africa were in colour, meaning they were on biofuels, ethanol—outside of the oil-producing countries, of course. The only country on earth that was in grey, not having ethanol, was Australia.

A person over here is laughing. He thinks it is funny. A report we read said that 1,400 people died in Sydney last year as a result of motor vehicle emissions. The head of the AMA has said more people die from motor vehicle emissions than from motor vehicle accidents, and a member for Western Australia thinks it is funny. Well, it is a most extraordinary comment. He thinks it is funny—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those members out of their place in the chamber and having conversations: either move back to your places in the chamber or leave the chamber quietly and in an orderly fashion. The member for Kennedy has the call.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For people who cannot do any homework, they have never done any research but are very good on personal invective—that is their characteristic, their laugh. That is their intellectual contribution, to laugh. We say that more people are dying of motor vehicle emissions than motor vehicle accidents. The government continue to do nothing about it. A former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Iemma, said that he could not go another day with having the deaths of people on his conscious who simply do not have to die. The Americans went to ethanol not to help their farmers, not to cut themselves off from the $230,000 million that is going to the Middle Eastern oil producers; they did it because of the health results that came out of California, which indicated that maybe tens of thousands of people were dying as a result of motor vehicle emissions

So the American government moved the air quality control act. When you go under a certain ozone retention level, when you go to a certain level of pollution, it triggers the air quality control act. That was how ethanol was introduced in the United States. According to newspaper reports, which I hope to verify shortly, America seems to be up around 12 or 15 per cent now.

The American government claim that, over the next five years, they will be self-sufficient in oil. They will not be sending $230,000 million a year to the Middle Eastern oil producers. That money will be going into the pockets of Americans. But, at the present moment, we are sending $19,500 million every year to the Middle Eastern oil producers which we do not have to send them. As we rise up today, we say: 'Do you want to create 50,000 jobs in rural Australia? Do you want to take that $20,000 million which your country is losing every year and give it to Australians instead of rich potentates in Middle Eastern countries?' We are asking you: 'Do you want people to continue to die who simply do not have to die?'

I refer to the works of Jonathan Streeton, the eminent thoracic surgeon in Melbourne, who has been fighting this battle all his life, and of Professor Carney from the University of Sydney, who has been fighting this battle for most of his life and of all the other heroes in the other countries who have saved millions of lives as a result of the initiative.

In addition, we have our rural industries in a desperate plight. You would be well aware of this, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, with the value to your electorate of the ethanol industry. The lot feeders were squealing because they said there would be a 15 per cent rise in grain prices. Heaven only knows! I attended a meeting in Western Australia, in the electorate of the member who was thinking this was funny and jeering at me, and 1,063 attended the meeting. The Liberal senator's contribution was to say, 'I know you all want to exit, and it is our duty to give you an exit with dignity.'

I asked one of the people there that night, one of the biggest grain producers in Australia, if that was the attitude of people at the meeting. He said that there would not have been a single person of the 1,063 people there—not a single person—that wanted to exit the industry. They desperately wanted to stay on. If there had been an extra 15 per cent over the last 10 years, those people would not be in the dire straits they are in now. As you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, 15 per cent on your gross for most farmers in this country would be a 100 or 200 per cent increase in your net income or your ability to pay the banks.

So it is of immense value to the grain industry in Australia. It is of immense value to the cattle industry in Australia, where they would have unlimited amounts of distillers' grain, which is three times more nutritious than ordinary grain and has the same calorific value. In America, when I went over there on an ethanol tour—the only time I have ever been out of Australia—the price was half what it was for conventional grain.

The cattle industry would kiss the ground on which the government walked if we could get hold of that super cheap, super nutritious grain that is available at the present moment—nearly 100 million tonnes of it per year in the United States. We would not be on our knees in the cattle industry if it were not for the stupidity of the government with the live cattle exports decision. Even if that had not occurred, I still suspect that we would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. We would not be in that trouble if we had access to 10 or 20 million tonnes of this super cheap, super nutritious feed.

Finally, in the sugar industry, we were on $270 a tonne—the world price—for 11 years up until about three or four years ago. In Brazil, 40 per cent of their sugar cane went into sugar. For that 40 per cent they were on $270 a tonne, but for 60 per cent of their production they were on over $400 a tonne—so they could cross-subsidise the sugar part of their industry from the ethanol part of their industry. Our sugar industry, our cattle industry and our grain industry would be fixed up, on the experience of what has happened in other countries, if we had this.

The driving imperative in the other countries is pollution. The reason that China, India and Japan have all announced now that they are moving to biofuels is the issue of pollution and of deaths, mainly from particulate but also from carcinogens—I think there are 15 or 20 carcinogens in conventional petrol. Of course, the ultimate argument, as Larry Johnson the father of ethanol in the United States said is that, when you pour petrol into the river, fish die; when you pour ethanol into the river, fish smile. It is pure alcohol.

I conclude on that note. I recommend this bill to the House and say it is a disgrace that the only country on earth now that does not have ethanol is our country. It is a reflection upon every single person in this place that refuses to vote for this bill. I commend the bill and the resolution to the House.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to second the motion of the member for Kennedy and I will speak ever so briefly, if you do not mind. These matters should be debated in this place and it is unfortunate that the member for Kennedy has got so little traction in this parliament with the issue of the mandatory inclusion of ethanol in fuel for road transport. It escapes me why, in Australia, this issue has been so hard and why we have not made more progress by now. It is self-evident that, if we had mandatory ethanol content in fuel for road vehicles, it would help our farmers. It would give them an opportunity to produce other crops and process what would be otherwise be waste and possibly burnt. It would help our farmers including in my home state of Tasmania. Also, it would certainly reduce the cost of fuel for consumers.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! Yes, absolutely!

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In countries where there is a substantial ethanol content they, as a general rule, have much lower fuel costs. It simply costs a lot less to produce the stuff. With the right government settings it would be a tangible way for this, or a future, government to try to keep a lid on the escalating cost of living for consumers.

It is also an obvious step towards more sustainable transport in the future. We have only so much oil on the planet and eventually it will run out or, at least for many people, become unaffordable. Yes, we can have electric vehicle; yes, we can do all sorts of things but in the mix, in my opinion, should be a move towards a more sustainable fuel and that, of course, is ethanol.

It would help clean up the environment, and the member for Kennedy has spoken about some of the health advantages. When you burn ethanol you have less particulates and other pollutants. You will get better health outcomes in a place where there is a heavy reliance on ethanol fuel.

I do want to sound a warning, however. In some countries where ethanol is used in fuel widely, this has resulted in the use of prime agricultural land, which in my opinion should be used for the production of food. I hope the member for Kennedy does not mind me saying this. We do not want to use up our prime agricultural land to produce fuel for cars; we want to produce quality food for people both in our own country and overseas, including people who would otherwise be starving. I disagree, in the strongest possible terms, with the practice in some countries overseas where virgin forest, including jungle, is cleared to grow grains or other plants to produce ethanol fuel. So I sound a warning. This should not be at the expense of our prime agricultural land. It should not be at the expense of our virgin forest and jungle. In Australia we can do it carefully. It would be insane for us to be importing ethanol from countries where they have poor practices when we could produce the fuel in Australia with high-quality practices so we know that our workers are being looked and after getting a decent wage, that our farmers are earning a decent income and that we are doing it in a way that is environmentally responsible.

So I am delighted to back up the member for Kennedy on this one. I think we should suspend standing orders. There is an urgent need to do that. That is why we should do it in this parliament. We have only got one day and a bit left to go. There are a few other distractions on at the moment. This is important. This is the business of running a country and making for a better country. So I support the member for Kennedy's motion and I hope the parliament will do likewise.

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

The government will not be supporting the suspension at this time. I do want to record my respect for the fact that the member for Kennedy has been a consistent advocate on this issue. He has made almost relentless representations on this issue and is a genuine advocate of this issue—in part, because of the potential economic benefits for industry in his electorate but in part also due to a wider view of the impact that it would have. I say, with respect to the member for Kennedy, having been a long-term advocate he only introduced the bill on Monday; the government is in a position whereby the MPI has been lodged. Who knows—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been misrepresented.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are mechanisms of the House to do that. But that is not now.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have introduced it four times.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The Leader of Government Business has the call.

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

The member for Kennedy does make a good point, even though it was quite disorderly. I congratulate him for sneaking that in on the record. In terms of the parliament, at this particular time—it was only introduced this week—we do have a schedule this afternoon whereby the MPI has already been delayed by an opportunistic attempt at suspension No. 81 or 82 from the Leader of the Opposition. Who knows? The shadow Treasurer is looking pretty keen there. He might come up with a policy. So we would not want to delay the opportunity for the opposition to come up with an economic policy; therefore, we do not want to delay the member for North Sydney. We also have a valedictory for the member for New England, and the 457 legislation in its final stages and this needs to pass the House. I am sure the member for Kennedy would not want to be in this chamber after eight o'clock this evening, because there is an event that the member for Kennedy has a keen interest in. Therefore we need to get business done before then. I call upon the House to oppose this particular suspension from the member for Kennedy.

Question put.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated. In accordance with standing order 127, the names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question not agreed to, Mr Katter, Mr C. R. Thomson and Mr Wilkie voting yes.