Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is:

That the bills be agreed to.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate we have seen a notable lack of speakers from the Nationals. This is the Liberal tail wagging the Nationals dog

Members of the National Party are happy to come in here and cast a vote that will raise fuel taxes on their electors. And they know full well—as the Leader of the Nationals and the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined—that this is a tax on distance.

This is a tax that will fall disproportionately on those in the largest electorates in Australia. But have we heard from the member for Pearce in this debate? I'm afraid not. The member for Durack? No—guillotined as well. Have we heard from the member for O'Connor? No, we have not heard from him. We have so many members across that side of the House, representing large rural electorates, who have not stood up in their party room, who have not stood up in this House and who have not stood up against the measure that will raise taxes every time Australians get into the car.

As I outlined in my second-reading speech, this is a broken promise, and there could be no clearer broken promise than the increase of fuel indexation. No less than a dozen times prior to the election, Tony Abbott said he would not raise taxes on the Australian people, and now we are seeing this 'big new tax'. In another part of this building, very shortly, we will have Al Gore standing next to Clive Palmer. It is apposite to remind the House—as Al Gore might have said and, indeed, as Tony Abbott said to Barack Obama—this is a measure which acts like a carbon tax. Having run around the country, berating a price on carbon, now we have Tony Abbott introducing a measure that has the effect of being a price on carbon.

This is a measure that was decried by coalition member after coalition member when they were on this side of the House. As soon as they moved to that side of the House they discovered a new-found love for carbon taxes. As long as it is their carbon tax, they are very happy to have it. So we have Greens members—in a 'Bizarro World'—more committed to standing up for rural Australians than the National Party is. The National Party will not stand up to the Liberal Party. That is why, at election after election, over the past generation, we have seen the National Party slowly being reduced to a rump in this place. It is unwilling to stand up for the interests of rural Australia.

We on this side of the House take a different view. We on this side of the House are standing to see the Prime Minister keep his word when he said—no less than a dozen times before the last election—that he would not put a new tax on the Australian people. He is not only putting a new tax on the Australian people but also he is taking away this House's right to debate it. Those on that side of the House should have all been given the opportunity. We would have been delighted to give them the freedom, because we believe in freedom of speech. We particularly believe in the freedom of National Party members to explain to their constituents why they support paying higher fuel taxes.

It would have been a great joy for us to hear 15-minute speech after 15-minute speech from members representing some of the largest electorates in Australia. They are electorates where a typical elector might jump in the car for a couple of hours to go off to a meeting, or find themselves taking an hour each way to drop the kids to sport on Saturday. It would have been a pleasure for those of us on this side of the House to sit and watch them explain to their electors why they thought higher fuel taxes was the right promise to break.

This is not the only promise the government has broken. There are broken promises on: no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to SBS and on bringing the deficit down. Of course, they have raised the deficit. It is a little smaller than it was after Joe Hockey doubled it, but it is still a whole lot bigger than it was when the government came to office. But this broken promise is one which will resonate in the rural and regional electorates of Australia. They will be asking themselves: 'Where was my member when the great debate happened in the House of Representatives?' The answer: missing in action. Rural and regional members were missing in action—except for those on this side of the House.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot claim to have the largest electorate in the country but I can claim to have the largest electorate in the state of Tasmania. I am more than happy to stand in front of my constituents and explain the benefits of good public policy. That is something the Labor Party once believed in—once had principles and once stood for something.

It was interesting to pick up today The Financial Review. That well-known supporter of the Liberal Party Laura Tingle today started off by saying:

If there was one budget measure which Labor and the Greens really should have supported, it was the move to reinstate indexation on fuel excise.

I found this more and more interesting, as the article went on. She said:

After all, it would have been the Coalition—not Labor—that bore the opprobrium, and both sides of politics and the budget bottom line would have benefited from the move.

We do believe that it is important to fix the budget. It was one of the fundamental commitments that we went to the election in September 2013 with, that we would restore faith in government and that we would restore faith and respect for the finances that are the product of the taxpayers of this country.

I hesitate here, but she goes on to say:

In what was a too-clever-by-half punt, Labor thought it could get the best of both worlds by counting on the Greens to support the Coalition on the indexation move, thus avoiding any political fallout but gaining the revenue whenever it eventually gets back to government—

And goodness knows when that might be—

despite never having had the courage to make the move on fuel excise itself when it was—

For six long years—

in government.

The keyword there is courage—and lack of courage, of principle, on the part of those on the other side. This is a budget that our country needs. We know that some of these measures may not be popular, but the fact that the excise is going to roads will make it a valuable contribution to regional Australia. Certainly in my electorate of Lyons there are many roads that will benefit from an excise of a very modest nature on fuel that will be legislated to be put back into roads, some of which will be in regional Australia. We were elected to a do a job, and that was to fix the mess that was left by the previous government—and fix it we will.

The rate of excise and excise-equivalent customs duty on most fuels was last changed in March 2001—13 years ago. The rate at that time was 38.143c, and that has effectively been eroded over time. The fundamental principle of this excise—to allow us to reinvest in roads and reinvest in infrastructure—has been eroded through a lack of courage. In 2001, it represented roughly 41.5 per cent of the price of petrol. Today, nationally, it is around 25 per cent, and I would say it is a little less than that in my state of Tasmania. We are prepared, when good policy is put in front of us, to look at those things. It is also important to note, for regional Australia, that the level of fuel excise will not affect businesses operating vehicles greater than 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. Importantly, vehicles used in my electorate by the many farmers—people that work, employ people and generate wealth within my communities—will not be affected for off-road activities. The fuel tax credits that they rightly receive offset entirely the increase in the fuel excise.

This is sensible policy. This is good policy. We understand, on this side, that some of the measures in the budget that we have brought down are not popular, but we are a government that needs to fix the mess that Australia was left with after six years of Labor. We are up for the job, we are committed to the task and this is one small measure of good public policy that should be supported by the Greens, but it should also be supported by the Labor Party if they believe in something and stand for something.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is actually terrible public policy, despite what has just been put forward. This is terrible public policy and it has been condemned and canned throughout the regional media. That is probably exactly why the government has moved to gag debate today. I am a regional MP, and it is not just my local paper that has really gone out there and canned this policy. A number of papers in regional areas have come out and canned this policy, saying that it is going to be tough for the bush and tough for farmers.

Let us look at TheDaily Mercury, which is a paper in Mackay. It says that this will have a crippling effect on our cane growers in the region—a crippling effect—yet we are hearing from people opposite that farmers want this. This does not include the farmers who are cane growers in Mackay. We have also heard that it is something that people are proud to defend. Really? Your local papers are not saying that. Is that why we have got so many MPs in hiding, not willing to stand up and nail their colours to the mast on that? We have had MPs on the other side—on the government's side—publicly say that they disagree with this policy. We have got senators coming out and maintaining the rage against this, saying that this will be bad for the bush. We have got other members of the government coming out publicly and saying that this particular fuel excise increase is another tax and it is a broken promise. So no wonder the government is moving to gag debate on this, when its own MPs out in public are saying that it is another broken promise and an increase in a tax.

It is a broken promise and it is an increase in a tax. In my electorate of Bendigo, we pay high fuel prices, which means we will be paying even more in excise to the government. On one Saturday in Bendigo city itself, the price was okay—it was about the national average; it was $1.50—but, the moment you went further out, it got more expensive. On the same day, the price was $1.65 in Woodend. That is an extra 15c. On top of that, they then have to pay more excise. The fact is that, in regional Australia, the further out you go, the more you pay in fuel. So this is a tax that hurts the bush. The increasing of the excise will hurt the bush and hurt regional electorates like mine, because the further you go, the more tax you have to pay to this government.

I am also not surprised that the government wants to gag debate to stop those MPs from big rural seats standing up and talking about this issue, because who would want to go home and stand up in front of the farmers and the small businesses and say, 'Yes, I've just increased the cost of your business.' This is a government that claims to be the best friend of small business, yet it has just increased one of the biggest things that you can increase for a small business—the cost of fuel and the cost of petrol.

Let us, for a moment, remember why it is the fuel excise was frozen. Let us just remind people why. John Howard, the former Prime Minister, introduced the GST, and part of the trade-off when he introduced the GST was to freeze the fuel excise, because having the fuel excise and the GST is double-taxing. It is double-taxing on fuel, which is vital for people to be able to live. The motorists who live in country areas, the people who rely on transport, rely on fuel. We have limited or no public transport in the regions, so, for those electorates where people need to use a car, we need to ensure that we have fairer taxes.

Right now, this is not a fair tax, and it is not a fair tax because it is a tax on a tax. I am quite surprised that the government, who were the architects of the GST, forget this. They forget that this is a tax on a tax. The question that I have for the government now is: are they going to consider reducing or removing the GST on fuel? That is the only way that you can ensure that the people in the country and in the regions are not hit with a double tax.

It is very disappointing that the government has gagged debate on this. There are a number of MPs on this side of the House that wanted to stand up for their families, stand up for their communities, stand up for their electorate and highlight exactly why this is an unfair tax and another broken promise.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again it has been instructive to listen to the contribution from Labor members who continue to apparently rail against the inequities of an initiative like this while conveniently ignoring the fact that this type of measure would not be necessary if the Labor Party had not spent so recklessly over the past six years. This type of measure would not have been necessary if Labor had not run the six biggest budget deficits in Australia's history. Indeed, this type of measure would not be necessary if Labor had left Australia in a better financial position than they inherited it.

But the Australian people understand what Labor did. The Australian people, when they reflect on Labor's track record, know the truth, which is that, when Labor was elected to office, they inherited a $50 billion asset base, they inherited a budget in strong surplus and the Australian economy was performing strongly. In six short years the Labor Party ran the six biggest deficits in Australia history and put us on a debt trajectory that the Treasury forecast was going to reach $667 billion unless policy changes were made—policy changes such as the policy debate that we are having in the chamber right now.

So it is a little disingenuous, frankly, for Labor members to pop up on the opposition side and claim that they are so concerned about the impact of this bill. One of the reasons why it is particularly disingenuous is because this is coming from the same Australian Labor Party who in this debate rail against the impact of 40 or maybe 50c for the average Australian family per week for the cost of fuel yet are perfectly happy to see the continuation of the world's biggest carbon tax, which has an impost on Australian families of $550. Bear in mind that the carbon tax is set to increase, so the impact on Australian households will be even more pronounced. The government does not need hypocrisy or lectures from the Australian Labor party about how this is not an appropriate initiative to undertake. What we need from the Australian Labor Party is a little bit of common sense, a little bit of recognition that as a government we were elected to fix up the mess that the Australian Labor Party left behind.

Labor cannot have it both ways. Labor cannot claim that they are a party concerned about Australian families. Labor cannot claim that they are a party that is concerned about the impact on Australian people of a policy initiative like this. Labor cannot claim that they are a party of economic responsibility yet enable a situation or attempt to impose a situation where the Australian budget continues to face significant economic headwinds, where the Australian budget continues to be subjected to tens of billions of dollars of budget deficit. Until such time as Labor is willing to be upfront with the Australian people, Labor is not in a strong position to be critical of measures that this government undertakes not because we think they are popular but because we know that they are the right thing to do, as I have said in this debate previously. Initiatives like this are done because this is what is required to help restore Australia's economic standing. These types of policy decisions are undertaken not because we think they are going to win vast numbers of votes in the community; we do it because as a government we are committed to making sure that this nation stands more strongly in the future than it is able to as a consequence of Labor's economic stewardship and the reckless spending they engaged in.

Labor cannot have a situation where they oppose every tax increase and hey oppose every savings initiative but then say that they are concerned about equity, fairness and the impact that that will have on Australian families when as a direct consequence of Labor's policy positions we now see Labor trying to reimpose nearly $40 billion of additional spending back on the budget. That is the reason the Australian people voted in such overwhelming numbers against the Australian Labor Party. They know that Labor's recipe is a recipe for more debt and more deficit and will do nothing to make sure the next generation of Australians inherit a country that is stronger and more resilient in the future than the nation that Labor left behind.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel bad for detaining the member for Moncrieff, who I know will be wanting to rush to the Great Hall and hear the member for Fairfax, Clive Palmer, blowing up another one of the Abbott government's agendas; but, because of the gag on this bill, I was prevented from speaking on it earlier, and I really could not miss the chance to have my say on this bill. This is one of those bills that goes to the heart of the absolute substancelessness of this government.

I have a very simple question for the member for Moncrieff: if this bill is such good policy, as those opposite are insisting, why didn't you tell the Australian people about it before the last election? Before the last election it was a very different message coming from those opposite. I can remember hearing the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, telling Australians: 'What you'll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes. There should be no new tax collection without an election.' The government's Real solutions policy pamphlet, which was mailed to every constituent in my electorate during the last election campaign, read: 'We pledge to the families of Australia that we will never make your lives harder by imposing unnecessary new taxes.' In one interview, when asked if lower taxes was a promise, the then Leader of the Opposition responded, 'This is my whole reason for being in politics—in this parliament.' Indeed, the then Leader of the Opposition gave more than 80 speeches about tax in this place in the last parliament but never once said that he would be increasing them.

Yet in the government's first budget we see a swath of tax hikes: increases to income tax, a new tax on visits to your GP and the increases to the petrol tax that we see in the bills before this House. Those provisions must have been in the sealed section of the Real solutions policy pamphlet—the lift-out section of the pamphlet with the obscene bits in it that aren't fit for public consumption! I must have missed that section. It would have to have been a bulky one to contain all the nasties that were included in this recent budget—all the nasties that had to be hidden away from the Australian people before the last election. The sealed section would have had to include the new $7 tax on visits to the GP, the $80 billion in cuts to health and education and the plans to Americanise our higher education system through massively increased student fees and student debt costs.

But there is a little bit of familiarity. It was before my time but seeing all of the opposition leader's promises about honesty and about no new taxes it did remind me of another previous opposition leader. We have pretty well established that Tony Abbott is no John Howard. Those opposite are quickly realising that Tony Abbott is more extreme, more out of touch than John Howard ever was, much to their detriment. But he is doing a pretty good Malcolm Fraser impression at the moment. Before the 1975 election Malcolm Fraser said:

I can promise you honesty and integrity in Government—

You can hear the echoes from the then opposition leader—

I'd like to have a Government which people can trust.

…   …   …   

We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor's tax rip-off.

…   …   …   

The Government will bring taxes down further—not increase them.

We all know what happened next. In 1978 Malcolm Fraser introduced the petrol taxation that Tony Abbott, his progeny some 30 years later, is now increasing.

People ask, 'Why is the Labor Party opposing this bill?' Those opposite ask why aren't we supporting this excellent policy. I can tell you that this excellent policy is far from it for my constituents. This is a regressive tax that slugs the hardest those with no choice but to use their cars. It is a regressive tax introduced without any broader tax reform to curb these regressive impacts. I ask the minister in this respect: has the government undertaken modelling of the cumulative impact of this tax hike on working families wend combined with the GP tax, the cuts to family payments and the cuts to child care support? Why has the government not sought to engage in a substantive holistic tax reform process before slugging working families with this procession of new taxes? The cumulative effect of these taxes on my constituents in a working class electorate not like my own is a cost of living catastrophe for working families. This is a particularly shameful outcome, given that before the last election the opposition leader told Australians that he would:

… offer real solutions that will help the forgotten families of Australia with cost of living pressures.

I ask the minister: why have you forgotten the cost of living pressures of the families of Australia less than 12 months into your government? I further ask the minister why funding raised from this tax isn't being spent on infrastructure projects that would actually ease congestion on our roads—projects to take commuters off our roads and allow them to catch public transport; projects like the Melbourne metro rail tunnel that would increase the peak hour capacity of the rail network in my electorate by tens of thousands of commuters and yet has had $3 billion in Commonwealth funding slashed from it in the recent federal budget. I ask the minister: why is the government trying to gull Australians by setting up a road funding account that incidentally does not even guarantee increased road spending, at the same time that it is ripping billions out of commuter rail infrastructure? Why are road commuters more equal than rail commuters? Labor understands that our major cities need a mix of infrastructure investment in both road and rail to maximise the efficiency of our urban transport networks. The government is no better than the Greens in their ideological obsession in this matter.(Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers I put the question that the bills be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bills agreed to.

Third Reading