Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Prime Minister's petrol tax ambush adding further pressure to the cost of living for Australians.

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

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

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

There was once a politician who campaigned across the country on cost-of-living issues. He went to every corner of this nation campaigning on cost-of-living issues. He said to the Australian people that they want a grown-up adult government that has thought things through, that has a clear plan to protect people's job security and a clear plan to reduce people's costs of living. We all know who that politician was. He holds high office in Australia now—he is the Prime Minister of Australia. He had a clear plan all right—it just was not clear to the Australian people, because he did not tell the Australian people about it. He had a clear plan—he had planned it all through—but he was not prepared to be clear with the Australian people about his plan. He campaigned right across the country on the costs of living for motorists.

He said that in one of those New-Age moments for housewives doing the ironing across the country, showing he was in touch. He showed the Australian people he cared about the costs of living. He just did not tell them that he planned to increase their costs of living. He planned to increase their costs of living by increasing petrol tax. He planned to increase their costs of living by reducing the age pension. He planned to increase their costs of living by throwing young people off Newstart. He planned to increase their costs of living by increasing debt on tertiary education.

He planned to increase their costs of living by attacking their costs of living. That is what this Prime Minister planned. He had a clear plan all right; he just was not very clear about it when he was campaigning for high office. He ran the most fundamentally dishonest election campaign in Australian history—an election campaign totally revolving around cost-of-living issues. He promised to reduce the costs of living. All he has done since with every policy he has implemented is increase the costs of living of the Australian people.

He says there is a modest increase in the petrol tax. He says it is small. It raises $2.2 billion. That is not modest. I am the first to acknowledge that that will have a very significant impact on the federal budget but will have a bigger impact on the budget of Australian families. As these Australian motoring groups have pointed out, by 2016-17 the average Australian motorist can expect to pay $142 a year extra because of this government's tax changes.

He campaigned against the carbon price but he did not tell the Australian people he was going to replace it with an increase in the petrol tax. He went off to the United States and told President Obama: 'I'm good on climate change. I've got a carbon tax on steroids.' This is what he was talking about. He was talking about his increase in the petrol tax. He did not say: 'By the way, that carbon price had compensation for low- and middle-income earners. That was a well thought through package.' That said to people on low and middle incomes, 'We are going to help you as we transition to a low-carbon economy.'

Is there a compensation package for the petrol tax increase? I do not think so. There is no compensation package for low- and middle-income earners. It is okay to increase tax without a compensation package but it is a terrible thing to introduce a carbon price with a compensation package! That is the warped and twisted logic we see from this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. This sort of warped and twisted logic saw the Prime Minister last night at a function in Sydney, which I attended together with the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate and the member for Brand, say to the Labor Party: 'Join Team Australia. You have got to be on Team Australia. The way you get on Team Australia is to support our unfair policies.' What sort of warped and twisted logic is that?

It is the same sort of warped and twisted logic that we saw from the Treasurer at the dispatch box when he split the Australian people into 'lifters' and 'leaners'. That is not Team Australia. Team Australia is one team; it is not 'lifters' and 'leaners'. It was an insult to those Australians who commit no crime but to work hard and who need a bit of support.

When the Treasurer said that, I thought it was just showing that he was not in touch with the aspirations and hopes of the Australian people. I thought at least he has come up with an original thought. I have to say, I was wrong because the Treasurer was not even original. He had modified it a little bit but the idea came from elsewhere. There is an organisation in the United States that some members may have heard of; it is called the Tea Party. It has some pretty extreme views and it has adherents to its views who make statements about Americans. There was a high-ranking US politician who categorised the American people. He was a favourite son of the Tea Party and was the Republican candidate in the recent presidential election for Vice President. He said in America there are 'makers' and there are 'takers'. 'Leaners' and 'lifters', 'makers' and 'takers' sounds familiar—it was straight out of the Tea Party copybook.

I gave Mr Ryan credit because he said he made that statement. Admittedly even he was not original. It came from Fox News originally in the United States. But somebody came up to Mr Ryan and said: 'I do not like that "makers-and-takers" categorisation. I think that is pretty offensive to Americans who need a bit of a hand. Are you saying my mother, who is a pensioner, is a "taker" not a "maker" after she has worked hard all her life?' Do you know what Mr Ryan said? Mr Ryan said: 'You are right. I should not have said that. I was wrong. It was insulting and it was offensive. I was wrong to categorise Americans like that. I withdraw those comments.'

Mr Ryan got the insult that he had applied to the American people. Do we see any such grace from this government? Do we see any such acknowledgement from this Treasurer? This Treasurer insulted the Australian people by categorising them into lifters and leaners. He insulted the Australian people when delivering the federal budget. Does he acknowledge his error? No. He says to the Australian people, 'If you are poor, do not worry; you do not have a car. You did not drive so do not worry about the increase in the petrol tax.' He withdrew that for a couple of days and then withdrew the withdrawal, so out of touch is he with the aspirations of the Australian people.

But the most insulting thing of all is not the Treasurer's words but his deeds and his actions. His words are insulting enough but his deeds and his actions are the most insulting. This Treasurer, who was the sidekick of the now Prime Minister, went around Australia campaigning against the carbon price on his deep principles which had been informed by a Twitter question some time before—when he had asked Twitter for advice on what to do about carbon pricing. As the Treasurer has famously been known to say, 'I have got principles and if you do not like them, I have got plenty of others as well.' He is good at plagiarism is our Treasurer. He went around the country campaigning against the carbon price and cost-of-living issues.

The Treasurer is the same Treasurer who came into this parliament and stood at the dispatch box and brought down a divisive budget, an unfair budget and budget fundamentally bad for our economy because he is fundamentally out of touch with the Australian people. We have had a few Treasurers out of touch in this nation and this Treasurer takes the cake. He makes Peter Costello look like he was a touchy-feely in-touch type of guy. This Treasurer has such arrogance that he lectures the Australian people on how they should work longer than anybody else in the world, until they are 70.

Mr Joyce interjecting—

I will check Hansard and see what you said later, Barnaby; you just be quiet. He tells the Australian people that they have to work longer than anybody else in the entire world as he sits in his office bringing down this budget, which has fundamentally divided the Australian people and insulted those Australian people who work hard but who are not of means.

This is a Treasurer who is fundamentally driven by prejudice in a government fundamentally driven by prejudice. As I said before, if this was a budget and a government driven by ideology, I would fundamentally disagree with them. If it was a coherent well-thought-out ideology, I would have my problems with it. I would disagree with it but I would have some respect for it. I have no respect for prejudice. No member on this side has any respect for prejudice. Whether it be racial prejudice or whether it be prejudice against ordinary working people, we will not abide prejudice. We will not abide a Treasurer who divides his country into lifters and leaners. We will not abide a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who say one thing before an election campaign, who run a fundamentally dishonest and deceitful election campaign and who then come into office and say, 'Let's have a mature conversation.'

I will tell you what are mature conversation is code for: a mature conversation is code for 'ignore my deceit'. With this Prime Minister a mature conversation is code for: 'Ignore my deception of the Australian people. I know I deceived do you, I know I have engaged in a fundamentally misleading election campaign but now I want to have a mature conversation.' I will tell you how to start a mature conversation: you start by admitting that you lied to the Australian people in the election.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would say to the shadow Treasurer is he has not even attempted to address the substance of the argument that he put forward in this MPI. The member for McMahon has come in here and tried to deliver a lecture about the cost of living. But not once did I hear him raise the carbon tax nor apologise for a carbon tax that delivered a cost impost of $550. The increase to fuel excise needs to be taken into a level of understanding and reality.

In 2001, the level of excise was capped at 38.14c, which was 42 per cent of the price of fuel. Today in 2014, the excise is 25 per cent. The cost increase that will come in on 10 November is 0.0046c. What people are telling me they are more concerned with is the fluctuation in fuel prices at the bowser. And a report that I have pulled down shows a weekly fluctuation in fuel prices across capital cities of 6.4c in one week. In Brisbane it was 11.3c; in Sydney it was 12.2c; in Melbourne, 11.5c; in Adelaide, 10.9c; in Perth, 8.7c, in Hobart, 3c; on the Gold Coast, 16c; on the Sunshine Coast, 7.7c; in Darwin, 17.2c; and in Canberra, 3c. That is just one week's fuel price fluctuation. And we are talking about less than half a cent per litre.

The reality is that this increase will be hypothecated so that all of the money raised will actually go into road infrastructure. It is not like taxes that the former government introduced that were just consumed into consolidated revenue. Being lectured on the cost-of-living increases by the member for McMahon is dishonest in itself. He uses the word 'dishonest' regularly, but it is dishonest in itself. No. 1, he has not apologised for the carbon tax that he voted to support and which he is lining up to reintroduce into the cost-of-living standard for each and every person. The reality is that we will spend every cent of this $2.2 billion on road infrastructure, plus more. In fact, in 2016-17 our spend on infrastructure will be around $8.7 billion in one year alone—$8.7 billion!

Such is the dishonesty of the campaign from the Labor opposition that it has actually flowed through to people in the community. I will quote from an article by Steven Scott in The Courier-Mail today where it says:

Carseldine resident Sonia Sahota, 22, says the price of fuel is "high enough as it is".

Well, I can understand that. The article continues:

The plan will see the fuel excise rise by half a cent—

That is correct—

to 38.6c per litre on November 10.

Then she goes on in the article:

… the current cost of petrol already placed pressure on her weekly budget.

Well, nothing like the carbon tax. The article continued:

The student estimated it cost her $50 to fill up and said she wouldn't support paying an extra two dollars in tax to fill up.

Well, $50 worth of fuel is around 33—let's say 35—litres, which will cost 26c extra to fill up, not $2.

So the carry-on by the Labor opposition about the massive cost increases needs to be brought into perspective. As I said, in 2001, when excise was capped, it was 42 per cent of the price of fuel. Today, because there have been no CPI increases, it sits at a margin of 25 per cent. That is because the price of fuel has increased—massively increased. But as I said, what we need to do is make sure that this measure, which will in part go down to helping pay for the road infrastructure, is committed to do that. And it will be done if the opposition supports it. By bringing this into a tariff measure it has 12 months to be put to the chamber to be voted upon.

This is not without precedent. I sat in this chamber and watch the alcopops debate. That money was not hypothecated for all of it the to go into health—most of it went into consolidated revenue.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That wasn't a revenue-raising measure! It was to reduce drinking rates!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consolidated revenue! So here we have an honest government introducing a half-a-cent increase in the cost of fuel, hypothecated into road infrastructure spending, and there we had a Labor government increasing alcopops tax and putting it into consolidated revenue. And even though they raised so much tax they still managed to spend more than they could ever raise.

In fact, this is the opposition which, while in government, inherited a $20 billion surplus, no net debt and $45 billion in the bank—$45 billion in the bank! They left a debt for every Australian of around $13½ thousand. So being lectured on cost-of-living pressures by a Labor opposition is kind of like being lectured by Lucifer on fire safety! That is what it amounts to, because they are not honest in their arguments—

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or you on probity! It's like being lectured by you on donations!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was that? Let me tell you, buckwheat, those same people donated to you and your campaign! So don't you lecture me on that! There is nothing wrong with accepting donations as a federal member of parliament, which you know only too well. So, again, you are being dishonest and deceitful, which is your normal pattern of approach, as it is for the whole of the Labor Party as it mounts its arguments—in particular, in relation to the cost of living and the increase in fuel.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said there would be no increase taxes before the election!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you tell me about no increase in tax! Remember carbon tax? You actually stood up here and argued for it! You argued for the carbon tax! You argued to increase the cost-of-living pressures by $550 for each and every person.

Opposition members interjecting—

So don't you come in here and lecture me about broken promises!

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've doubled the deficit!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've doubled the deficit? I think you will find it was actually your patterns and projections that increased the deficit. What we have been trying to do is to pare them back, and you oppose it in each and every way. So whilst you lecture us about economic modelling, the reality is that you do nothing to support bringing down the debt of this nation—that debt per individual—and the interest bill of $1 billion a month alone puts added increased cost-of-living pressure on each and every person.

What I would say to the opposition is to take a reality check. What we should be doing is looking at what we can do to flatten out fluctuations in the cost of each litre of fuel where, as I said, the variations on a day-by-day basis are way more than the cost of increase of this excise. I could understand their argument if, indeed, this money were going into consolidated revenue, which is what happened with every tax increase by the former Labor government. This money is being hypothecated into roads.

In fact, there is so much money being spent—$8.7 billion, as I said in 2016-17—on roads alone. There are roadworks such as the East West Link, which is a $3 billion commitment; Adelaide's North-South Corridor, a $944 million commitment; the Perth Freight Link, now $925 million; the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, now $1.285 million; the Black Spot Program at $564 million; Roads to Recovery at $2.4 billion; the Northern Territory Roads Package at $77 million; the National Highway Upgrade—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Paterson? What about the Hunter?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is because the roads have already been upgraded. They were done by the Howard government in Paterson. The whole of the Pacific Highway has been upgraded in Paterson by the Howard government.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Hunter and the member for Charlton. The member for Paterson has the call.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's unbelievable! You can tweet that straight away and you can put how you—

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

Not me.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry—how the member for Hunter did not support money for road works in and around Maitland other than the F3 link which was started and commenced by the Howard government.

Opposition members interjecting—

Oh, you live in a life of fantasy, you live in a life of denial and you do not understand. People across Australia will understand that the price fluctuations in fuel on a daily basis will be much greater than what they will be contributing in a small increase in excise—less than half a cent a litre—on 10 November. I say to people: support this. It will pay for road works, it will make roads much safer and it will provide greater fuel economies as we improve the roads of Australia.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, Labor members have been talking about the cost of living and about the pressures that ordinary families face in our electorates and in communities that are represented by people like the member for Paterson. What an extraordinary—indeed surreal—contribution we just heard from that member. I do not think I can say anything more about it, other than to encourage people to check the Hansard. Perhaps Barnaby might help him out on the way through. In that regard he needs some help.

Labor members have been talking about the cost of living pressures. We have been talking about another broken promise in the form of this tax on a tax. We have been talking about this government's contempt not only for the Australian people but also for this parliament. What do we see on the other side? Surrealism, but also a government that is in denial or perhaps simply oblivious to the consequences of its decisions. The Prime Minister said a couple of interesting things in question time today. He said, 'This is a government that understands'—an extraordinary comment in the context of this debate. Then there was a cry for help. He said, 'I think of Labor members. They do not understand the pain it is causing'—relating to tax burdens. I will tell you one thing we understand: we understand this because we are listening to the people we represent. We understand the pain that people are feeling right across Australia in order to maintain decent living standards. We believe that a fundamental responsibility of government is to secure decent living standards today and into the future—and also to maintain a decent environment. I said I was not going to talk about the previous speaker's contribution, but let me just say this. How extraordinary. I think he must have said the words 'carbon tax' 50 times. He did not talk about compensation—funny that.

I also want to talk about something our Prime Minister said before the election. The shadow Treasurer highlighted the gross hypocrisy of government members in saying one thing before the election and doing quite another in government. This is what the Prime Minister said in the Northern Territory as he continued what was his pre-election cost-of-living roadshow:

I am just going to keep doing what I have been doing every day since becoming Leader of the Opposition and certainly every day since this campaign started, focusing on how to reduce the Australian people's cost of living pressures, focusing on how to improve people's job security. I am going to focus on the things that matter to the Australian people …

He has been focussing on the things that matter to Australian people. He has been focussing on making their lives harder and their working lives less secure. This 'age of entitlement' that he speaks of is an entitlement for people like him at the expense of ordinary Australian families. The NATSEM modelling demonstrates the impact of this cruel budget, particularly on communities like the one I represent. He talked about job security. Well, there is very little job security out there in Melbourne's north. In my colleague and friend the member for Calwell's electorate, unemployment in some suburbs is reaching 26 per cent and youth unemployment is higher. And what support do these people get? The cutting of important programs. The proposal that young people would be denied access to any social security benefits for six months is this government's attitude to cost-of-living. I am very pleased to stand-up for my constituent's cost-of-living concerns and to support the member for McMahon's motion. This petrol tax ambush is adding further pressure to cost-of-living pressures on Australians.

Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, promised no new or increased taxes before the election. He has no mandate for this. He has thumbed his nose to this parliament as well as showing his contempt for the Australian people. I say to members opposite, and I hope they will rise to this challenge: if you are believers in this policy, why didn't you put it to the people? And why didn't you respect the parliament? The Scullin electorate includes some new outer suburban communities, suburbs like Wollert, which are poorly serviced—if at all—by public transport. These constituents of mine have no alternative but to drive, whether it be to work or to run errands. I will give the Treasurer a newsflash: these people, some whom are not wealthy, drive cars. They drive them for long distances. They have no choice but to pay, from their hip pockets, for this government's petrol tax ambush. This is a government that talks out of one side of its mouth and says that it is not much to pay. On the other side, it advises that it will be raising $19 billion in additional revenue. The Australian Automobile Association estimates that the average motorist will be paying an extra $142 extra for fuel by 2016-17—my constituents will be paying more than this.

This cynical government is an echo of the Howard government when the former Liberal Party president spoke of a government being mean, tricky, out of touch and dysfunctional. There could not be a more apt description for these people, and the only question that I think voters are asking is, 'Do they care, or do they just not understand?'

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think today reflects just what Labor are about, and that is about leading us into a deep hole of debt and not taking responsibility for their decisions and where they have left this nation.

I am pleased to rise and defend the decision of the government regarding the fuel excise, which was announced in the 2014 budget. Yes, I would highlight to the members opposite that this is not a measure that has ambushed Australian citizens, or blustered into the House as an afterthought. The reindexation of fuel excise is part of our May budget, which contains tough but necessary measures to manage and bring under control the previous Labor government's deficit disaster, which they still fail to acknowledge.

Labor's legacy is well known in this place and throughout the nation. It affects and is felt by all Australians. Let me remind the House: 200,000 unemployed; gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion; $123 billion in cumulative deficits; and, as has been mentioned by members on this side, the world's largest carbon tax. Yet Labor have the audacity to say that the coalition are adding to household pressure. It is a hard to believe, but the reality is that Labor's five record deficits and reckless spending has created an intergenerational debt for many years to come. It is this side of the House that are making the decisions to take responsibility and to reset our future.

We are about fixing the budget. The carbon tax is gone. The mining tax is gone. Now the government continue to enact their economic action strategy to build a strong and prosperous economy and a future that Australians can depend upon. Fuel indexation is a very important structural budget reform that the government do not announce lightly. The coalition government have been up-front about the budget. We announced the measures in the 2014 budget because we wanted to partner with Australia in getting the economy running smoothly. The change in fuel indexation will increase the cost of fuel for a typical household using 50 litres of fuel a week by around 40c per week by the end of 2014-15. This, in my calculation, is roughly around $20 a year. That is 40c per household. The money raised will be diverted directly into building roads and infrastructure, and actually contributing to reducing travel costs for the average Australian.

Now, let us reflect on Labor's legacy in contrast: $1 billion in interest per month contributing to Australia's debt—a debt left to us by the Labor government's mismanagement. Labor's debt did not bring us any investment in future infrastructure. Collectively, 40c per household will generate about $2.2 billion over the forward estimates and around $19 billion over the next decade. It is investment that will go to building our future roads and infrastructure.

We are serious about managing Australia's debt and bringing it under control. Australians know that, although many of Labor's decisions have caused us to arrive in this fiscal situation, responsibility lies with all of us to act sensibly to now bring it under control. The impact on households is modest when we consider the impacts of Labor's deficit. Members opposite have failed to talk about the impact on the carbon tax. As the member for Paterson has already mentioned, there is a vast difference between $20 annually and $550 annually for households. I think Labor need to reflect upon their own policies and their own legacies before they lecture the coalition.

The Hawke government introduced indexation, and it seemed to be a good idea at the time. It is a shame Labor have no good ideas to help manage their debt now. Labor say the fuel excise will add further pressure to Australian households, but what really adds pressure to Australian households is $1 billion of wasted money added to the national debt each month. What would add more pressure to Australian households is the extra $550 of costs to the average household per year that Labor placed on households as a result of the carbon tax.

This is a government that follows through on its promise to build a strong and prosperous nation. It is up-front about that, and about what it is going to do to provide a future for every Australian.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance, and it is certainly important to the residents of Lalor. Sixty-six per cent of workers in Lalor use their car to get to work. Like those people who live in the electorate of Scullin, and like the member for Scullin pointed out, my electorate is in the outer suburbs of Melbourne on the opposite side of the city to the electorate of Scullin. In the outer west of Melbourne we have limited public transport. We have incredible high-growth areas where we have affordable housing but limited jobs, which means that we have people travelling a long way to get to work. We have people travelling whilst juggling child care, school drop-offs and the trip to work. They will be hurt by the measures put in place by this government. They will be seriously hurt, and they are feeling ambushed today by this government, because this government promised no new or increased taxes. I ask, as I asked many months ago, was that a solemn promise? Was it as solemn as the no cuts to education promise? Was it as solemn as the no cuts to health promise? It is very difficult these days to tell which promise those opposite meant and which they did not. We hear a lot about the promise they have kept, but the promises they made that they are breaking are mounting up day by day.

The people who live in my electorate are getting more and more cynical about this government. They are very cynical after hearing the campaign the coalition ran on cost-of-living pressures. They are very cynical when they pick up a newspaper to find out that the Treasurer has said that poor people do not drive cars. Sixty-six per cent in my electorate of Lalor, with over 200,000 people, drive cars to work every day. The people of Lalor, of course, are most concerned about the compounding nature of the impacts that they are being hit with in this government's budget, because layer upon layer, each level hurts more and more. This is all in a context where wages growth has been the slowest in 17 years. Yet every day the people are going to be hit harder and harder by the budget that this government is determined to get passed.

I am reminded of the rationale about that budget emergency that the coalition have screamed about in this chamber for months. No-one is swallowing that. The facts have been checked. No matter how many times you try to force feed us we will not swallow it anymore. What is clear, however, are this government's priorities. What is clear from their budget is that the ordinary Australian is not the priority of this government. I go to the Australian Automobile Association which, of course, has had a bit to say today. The Chief Executive, Andrew McKellar, has called the petrol move weak, sneaky and tricky. I think there are many residents of Lalor who would be giving him a 'hear, hear' today, because that is exactly how they feel about this tricky tax on petrol.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not even fess up and admit that the effect of the announcement would be that if the government fails to get its fuel tax legislation passed the collected excise would be handed back not to the millions of Australian motorists who paid the tax but to the oil companies. It reminds me of the GST and what is happening to the premiers and to the states with the notion of, 'We'll do this. We'll cut your funding and we'll blackmail you into a conversation about a GST.' This is exactly the same. This parliament is being blackmailed by bringing this in through regulation with absolutely no respect for the parliament.

If that was not bad enough, we discovered today through the Abbott government's own repeal day documents that the petrol tax ambush will be even wider. The Prime Minister who stood here again in question time today asking for a mature debate has demonstrated that his behaviour is more like a child holding their parent to ransom. Only in this case it is this parliament and the families in electorates all over this country being held to ransom. I stand here on this matter of public importance to say that the people of Lalor will treat this with the cynicism it deserves.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we are in this position because the Labor Party has essentially put us in this position. The revenue of this country was decimated by the previous government. They talk about ambushes et cetera, but it was actually announced in the 2014 budget that we were seeking to increase the excise revenue. But the Labor Party and the crossbench have sought to deny us this. We are trying to repair a broken economy that was left to us. We gave them an economy that was in pristine condition. It had no government debt. It had money in the bank. It was considered to be 'the wonder Down Under'. We then inherited a debt heading towards half a billion dollars. We want to fix this, and we are headed towards doing that. What is the alternative if you are continually blocked in your attempts to repair the economy? You have to find another way to do it. This is what we are doing.

The Labor Party continues to talk about cost-of-living pressures. I will go to that in a moment. When the Labor Party last had a real leader in Bob Hawke this is what he did, in conjunction with his Treasurer, Paul Keating. It was the Labor government that first introduced fuel indexation in 1983, recognising that:

By adjusting excises for inflation each half year … the real value of the tax does not change.

That is what Paul Keating as Treasurer said in the Hansard of 10 May 1984. The coalition, like the Hawke and Keating government, recognises that by a reintroducing the biennial indexation of fuel excise to the CPI the real value of the excise will not be increased. This is an opposition that do not understand the economy and are doing all they can to wreck it.

Let's talk about honesty and pre-election promises. Do you remember the many occasions we heard, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? On and on they droned. Then what did they do after the election? They brought in a carbon tax which put up people's power prices by about 10 per cent a year and something like $550 each. Worse than that, as the member for O'Connor reminds me, not only did they increase the price of power and introduce an economy-wide tax through the carbon tax—this is their form—but on 1 July this year that carbon tax, besides going up, was going to hit the diesel fuel of those driving vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. It was going to increase by 6.5c a litre. They were going to increase the price of fuel this year if they were the government. The price of diesel would have gone up by 6.5c a litre if they had have been the government in July 2014.

This is canned hypocrisy at its worst. These are people who said they wanted to increase the cost of alcopops because they wanted to improve the health of young people. Trying to improve the health of young people by putting up the price of alcopop drinks did just the opposite, because they went off and bought bottles of vodka and drank them almost straight. Those opposite got a diminished revenue from alcopops. It was not about health; it was about revenue. They had to get that legislation through this place furtively.

On cost-of-living pressures, it was the opposition Treasury spokesman who brought in Fuelwatch. Then he had Grocery Watch, but let's take a look at Fuelwatch. It was going to cost over $20 million a year to administer it just to watch the price of fuel go up. What sort of exercise is that? They were bringing in an institution that was going to cost millions of dollars to watch the price of fuel go up.

We have a solution with these funds of, as has been said in this place, less than 40c per week. It will be dedicated to road infrastructure. We are desperate in this country for real road infrastructure. We have an infrastructure Prime Minister who is committed to spending, as we heard from the member for Paterson, $8 billion a year on real roads and infrastructure. This is where the money is going to go. We want to repair the budget; they want to wreck the budget. We are not going to let them. We are going to make sure that we can deliver for the Australian people on this issue.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really happy to follow the member for Canning. He wanted to take us down memory lane. I ask all here in the House: do you remember that before the last election people went out and campaigned for truth in politics? Do you remember that? What about, 'You need a government you can trust'? I think I heard that one, too. What about the mantra, 'No tax on education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions and no changes to the GST'? That was their mantra. Time and time again, they rattled that off. Who can forget a very sincere-looking Tony Abbott staring down the barrel of some television camera, probably with a new blue tie on, saying, 'I promise no new taxes and no increase to taxes.' That was not all that long ago— only a bit over 12 months ago. The member for Canning wants to take us down memory lane, but I have just rattled off a number of promises already broken by this government's budget. No blue tie can cover up what is being done to the Australian people.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: my tie is orange!

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

There is no point of order.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government lied its way into office. Now it expects families and pensioners to pay for their broken promises. That is truth in politics for you! When the next election comes around, ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, do not believe these people here—12 months ago they promised not to increase taxes, but look at what they are doing now. If it were not for the consequences for the mums and dads out there, this would just be a black joke. This government has targeted those least able to afford it to pay for their broken promises.

Today we have seen another ambush. This is a petrol tax. It is a $2.2 billion increase. Without any mandate, without bringing any legislation before this parliament, they are just introducing this petrol tax. I am very proud of my electorate of Fowler. It is a very diverse, very colourful area, but it is an area of great disadvantage as well. People in Fowler will be five times worse off as a result of the government's budget than people in the Treasurer's electorate of North Sydney, the Prime Minister's electorate of Warringah, or the electorate of Wentworth—I note that the member for Wentworth is at the table at the moment. Yet they want to impose more taxes on people from electorates like mine—on the people who can least afford it.

When there was discussion of the impact of fuel taxes on the poor, the Treasurer summarised it for us. He made it very clear. He said that poor people do not have cars and that, if they do, they do not drive too far. I know he got slapped down by the Prime Minister for saying that, but that is what the coalition believe. They believe that people in Western Sydney do not have cars and that, if they do, they do not drive them too far because they do not have much money. This budget slugs the people of Western Sydney more than anybody else. They rely on cars. There is a high unemployment rate in Western Sydney and the people there need cars to get to work because of the lack of public transport infrastructure. That infrastructure needs to be developed. Western Sydney is the fastest growing area in the nation—and the people there need their vehicles. But the government decided to rationalise their decision by saying, 'They do not need their cars because they cannot afford them.'

You only have to look at what the Australian Automobile Association had to say today. I do not know this mob, but they have come out and said that this tax is not only mean and tricky but that, on average, it is going to cost motorists $146 a year. For the people who live in my electorate, where the average household income is $55,000, that is pretty significant. It is a lot for pensioners and for families on tax benefit B. NATSEM has already reported—and I think all members have accepted this—that families with two kids on $65,000 are already $6,000 worse off as a result of this government's budget. Now this petrol tax is being added to that.

Mr Entsch interjecting—

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Do not shake your ahead at that! That is an independent finding by NATSEM. You guys know it—and it applies to your electorates as well!

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In listening to this MPI debate, I could not help but notice the word 'ambush' being used a lot. I thought perhaps that a definition might be of benefit to members of the opposition. It is hardly an ambush when you come into government and are faced with what you lot left us with. It is our job and our duty as members of parliament to sort that out. What we do to sort that out is hardly an ambush.

I would have thought an ambush was, say, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lecturing the Chinese people in Mandarin. That was probably an ambush, especially considering that it really did annoy them. Probably we could say that Julia Gillard ambushed Kevin Rudd. I think we could say that Julia Gillard ambushed business. We could definitely say that Julia Gillard ambushed the Australian people with 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was definitely an ambush.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Swannie?

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is fair to say that Wayne Swan, our previous Treasurer—I was going to say that he ambushed the miners, but the way it turned out it would probably be more accurate to say that the miners ambushed him. I think deposit holders, though, could say they were ambushed by Wayne Swan. To have your money taken because you haven't used it for a year or two is a little strong—I call that an ambush. I think people with superannuation could say they were ambushed as well.

I will come to the matter at hand. I just thought that needed straightening out first, because the word seems to be getting thrown around a bit at the moment. I am a member of the Australian government and my first duty is to my country. I also have a huge duty to my electorate. I am embarrassed that we have had to implement this measure—and I am sure every member of the government is embarrassed. But I can only guess how embarrassed Labor must be to have inherited the situation they did and to have then left us in the position of paying a billion dollars a month as a result of their idiocy—behaving like kids in a lolly shop. They were totally uncommitted to Australia. The worst of it is that they threw away $200 billion on things that gave no return to the Australian taxpayer, no return to the Australian people. That is why we have to borrow a billion dollars a month just to pay the interest on what they did.

I want to talk a little bit about the fact that—yes, I think it is true; I know it is true—this measure will cost those of us in regional Australia slightly more. It will cost us more than it will cost city people. Regional Australia is about a third of the population and we will definitely pay more. Someone travelling 400 to 500 kilometres a week to work and back will pay an extra 50c or maybe a dollar in a bad week. Even though we are talking about regional Australians, and I personally represent them in a regional electorate, we have a duty to the country as well. This is a cost we have to bear, and 50c or so a week, despite what the Chief Opposition Whip just said, is as much as it is going to be.

Remember that getting rid of the carbon tax saved regional Australians one heck of a lot more than $550 a year—we get far hotter and far colder so we use far more fuel and electricity than the two thirds of people who live in the major cities. And do not forget that the carbon tax would have been adding 6½c to the cost of every litre if we had been paying that now. So we have 6½c as against half a cent. That was just another one of those ambushes we have been talking about. Yes, I am embarrassed that we have to do this but, by heavens, those opposite must be embarrassed for causing the problem in the first place.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not embarrassed at all about letting the member for Calare and others know that this budget and the government's broken promises are a recurring nightmare for my constituents. Just when they thought they had heard it all, they now learn that this government's budget of broken promises and its unfair cuts continue without shame the repeated theme of hurting Australians who can least afford it. Yesterday the Prime Minister's cowardly ambush of the Australian people saw his government bypassing the parliament in order to force onto them this unfair and unwanted petrol tax. It beggars belief that this government continues to push forward with its petrol tax, despite public outrage and despite even the Australian Automobile Association's chief executive, Andrew McKellar—I know he has been quoted by colleagues—

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's gold.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is gold—the member for Lalor is absolutely right—because Mr McKellar calls this hike a weak and sneaky and tricky action. That reflects exactly what this is—it is weak, sneaky and tricky and it rubs salt into my constituents' wounds because it adds to the growing list of financial pressures and the burden of living costs in what is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged electorates in Australia. People living in my electorate drive cars—we are outer-metro and we drive cars. We need to drive cars. A lot of my constituents may not be very wealthy but they need to drive their car. As if the cost of petrol is not already steep enough, my constituents are now going to be slugged with this unfair petrol tax which the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for. The Prime Minister sought no mandate from the electorate to slug them with this increase in petrol prices.

Since this budget was announced my electorate has faced a continuous onslaught of proposed budget measures that have hurt them and will continue to hurt them significantly. I have spoken about these measures many times before. There is the GP tax, pension cuts, the abolition of Family Tax Benefit B, forcing young job seekers to go without income support for six months at a time, moving young people onto lower income support payments and cutting payments to war veterans—and now we have the fuel tax. My constituents cannot take much more of this. The situation for their family budgets and overall prospects is dire enough without these additional taxes. This is not good news for my electorate, and unfortunately the news keeps on getting worse.

The NATSEM analysis is important in demonstrating exactly what is happening to the people who live in my electorate. According to NATSEM, the average family in Calwell will lose about $783 a year as a result of this unfair budget. I want to go through the budget's average impact in dollar terms in the suburbs and neighbourhoods of my electorate. That is what matters—what matters is how the budget will impact on the people who live in the neighbourhoods of my electorate. Families are looking at a loss of $355 in Tullamarine, $805 in Keilor East, $532 in Keilor, $524 in Taylors Lakes, $571 in Sydenham, where there are lots of young families, $1,226 in Meadow Heights, $544 in Gladstone Park and Westmeadows, $1,364 in Broadmeadows, $1,327 in Campbellfield and Coolaroo, $1,032 in Roxburgh Park and Somerton, and $478 in Greenvale and Bulla. These are costs that the people who live in my electorate cannot shoulder—they cannot afford to be hit with these costs. How much more is this government intending to bleed my constituents? How much more are they going to tax my constituents in order to fill their coffers? It is a legitimate question and I am not ashamed to ask it. (Time expired)

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I spoke on a matter of public importance earlier in the year and I mentioned at the time that I was only new to this place and that MPIs reminded me a little bit of my days at kindergarten. After lunch you would lie down and the teacher would read you a fairytale. Every afternoon I was hearing history rewritten; I was hearing stories—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got 'once upon a time' over there.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are stealing my thunder! Lo and behold, today the shadow Treasurer stood up and opened up the MPI with the words—I kid you not; you could not make this up—'once upon a time'.

The member for Hinkler and I have just been chatting. I know that in question time the member for Wentworth, who is sitting at the table, loves to use a song reference or a literary reference or a movie reference. We were just conferring about whether or not this was a Paul Hogan moment in parliament. 'That's not a knife; this is a knife.' This is not an ambush. This is not a new tax. The carbon tax—that was a new tax. The mining tax—that was a new tax. Fuel tax has been around since Federation. Its structure has changed with time. When you look back at the issue we are confronting now, you see that it was indeed Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who finalised indexation in 1983. Why? It was because he acknowledged that, Australia being a vast country, fuel taxes needed to be spent on roads and they needed to maintain pace in real terms. That is the key here. This is not an increase. It is maintaining real terms. That is the highlight.

There is also a precedent with the mechanism we are using—that being alcopops, of course. As a publican at the time, I did have some sensible and mature debates with customers in trying to sell that puppy. What you cannot walk away from and what the Labor Party failed to get is that the situation we confront as a nation is dire. And it happened on their watch. Every time you raise this, you get the GFC thrown at you. By the end of this financial year we will have $226 billion in net government debt. Tranche 1 of the GFC was $10.4 billion and tranche 2 was $47 million. That is $57.4 billion of $226.4 billion that is directly accountable. And it is non-recurrent expenditure. It was needed at the time, but it does not keep appearing in the forward estimates. The problem we have is a structural budget deficit, not the GFC. That is why we are doing what we are doing. It is still the problem, whether those opposite want to bury their heads in the sand today the same as they did in the last six years.

Last week's fertility rates were scary. The ABS announced a birth rate of 1.88. For those of you mathematically inclined, we need a birth rate in women under 49 of 2.1 to replace ourselves. We are growing the wrong way—we are growing by ageing. There are two categories that give us big trouble—and this happened in six years and unless we do something about it now it will continue to happen and get worse. In 2007, health—actual figures, not budget estimates—was $43 billion. At 2013 actual, it was $64.5 billion. That is a 50 per cent increase in six years under the watch of those opposite. In 2007, welfare was $96.5 billion. In 2013 it was $140.6 billion. That is a 46 per cent increase on their watch. The real problem we have—and this is why fertility is important—is that we have 23.5 million people today and 11.6 million in work. We have 11.6 million people carrying 12 million people. The rate of growth of those in the population aged 65 plus is twice the rate of growth of those in the 15 to 64 bracket. It is going to get worse. When those opposite were in government they missed it and tried to continue to blame—and do today—the GFC. They want to spend $80 billion more than us in the next 10 years on health and education. They want to spend $16 billion more than us in the next 10 years on foreign aid. They want to spend, if you will believe what we are debating today—unless they come to their senses—$19 billion more on roads and not have it funded by this measure. That is a total of $115 billion more that they want to spend. They still have their heads in the sand. The obvious question is: when will you stop playing populist politics, acknowledge there is a problem and either work with us to fix it or come up with some suggestions on how you might fund the extravagant lifestyle you plan to continue post the six years you have just had?

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

The discussion is now concluded.