Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, but the coalition's opposition is not about low-emissions vehicles; it's about the stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer money that should be used for the best possible policy impact. This is a piece of legislation that has no sunset to it. The Parliamentary Budget Office has said that the bill will cost well over $2 billion over the next decade. The government cannot say what this bill will deliver in terms of emissions reduction. It cannot say what it will deliver to the low-emissions vehicle market. It cannot even say what criteria will make it a success.

We know that demand for low-emissions vehicles, pure electric vehicles and hybrids is rising fast, with figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries showing sales of pure battery EVs last month were the highest market share ever recorded. The bill, if it's effective, will simply increase demand in an already tight market. The best thing the government can do with this money is invest it in practical measures to drive EV infrastructure investment, because we know that's where the bottleneck is, in order to get greater uptake over time and, at the same time, deliver real cost-of-living relief for Australians when we are facing a cost-of-living crisis.

In government, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was part of our plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The strategy detailed a technology led approach to reducing transport emissions whilst ensuring Australians can drive their preferred type of vehicle, be that petrol, diesel, hydrogen, electric powered or hybrids. It's all about customer choice. It's our side of the House that has always believed in customer choice, because customers know what is best for them. The strategy detailed the technology led approach with three principles underpinning the policy. The first principle was partnering with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment in future fuels. Second was focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies, not adding taxes. And third was expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choices and minimising the costs of integration into the electricity grid.

In government, we committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low-emissions vehicle technologies, and that included $250 million to ARENA to roll out fast-charging stations across the country. Round 1 of the program resulted in a sevenfold increase in the fast chargers in our cities and in our regions. Importantly, we outlined the detail of what our policy would deliver. We actually laid it out. Unlike this government, we outlined that our policy was estimated to deliver the following: first, emissions would be reduced by over eight million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2035. Those are specific outcomes. We haven't seen that for this legislation. We haven't seen it, which is extraordinary. Secondly, charging infrastructure would be deployed in over 400 businesses, 50,000 households and 1,000 public access fast-charging stations. Third, convenient access to public fast charging would be enabled for up to 84 per cent of the population. That's about choice. It's about ensuring people have choice, so they have that infrastructure when they need it. Fourth, over 2,600 new jobs would be created. Fifth, electricity network upgrade costs of $224 million would be avoided by 2030. This is important: making sure we've got the smart charging infrastructure in place so that you pre-empt now the costs that will come at you down the track if you don't do it. We are always thinking ahead on the cost of living, and it's something that those opposite could learn something from. And, finally, the strategy would create the environment for 1.7 million electric vehicles to be on the road by 2030, although that will ultimately be the choice of consumers as to what is right for them.

We absolutely want to see the uptake of low-emissions vehicles in our transport sector for those who choose to do it, but this is not to diminish the need for effective, quantifiable and responsible policy development which is outcome oriented. This is even more important in a global economic environment which is challenging, with increasing pressure on inflation and a requirement for well-designed, well-targeted government spending. Despite that this is being referred to as 'tax reform' by the Treasurer—a very loose use of that phrase—the Senate inquiry suggests this bill is high cost and low impact, and has been designed with no consultation with industry, government or civil society. A number of experts have raised serious questions about equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures that might be created by this legislation. Evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee from Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water showed the impact of this policy on emissions reduction has not even been quantified—it hasn't even been quantified. Its impact on EV supply has not been quantified. Third-party evidence suggests this bill's impact on both is negligible. Perhaps that's why it hasn't been quantified. The Institute of Public Accountants has said that this measure will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emissions from the transport sector—damning. The Institute of Public Accountants also went on to say that there are other measures which would have a far greater short-term benefit to the environment than this measure. This is at a time when we need to make sure every dollar of taxpayers' money is spent well, because if it's overspent, we're going to see more inflationary pressures; we're going to see more cost-of-living pressures on all Australians.

Professor Miranda Stewart is a respected tax expert, Director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU, just down the road from here. She has literally written the textbook on taxation. She said that the design of the measure must be changed 'given its fiscal cost, unequal benefit and uncertainty about the electric car market and the best policy to transition Australia'. Again that is damning from a tax expert who is second to none. She said that the policy 'will deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners'. That's modern Labor policy.

UnitingCare, a large fleet user, when asked a dorothy dixer by the Labor Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee about the impact of the bill, said:

As it is currently modelled, the bill, we're not certain it would necessarily change anything.

They are a fleet owner. They are the target of this policy.

Given the high ongoing cost of this measure—a cost that Treasury have confirmed that they expect to grow over time—the government have failed to establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy. The government have failed to ensure that the expenditure is temporary, proportionate and linked to tangible productivity gains. This has got no sunset clause on it. They have failed to quantify any benefit of the policy to EV uptake, to emissions reduction or to the budget bottom line. They have failed to tangibly address the biggest constraint on EV uptake, which is supply and infrastructure—getting the charging in place I talked about earlier—and they have failed to consult extensively with business and civil society. These failures make it irresponsible and fiscally reckless to support this bill in its current form.

The Treasurer might have felt like he was playing Paul Keating by calling this tax reform, but it is really nothing more than ineffective tinkering at the fringe. The coalition senators pointed out in their Senate Economics Legislation Committee dissenting report:

Most Australians will be unable to benefit from this tax policy change which is extremely narrow. It will mean that people working in small businesses are less likely to access the proposed tax policy change due to the lower level of usage of salary packaging in small and medium businesses.

For these reasons, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) with this policy the Government has failed to:

  (a) establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy;

  (b) ensure the expenditure was temporary, proportionate, and linked to tangible productivity gains;

  (c) quantify any benefit of the policy to EV uptake, to emissions reduction, or to the budget bottom line;

  (d) tangibly address the biggest constraint on EV uptake, which is supply and infrastructure; and

  (e) consult with business and civil society on policy design; and

(2) the Coalition supports increased uptake of low and zero emissions vehicles and our focus was on enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies;

(3) the Coalition is focused on partnering with industry to support the uptake of new vehicle technologies and create the necessary enabling environment to support uptake which includes helping to support the infrastructure roll-out and ensuring that our electricity grid is ready; and

(4) calls on the Government to invest the substantial medium term cost of the measure in supporting practical EV infrastructure and cost of living relief for hard working Australians.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.