Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax. Last year—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right, there is far too much noise. If members on my right continue to interject, they will leave the chamber. I don't know how many times I have to tell everyone. Questions are going to be heard in silence, and then ministers will be given the same courtesy. Out of respect for the member for Menzies, he'll begin his question again.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax. Last year—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will resume his seat. On the point of order, the Leader of the House?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At question time, ministers can be asked about issues within their responsibility. They can't be asked about something fictitious. He's referring to a policy that does not exist.

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right. The member for Macnamara is warned. I can't make any member phrase a question as I see fit. It's up to that individual and, obviously, the minister can respond accordingly. We've had this issue before over the last couple of weeks. I just ask for everyone to temper their language and, for the third time, I ask the member for Menzies to get to his question and be heard in silence.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax. Last year, in my home state of Victoria, 78 per cent of sales were either SUVs or light commercial vehicles and utes. The top-selling cars were the Ford Ranger, Toyota HiLux and Isuzu D-MAX. Industry analysis shows that they would attract penalties of $17,000, $14,000 and $13,000, respectively, by 2029. Why does this Labor government want to punish Australians for their choices?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I very much appreciate the question. In fact, I suspect that I appreciate being asked it more than the member appreciates being asked to ask it, because he's been put in a rather tricky situation. What we're about is giving Australians more choice and more fuel-efficient vehicles. In fact, for electorates that are in outer-urban areas or regional areas, they save more in fuel costs by having more efficient cars because they drive more. Again, that is a fact, but others have said it more eloquently than I have. The member for Bradfield wrote in the Australian:

Given the long distances travelled in regional Australia, the savings could be even greater for people living outside the main cities.

When he's good, the member for Bradfield's good, isn't he!

Again, I have to confess that I quoted the member for Bradfield earlier and I left a sentence out, which I shouldn't have done. I talked about how in the United States, as the member for Bradfield was arguing, demand for cars was the same before fuel efficiency standards than after, but he actually went into more detail than that. He said—and I'll give the full quote:

So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction.

And this is what I felt left out last time:

Essentially, what Americans call pickup trucks and what we'd call utes, like the Chevy Silverado. There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here.

We've got an opposition that is so negative that, while they oppose our polices—which is fair enough; we're used to that—they oppose their own policies as well. I suspect the opposition could do with looking at how some groups have responded to this policy, groups that actually represent the interests of motorists, like Australia's oldest motoring group, the NRMA, who said:

The NRMA welcomes the Australian Government's announcement and we are pleased that a responsible and achievable option over time is being presented to the Australian people.

That is from the chief executive of the NRMA, which has been standing up for motorists since 1920, which is about 104 more years than those opposite, because they actually don't stand up for Australian motorists. And CHOICE, who stand up for Australian consumers across the board, said the absence of standards in Australia has made Australia 'an unattractive market for more efficient vehicle manufacturers'.

CHOICE stands up for consumers. The NRMA stands up for consumers and motorists. This side of the House stands up for consumers and motorists. That side of the House just stands for scare campaigns which won't survive contact with reality.