Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In my home state of Tasmania in 2023, 81.1 per cent of vehicle sales were either SUVs, light commercial vehicles or utes. The top selling cars were the HiLux, Ford Ranger and the MG MG3. Industry analysis shows that they would attract penalties of $14,000, $17,000 and $11,000, respectively. Why does this Labor government continue to punish Aussie families and tradies in the bush where they're trying to earn a living?

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

Again, it appears that I appreciate the question more than the honourable member appreciates being asked to ask it. Perhaps the honourable member is a little bit embarrassed about opposing a policy which would save his constituents $1,009 a year in petrol costs by giving them a choice of better cars in this country.

Now, the honourable member in the question that was written for him, has mischaracterised, of course, the policy design that has been put forward and consulted upon by the minister for transport and I. I'm a little surprised the question got through tactics because the chair of the tactics committee is the member for Bradfield. The House will be shocked to learn that he has views about this matter and about the availability of utes in countries with fuel efficiency standards. He pointed out, for example:

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

What the honourable member and those opposite are seeking to convince the Australian people of is that Australia will be the only country in the world where we introduce efficiency standards and the price of vehicles go up as a result. It didn't happen in the United States in 1975, Japan in 1985, China in 2005, South Korea in 2006, the European Union in 2009, Canada in 2011, Mexico in 2013, India in 2014, or, I think the Prime Minister's personal favourite, Saudi Arabia in 2016. Those woke warriors at it again! That is why, for example, Hyundai has said:

We think we will soon have a world-class Efficiency Standard in Australia and we're excited by that.

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

The member for Groom is warned.

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

They continued:

With the Standard in place, Hyundai dealers will still have great vehicles to sell, customers will have great vehicles to drive, and we will be doing our bit to reduce emissions in line with Australia's commitment to decarbonise.

That's just one company.

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

The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a very tight question, and it's hard to imagine that the minister is relevant when the question went to the fact that the HiLux goes up by $15,000—

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

Resume your seat.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't finished.

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

You've made the point of order on relevance, and I've got that. You don't need to state the question again.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the right to give a point of order.

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

You've given it, so I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go into further detail regarding his point of relevance, he doesn't need to explain in great detail what the issue is. I understand that he believes the minister is not being relevant to the question.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[inaudible] consideration. I can't give a point of order when he stands here.

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

The Leader of the House will assist the House by taking his seat. I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that there's one point of order to be taken, and that's on relevance. That's not an excuse or a reason to restate the question or to add extra, new information. That has not been the practice.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't seek to do any of that. I seek to give the information so that you might be properly informed so as to rule on the point that I'm making on relevance. How can it be relevant when the minister has not mentioned the fact that, under the government's proposal, the HiLux goes up by $14½ thousand—

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

Resume your seat. Under the standing orders and the Practice, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and all members—because this came up yesterday and has been coming up today—the point of order should not elaborate or make extra points. Whilst I appreciate the right of the Leader of the Opposition to make a point of order, it is simply not the case to be able to add extra statements or extra comments, so this is not going to continue on.

Opposition members interjecting—

I haven't made a ruling. I'm explaining the process to the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be very clear, there is no additional commentary that has been included. I read directly from the question asked by the honourable member. There was no additional information introduced, so to characterise it in that way is to misrepresent the point of order that we made. If your point is that you're going to rule that additional points of order can't be made on the basis that I've made them today, then, with respect, that is outside of the standing orders. The point I made was to quote directly from the question from the honourable member. That is completely and absolutely in order.

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

The Leader of the Opposition has the right to raise a point of order. I want to be clear that the minister does not have to answer each aspect of the question to be relevant, and he's not obliged to answer every part of the question, as has been the ruling from Speaker Smith, Speaker Jenkins and Speaker Bishop, which I have in front of me. It is important, going forward, that the minister is being relevant, but he doesn't need to answer exactly every aspect of the question. You're entitled to raise the point of order. We agree on that. The minister is answering the question and is being directly relevant. You may not like the answer—I appreciate that—and it may not be the answer the member—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We're just going to get on with the answer. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The member for Barker has the call.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the course of that discussion, there were not one but two unparliamentary remarks from the member for McEwen, and I ask that you ask that he withdraw both.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

To assist the House—it's going to assist everyone if everyone ceases with their interjections while I'm dealing with points of order—I'm going to ask the member for McEwen, if he's made an unparliamentary remark, to withdraw.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't—and, as the standing orders state and is reps practice, what is an unparliamentary remark is not political sensitivities, which is what we're getting from that side. But I'm happy to withdraw if it helps you in the House.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Barker and the member for McEwen will cease their interjecting. So no more interjections from the member for McEwen or the member for Barker; that'll help us greatly. Thank you. For 45 seconds, we'll hear from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

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

There are some of us who know that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is untrue. It is not just the member for Bradfield.

I will finish with some support for the member for Bradfield from Senator Sharma, who said on 5 February:

Well, we are adopting increasing fuel efficiency standards and that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that, and the fleet should be progressively getting cleaner and a lower intensity of emissions.

The Leader of the Opposition should be more like Senator Sharma.