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

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

This Government's family car and ute tax making the cost-of-living crisis worse.

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—

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As is often the case when people from the coalition come to this dispatch box, I begin this debate by reaching over the aisle and saying to the members of the Labor Party who are here: thank you for being here and thank you for participating in this debate.

The minister who has been leading the charge on the very topic of this debate, which is Labor's new car tax, is a no-show. This would have to be the ninth or 10th matter of public importance that has fallen into his portfolio, but he has not shown up. I genuinely say to those members of the Labor Party here today, I recognise it is not easy to come into this debating chamber and have to defend your hapless Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who is punishing your constituents just as much as he is punishing ours. It is a reflection not so much of you good people of the Labor Party who are in this chamber but of the Labor leadership.

There are some truisms when it comes to Labor's leadership, which are that they don't tell the truth, they break promises and they love taxes. There's no shortage of taxes they've introduced. They've introduced the superannuation tax, a new franking credits tax, a tourist tax, a recycling tax, a clothing tax, an income tax, a food tax and a truckie's tax, and today we debate their latest tax: a tax on the family car and the tradie's ute. Altogether, this is a $379 billion tax grab against the Australian people. This is what they do.

They're doing this family car tax and tradie ute tax under the guise of a fuel efficiency standard. Last year, when Labor first mooted the possibility of a fuel efficiency standard, we responded as a coalition and said we were happy to be constructive in this debate. But we said very clearly that there were three things that needed to be balanced: price, choice and emissions. Not only did Labor fail to engage with the coalition in any discussions on this measure and not only did they fail to then have any balance between price, choice and emissions; but they also have introduced a measure that will fail on each of those.

Let us start with price. This new tax will mean that the vehicles Australians love the most simply cannot meet the standards being imposed by the Labor government. And, as we know from the manufacturers, there is no chance that technology will be provided in time to ensure those standards are met. So, for Australian mums and dads and for tradies across the country, it doesn't matter if you are looking at buying a Ford Ranger, a Toyota HiLux or an Isuzu D-Max. They're the three most popular vehicles in the country, but not one of them will be able to meet the standards being imposed by the Labor Party. And we know what's going to happen as a result: prices will go up. That's why it is a tax. Those members opposite know, but, to their credit, they came in to defend the AWOL minister, who is not here to defend it himself.

I wondered if this impact was going to be true, so, last week, I took the time out and visited a Toyota dealership. I thought, 'Of all places, why not go to the seat of McMahon?' This is Western Sydney, and there are very good constituents in the seat of McMahon. But I found out that the constituents there aren't getting a fair hearing from their federal member—the federal member who happens to be missing from the chamber today and is also missing in the seat of McMahon. When I went to the Western Sydney Toyota dealership, one of the questions I asked was: what is the industry's projection for the impact of this tax on the Toyota HiLux? And do you want to know the answer? It was $15,000 extra. That's the size of the tax on the HiLux.

We walked down and checked out the cars, and I was getting educated. I came across the Toyota LandCruiser, another vehicle that Aussies love. I asked the simple question: how much would this LandCruiser's price increase with Labor's new tax? And do you know what the answer was? It was $25,000. This is why the minister is the dodgiest car salesman in the country. He says to the Australian people: 'Have I got a deal for you! It's called a family car tax.' But then, wait, there's more. He says, 'Actually, on the cost of running your vehicle, it's going to be cheaper by about 1,000 bucks.' I looked up the detail behind this claim that he's been spruiking, and it's based on an assumption of electricity prices coming down—how about that?—to 27 cents a kilowatt hour.

I also visited South Australia last week. If you're in South Australia, the promise from the same minister is that next year your power bills, your electricity bills, are going to almost halve. I don't know about you, but I have a memory of somebody else promising a $275 reduction in household power bills. Lo and behold—you wouldn't believe who it was. It was the same dodgy car salesman who purports to be the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who went to the last election promising households a $275 reduction in electricity bills, and they've gone up as high as $1,000. Now he's promising them a family car tax: 'It's going to be fantastic for you. For tradies, the ute tax is going to be great, and prices are going to come down.' Australians know the truth. Those in the leadership of this Albanese government do not tell the truth. They break promises, and they love their taxes.

It's not just prices. Let's go back to the other conditions we put on engaging constructively. One was choice. We know that, as a result of prices going up, everyday mums and dads across the country can't buy the vehicles they love. Tradies across the country can't buy the vehicles they need. As MPs we all struggle to get home. The odd time that I'm at home, I have the privilege of dropping my kids to school. I tell you what: mums and dads are dropping their kids to school in the very vehicles that are going to be taxed, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. This restricts choice for Australian consumers.

The last condition we put on engaging constructively is that this measure at least has to reduce emissions, but what we see from the industry and the dealers across the country, explaining to the Labor government that very important element of behavioural economics, is that consumers will change their behaviour at times. What's going to happen is that consumers that have petrol vehicles right now are going to keep their vehicles longer, and the longer you keep these vehicles the more they emit. After a handful of years of the coalition government getting emissions down, we now have emissions going up under the Albanese government. Why? It's because these sorts of measures fail. This dodgy car salesman who calls himself a minister promised that, by 2030, 89 per cent of all new vehicle sales would be EVs. His own department says it's not going to be 89 per cent; it's going to be 27 per cent. That is why, in an act of desperation, the dodgy car salesman is putting prices up and introducing a new tax, and Australians will pay the price.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that was like utegate 2.0—a more pathetic sequel. I remember utegate 1.0, where they stormed in here telling us they had this amazing big find, based on a forged email. Now they're doing it based on fake data and a fear campaign, trying to scare people about something that will catch Australia up with the rest of the world. But I wish you well on utegate 2.0, Shadow Minister. We know how well that ended for the last person who pushed that case. What we saw was—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Member for Fairfax! You were heard in silence. I ask that you stop your interruptions. You do this quite regularly in the MPI, and I don't want it. We're going to have a respectful hearing, and then your side will get the same courtesy. Assistant Minister.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I correct myself. It's not utegate 2.0; it's utegate 3.0. We had utegate 1.0, where they based their entire political strategy on a forged email, and utegate 2.0, where they said that everything was going to 'end the weekend'. Now half of them drive electric cars themselves. Now we've got utegate 3.0, where they're saying that, somehow, giving people cheaper, cleaner cars will 'end the weekend'.

Now, I do thank the member for Fairfax for being here. I was waiting for a good 10 minutes to learn something new in his speech, but it turns out that the Advance Australia talking points don't change from day to day. But I do want to thank you for being here!

What I find fascinating, though, when it comes to talking about debt, taxes and the economic security of the Australian people, is that it was those opposite, not that long ago, that came up with this amazing concoction where they said that the debt levy that they introduced in the first year that they came into government was, of course, not a tax. It was a levy because it was going to pay back all of the debt. Only the Liberal Party could introduce a debt levy on thousands of Australians only to ensure that they got the debt up. They doubled it before the pandemic and doubled it again afterwards, all thanks to their wonderful policy of a debt levy.

But, when we get to the talk of taxes, we know there's a tax that is the shame of those opposite more than any other tax they've proposed in recent times, and they've proposed a few, and that was the tax where the Leader of the Opposition wanted to tax every Australian $7 to go to the GP—his Medicare tax. He wanted to dismantle Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to privatise Medicare, and, once he sold it all off, he was going to tax you to go to the doctor. What we see from those opposite is an absolute failure to acknowledge just how many taxes they introduced when they were in government, and indeed those taxes that they wanted to introduce to the Australian people. But, thanks to Labor, we stopped their GP tax.

But it's not everything that those opposite say that I disagree with. In fact, there are a number of things the member for Bradfield has said in the last year that I do agree with. He wrote a very thoughtful opinion piece. 'Australians love their cars,' said the member for Bradfield. I agree. I love my car. He said, 'Vehicle emissions impact on our health.' I agree with the member for Bradfield once again. He went on to say, 'Noxious emissions from vehicles can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular problems.' I agree again with the member for Bradfield. And he said this, which I think those opposite should, in their private party room meetings, get him to talk them through in detail:

Fuel efficiency standards are about reducing fuel costs and carbon emissions at the same time.

We can reduce the cost for the Australian people and reduce carbon emissions! But the member for Bradfield went on—it's quite a long opinion piece; obviously he has a good relationship with the newspaper that published it. He said, 'But we are behind Europe and the US.' He went on to say:

Making reforms to Australia's fuel efficiency, fuel quality and noxious emissions standards has the potential to deliver real benefits.

I agree.

What we saw was, again, the Turnbull government putting out media release after media release talking about how they had a plan to do exactly what the government is proposing now—that is, to give Australians more choice in the cars that they drive and give them more efficient cars, cleaner cars and cars that require less fuel to run for the same performance. What I find fascinating about this debate is that this is about technology that's already there. These cars are not yet to be manufactured or designed; these cars are already in the market for so many nations.

While this technology is on the table, we have the shadow minister instead going out and campaigning for a technology that isn't yet in the commercial market, when he campaigns for his preferred technology of nuclear small modular reactors. He's said—and indeed the WA Liberals have said very clearly—they want to put a small modular reactor in Collie. What they want to do is put a nuclear reactor in Collie, in the heart of Western Australia—a technology that they've promised they will install if they get elected but that they can't actually buy on the market right now. I find it absolutely amazing that we have, from the shadow minister there, less knowledge about nuclear science than Homer Simpson himself holds.

What we want to do is to work with the technologies that are already there and ensure that people can get the cars that they deserve and the types of cars that they want, because Australians do deserve more choice. And they deserve more than the fearful campaigns that we're seeing from those opposite.

We know those opposite are scared—they've gotten better than in the old days when Tony Abbott used to run out of the chamber to avoid voting—of lower power bills. They voted against them. They're scared of cheaper child care and scared of our Help to Buy policy. Help to Buy is modelled on a very successful Western Australian program which has, over its time, got some 120,000 Western Australians into their own home, but those opposite are scared of Help to Buy. They're scared of fee-free TAFE. They're scared of tax cuts, which they said they wanted to dismantle, they wanted to oppose, they wanted to roll back. They wanted to do all those things so much they voted for them this week! And they're scared of windmills. They're scared of Woolworths. They're scared of solar panels. And today we get the fear campaign on electric cars.

Australians deserve so much more than that. They deserve a government that is focused on giving the Australian people practical solutions to the policy challenges Australians face. That is what this government has done. It's why this week we delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, ensuring 13.6 million Australians get a tax cut. That's 2.9 million more than would have benefited under the old Dutton-Morrison plan—the old Morrison and Leader of the Opposition plan. And 11.5 million Australians, 84 per cent of taxpayers, will get a bigger tax cut because of the legislation that Labor introduced into this chamber. Despite lots of blocking, amendments and everything else that we saw in the Senate, we got it through this week. That is good news for the Australian people.

I am concerned, as the Australian people should be concerned, that, if those opposite get into government, they plan to unwind these. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition no less said absolutely they will unwind those tax cuts.

But that's not all the government has done. I'm proud of our record. We've made the largest ever investment in Medicare bulk billing. We've invested in cheaper medicine. We've invested in the biggest increase to rent assistance in 30 years. We've invested in boosting income support payments. We've invested in fee-free TAFE. I was fortunate to join the state minister Hannah Beazley at North Ridge TAFE in my electorate recently to see what a difference that is making for students, what a difference it's making for people who otherwise wouldn't have accessed training or wouldn't have been able to make the choice to shift careers. Our legislation has expanded paid parental leave, and there have been real results from our efforts to get wages moving again.

What I say is, when it comes to these questions, this government has continued to deliver on real measures to support families feeling pressure on their household budgets, and we'll continue to do so. We might get all the huff and puff from those opposite, who say cheaper, cleaner cars are somehow not in the national interest. What we know is that these cars will save Australian motorists $100 billion in fuel costs to 2050—$100 billion! I'm not going to stand in the way of my constituents getting those sorts of savings. Those opposite shouldn't be standing in the way of their constituents being able to choose a cheaper, more efficient car that will cost less to run, but, unfortunately, that is what we are seeing.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say how disappointed I am that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy is not in here. I back up the member for Fairfax. All I can assume is that he saw the speaking list of the MPI today. I think he's still traumatised from when I monstered him about three years ago in question time! That's all I could think of.

Just to finish off where the member for Perth was, I understand the member for Perth would understand this issue. He'd be the sort of person that would have to stop at a Driver Reviver site when he drives from his place over to Fremantle for a swim—different to my part of the world. He talked about the savings. I drive a Toyota LandCruiser 300. It uses about 10.4 litres for every 100 kilometres. Under the new scheme, I would have to save—and I understand that the fuel efficiency system does mean that the new model would use less fuel—12,000 litres of fuel on the $25,000 extra it costs to buy it before I got back to square. How long would it take to use the 12,000 litres of extra fuel on top of that? I've been sitting here in great frustration as the minister, over the last couple of weeks, has been answering questions. He doesn't answer the question about the added cost of purchasing the vehicles.

I had a meeting last week with David Hayes, who's the dealer principal of Dubbo City and Gilgandra Toyota. It's a very big dealership that sells cars and commercial vehicles over a wide range of New South Wales, and he's terribly concerned about what these changes will do. He said that the changes coming in on 1 January next year will have a massive impact not only on his business and staff but also on his customers. Not only is David Hayes concerned, but I got an email yesterday from Justin Hoskins, who's the dealer principal of the Toyota dealership at Broken Hill. Just so you've got a bit of an idea, Broken Hill serves communities like Tibooburra, White Cliffs, Wilcannia and Menindee, and more out to South Australia. These people travel long distances, and Justin Hoskins is terribly concerned about the impact it's going to have not only on his business but on his customers.

Next Wednesday, I'm going to the conference of the Isolated Children's Parents' Association. Their annual conference is in Dubbo next week. If you want to meet a more formidable lobby group, I welcome anyone who could suggest one. I could suggest that the member for Perth might want to come and stand in front of these parents that have children in isolated areas. These vehicles—the Prado, the Ranger, the HiLux, the LandCruiser and the D-Max—aren't luxury items. I know they might be an inconvenience when you're going to park at Westfield and they take up a bit more room than your Prius or Tesla, but these vehicles are a fact of life. If you live 200 kilometres from Broken Hill, you have no other choice but to have a vehicle that's an SUV with high clearance or a four-wheel-drive that's able to handle access during wet weather.

The Labor government are actually attacking the people who, once upon a time, used to support them. Young families, tradespeople and farmers—people that used to look to Labor as the champions of the working person. Now it's the working person—who has complete understanding that an SUV, ute or car is not a luxury—that's being hammered by the inner-city elites. You don't just use it to go on your holiday to Fraser Island. This is your everyday tool of trade to keep your family safe and to have access to town when you need it.

It's time this debate focused on the cost of this and stopped faffing around the edge and talking about savings. As far as I can see, there ain't no savings to be found anywhere.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The great Arthur Mailey, variously a cricketer, author and then a butcher, once described his life as, 'I used to bowl tripe, I wrote tripe and then I sold tripe.' Frankly, the underlying premise of this motion is tripe. At best, it is fantasist fiction. In weeks when there have been opportunities to genuinely support action on the cost of living, such as real support for Labor's tax cuts; opportunities to genuinely support action on affordable housing by supporting Labor's Help to Buy housing legislation; and opportunities, this year, to support measures that are getting wages moving in this country again, what have we had? Of course, we've had opposition to these. Instead, we have this tripe. The member for Bradfield knows that this is tripe and is too embarrassed to be in the chamber during this debate. This MPI is all smoke and mirrors, but it's a mirror that the opposition isn't willing to look into. It's about avoiding talking about the real cost-of-living relief that this government is delivering for all Australians.

The real question we must ask ourselves is: why do the Liberals hate families being able to drive around in the family car? When did it become a bad policy to want Australian families to enjoy long family road trips without it breaking the bank? We, on this side of the House, want Australians to have a greater choice of new vehicles and to pay less of their hard earned cash on fuel, so that families can afford to take long family road trips and take climate change action at the same time.

Instead of making claims that they know are false and that the member for Bradfield, of course, knows are false, those opposite need to explain why they think hardworking Australians should be denied access to cars that we know are going to be cheaper to run year after year. We know why, though, because the reality is that those opposite don't really care about the cost of living. They only care about what sound bite sounds good today. The Liberals and Nationals have never seen a cost-of-living measure they haven't opposed. It's not in the DNA of those opposite to support measures to take the pressure of everyday Australians. They opposed cheaper childcare. They opposed cheaper medicines. They opposed energy bill relief. They even opposed our tax cuts for middle Australians. Those opposite are addicted to opposing cost-of-living relief.

When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Well, this is our position. This is absolutely our position.' We will not forget that. The Albanese Labor government is delivering tax cuts to all Australians, making sure that everyday Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We're delivering these tax cuts for every Australian to help with the cost of living. That relief is exactly what our tax cuts for middle Australia will help to deliver. On this side we stand in support of workers all across Australia. On that side they want to roll back those tax cuts.

Locally, here in the ACT, 79 per cent of taxpayers will be better off. In my electorate of Bean, 83 per cent of taxpayers will benefit from these changes. What does that mean? It means a primary school teacher in Bean working at Arawang Primary School earning $85,000 will get a tax cut of $1,800 come 1 July. The electrician working on construction sites in Woden earning $110,000 will get a tax cut of more than $2,400. The software engineer working at the Department of Social Services in Greenway on more than $140,000 will get a tax cut of $3,700. And the nurse working at Goodwin Village in Farrer, in my part of the world, which is otherwise known as Farrerdise—who received increases in their pay in last year's budget—will now get an additional $1,500 tax cut. This Albanese Labor government has a strong, targeted and responsible plan to continue our fight in delivering real cost-of-living relief for all Australians while laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy.

Women will be major beneficiaries of these tax cuts, with 5.8 million women or 90 per cent of female taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Our tax cuts will provide an incentive for people to work more and earn more. The government's tax cuts complement continuing reforms to address women's economic inequality, which is something we know the opposition not only doesn't care about but is actively opposed to measuring. These include reforms to close the gender pay gap, support workplace flexibility and security and rebalance unpaid care work.

Under Labor more people are working and more people are earning more. Under our plan, more people will keep more of what they earn. That's the reality. That's not fiction. It's not tripe.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance brought by the member for Fairfax. This government's family car and ute tax is making the cost-of-living crisis so much worse for Australians. Labor has introduced something it is calling the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. This is nothing but a new tax to encourage, apparently, the sale of cleaner cars.

This has been the brainchild of Minister Catherine King and Minister Bowen. Minister Bowen has said this will save money at the petrol pump. Minister Bowen has said this will give us more choice about the cars we buy. Minister Bowen has said this will reduce transport emissions. What we need to look at are all of the things that Minister Bowen has not said. Minister Bowen has not said that most Australians won't be able to afford the new cars. Minister Bowen has not done his work. He is not across the detail, he has not listened to industry and he has not advised Australians how much more these new cars will cost. Minister Bowen should be honest. We know from experience that Australians do listen to Minister Bowen. They certainly listened to him in the federal election campaign of May 2019. At that stage Minister Bowen, as he is now, almost became the federal Treasurer. When Australians didn't like the tax policy he took to the election, he turned around and said, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' Australians listened to Minister Bowen, and they did not vote for him. Once Australians get across the detail of this policy, they similarly will not like it.

This proposed vehicle efficiency standard is simply a tax on family cars and utes—cars that Australians love. As usual with this government, the devil is in the detail. Yesterday in question time those on our side asked questions of Minister Bowen, trying to get across the detail. We saw some ashen-faced performances when he could not, or would not, answer questions about what this great big tax would mean for Australian families, Australian tradies and all of those who work in the construction industry and need their utes as a primary work tool for them to get to work and to take their tools onto their jobs.

When we look into the detail of this great big new tax by Labor, we see that it could drive up vehicle prices by up to $25,000 for SUVs and four-wheel drives and up to $16,000 for utes. It would cost $11,000 more for a Toyota RAV4, one of Australia's favourite cars; $25,000 more for a Toyota LandCruiser; $17,000 more for a Ford Ranger; $14,000 more for a Toyota HiLux; and over $13,000 more for a Isuzu D-MAX. This is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

I was present in the chamber when the member for Bean was talking about the cost-of-living crisis and what it means for the women of Australia. I can tell the member for Bean that I know exactly what it will mean for the women of Australia, who are often transporting their kids around in four-wheel drives and SUVs. This will have a direct impact on the women of Australia. It will have a direct impact in my electorate of Hughes, where I have over 10,000 technicians and tradies and over 4,000 labourers. Almost 15,000 people in my electorate will now be faced with spending a whole lot more money for their work vehicles. That's not to mention, with all respect to the member for Bean, the many women in my electorate, the many mums who cart their children around and the many other people in my electorate who simply love their SUVs.

To conclude, as always, the devil is in the detail with any policies like these that are announced by Labor. Minister Bowen loves a big headline, but, when you get down into the detail, this is just another great big tax from this government, inflicted on Australians during the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

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

The opposition love to run a silly campaign, and this is a silly campaign. It is also incredibly hypocritical, to be frank. I've been here since 2013 and I can remember sitting here in opposition when the then Treasurer goaded Holden into leaving. They kicked out the car industry in this country. They killed the car industry in this country. On 11 December 2013, only a day after the Treasurer stood up in this place and arrogantly goaded Holden into leaving, Holden announced that they would cease production in this country, and Toyota soon followed. Up to 200,000 workers directly and indirectly related to the car industry lost their jobs.

That was what those opposite did. That's how much they cared about the car industry—they saw our own car industry shut down. Our R&D was lost, and our ability to manufacture cars that Australians want and need was lost. That is the destruction that those opposite did, and they did so on the eve of the biggest revolution in the car industry that we've seen since the creation of the car: the transition to hybrids, the transition to electric vehicles and the efficiency standards that we are now debating in terms of fuel. What a lost opportunity. What a devastation for the Australian people, not just for industry. That decision, that one answer that that Treasurer gave in question time alone, saw us as a country lose over $29 billion in economic output. That is what the loss of the car industry caused us.

Here we are today, and we are now at the mercy of the global car industry because we no longer manufacture Australian cars. We are the dumping ground for what the rest of the world doesn't want. That is why we are debating fuel efficiency standards and what we want to have. Sadly and embarrassingly, we are one of the last countries in the world to do so, and that is a shame. It is so disappointing that Australia is one of the last, and that is why what this government is doing is so responsible.

The other thing I will say on this MPI that's been put forward by those opposite is that it just demonstrates their hysteria and how it is all about the politics. They're saying that standards that haven't even been introduced as legislation and debated in this place and the other place and aren't even law are impacting the cost of living today. How is that possible? Let's create a fear campaign. Let's create this fictitious, 'There's a tax. There's another tax,' when it doesn't even exist yet.

This is where we are at. At this moment today, what I've told the dealers in my electorate is: 'Parliament is sitting this week. Thank you for making a submission and thank you for reaching out. Let's get together, in the electorate, have a roundtable and discuss your concerns, and I'll feed them into the process.' But what I've had to say to them is: 'This isn't coming in today. We are in a process of consultation.' That is why people have until Monday to put forward their public submission. Legislation will be drafted, and it's still got to get through this place and the other place, so it's not affecting the cost of living today.

But I can tell you what is affecting the cost of living today and what's going to help relieve the cost of living today is the fact that this parliament, this week, has passed our changes to stage 3 tax cuts. So all of those mums that the previous speaker was just talking about who might be working part time or full time and all those tradies that the previous speaker was just talking about will now get a bigger tax cut because of this government and because of what we put through this parliament.

Under those opposite—the same government who goaded the car industry to leave—a lot of those mums working part time would have got nothing, because they earned under $45,000. Here they are saying: 'That's okay. We're going to protect your future car purchases'—about legislation that hasn't even been passed—'but we're not going to really do much to help you day to day right now. We got dragged kicking and screaming to do something about child care and dragged kicking and screaming to do something about the cost of living today, but, instead, let's just create another fear campaign about a fictitious tax.'

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been 12 interest rate rises under those opposite, forcing mortgage rates up, rents up, housing costs up by 12 per cent and electricity bills up by 20 per cent. Just as a little history lesson, that's after Prime Minister Albanese promised a $275 reduction in everybody's power bill, and that's not a slip of the tongue. That's the promise that he actually uttered 97 times, and power bills are up by 20 per cent. Gas is up by 27 per cent, fuel prices are up and insurance is up by 22 per cent.

Food is up by nine per cent, and that's going to get a hell of a lot worse. The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has presided over a water buyback scheme in the Murray-Darling Basin. That water was being used to grow food and fibre. If growers can't grow the food, supply will go down and prices will go up, so all Australians will be paying more at the check-out for this very bad idea. In my neck of the woods there is the gillnet ban. The same minister has banned the commercial gillnet. This was to save the Great Barrier Reef. Newsflash here: no nets go within 40 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef. But what does that mean to each and every Australian? They will be paying more for their wild-caught mullet, barramundi and salmon, or they will have to get it imported at lesser quality and still pay more for their fish and chips and at their fishmonger's.

We are living in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis, and this government's family car and ute tax will make the cost of living absolutely worse. According to the research undertaken by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, hardworking Australians will have to pay over $13,000 more for an Isuzu D-Max, over $14,000 more for a Toyota HiLux, over $17,000 more for a Ford Ranger and—the big one—over $25,000 more for a Toyota LandCruiser.

Graziers need these vehicles to be able to throw some 44s in the back of the ute and go down to fill their pumps up to put food in the back of their ute and go down to feed their stock. Farmers need to be able to throw a ton of fert in the back of the ute and take it down to fertilise their crops—sometimes long distances. And fishes? Well, they need to be able to tow their boat, put their boat in the boat ramp and be able to pull it out. They need a four-wheel drive for that. What about maintenance? Crews of miners need to be able to carry a lot of gear to do that. And of course tradies need to have their tools and their supplies, but what tradie can afford over $13,000 more for a ute? That will flow back on everyone else's bill, so again Labor is fuelling this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. Once again, this is a very bad policy.

What about SUVs for the mums and dads so they can put the kids in the back and take the pram and all the groceries. What about driving in our part of the world, where we have so many unsealed and bad-quality roads. Folks, EVs simply can't do the job. They can't carry the weight. They cannot tow the load and cannot cover the vast distances. There is not enough infrastructure either. This is another tax against rural and Australia.

Once again rural and regional Australia are picking up the tab for the city dwellers. The government family car and ute tax is a failed policy by a failed one-term government. Those opposite are very big on idealism, but what they need is a good dose of realism. Please do the right thing and get rid of this policy before it's too late. Australian simply cannot afford it.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When those opposite were in government, they didn't have a clue what day-to-day life was for the everyday person, but we on this side are different. We listen to Australians. We know that many of them are doing it tough, and we are acting to ease the cost-of-living pressures. But that lot over there haven't changed. They are just as out of touch as ever. When we moved to give every single Australian a tax cut, they said no. In fact, 'No' seems to be their favourite saying. They need to stop and think: who is really making life hard for people? Is it those of us trying to help or is it those of us that keep saying no to helping? You can't get much more immediate or direct relief than a tax cut. Our tax cuts are about making sure that people get to keep more of what they earn, especially those hardworking middle Australians who work their guts out every day to provide for themself and their family and who deserve a tax break. These tax cuts make sure those hit hardest by cost-of-living pressures will benefit the most. But those opposite wanted to stop this relief.

They would rather see those struggling less with the cost of living benefit more than those struggling with it the most. It's a backwards way of thinking, really. It does nothing to help those who need it. If they had their way, the relief would have never been delivered at all. This country is so lucky those opposite aren't in government, because this government is the only one who actually cares about the cost of living, We are the only ones who want to act to ease pressures, especially for those who are hardest hit. The focus of our government has been to make life cheaper for working Australians. We have delivered not only the recent tax cuts but also energy relief for working Australians, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and cheaper health care.

We always hear the opposite repeating the same lines about the cost of living, but I want to know where they get their feedback from. What they claim and what I hear every day on the ground from the people in the Hunter is very, very different. I'm out there speaking to my constituents. I'm listening to them. I hear them out. And I know how hard it is for some of them at the moment. But I can see that everything we are doing to make living costs lower is actually making a difference. Maybe that's because the people I speak to in my electorate are real people. A lot are your everyday Australians, working hard to make a living, bringing shelter from the rain. They notice the difference it makes when medicines are cheaper, when child care is cheaper or when they get a bit of relief on their energy bills. They will certainly feel the difference when they get their tax cut because they are the ones who need it—and they are the ones who deserve it.

Those opposite love a good scare campaign. When they don't have any policies or anything positive to say, they simply throw out a couple of pathetic one-liners to try and divide our communities. Who can forget their claims that the weekend would end? We on this side of the House are better than that. We stand for the everyday Australians. The out-of-touch lot over there, time and time again, refuse to support measures that will help those doing it tough. That is the core difference between us and them. We are actually taking action to make a difference to the lives of those who need it most, but all you lot want to do is oppose absolutely everything related to easing the cost of living and then complain that action needs to be taken. They need to get out into their communities more and speak to some real people, then they will understand how action is being taken on the cost of living. Maybe then they won't keep coming here making fools of themselves by showing us just how out of touch they really are.

We've heard nearly every one of them say how disappointed they are that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy isn't here. I don't blame him for not being here. It's a complete waste of his time, coming in here and hearing the utter rubbish that is coming from those opposite. I don't know how those opposite used to work when they were in government, but our ministers are actually really, really busy. They have a job to do. That is why he wouldn't waste his time coming and listening to the absolute dribble coming from those opposite.

Thank you. I hope you all enjoy. Until our next sitting.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday in this place I asked a question in question time of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the minister who is notably not in the chamber now doing silly things like debating policy! Who'd waste their time doing that? I asked the minister about the LDV eT60, a ute that would cost a struggling tradie an extra $46,000. I asked, just to remind everyone:

Is it true that the maximum range of this ute is 300 kilometres, the distance from Melbourne to Hamilton, but only if it's empty? Is it also true that, if the back of the ute's fully loaded up, the maximum range drops to 150 kilometres, the distance from Melbourne to Bendigo but not back to Melbourne?

The minister got up, and I could see what was going on. He was getting all excited. He was thinking: 'I'm going to school this new Nat. I'm going to teach him what it's like to be here on the other end of the intellectual gigantism of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I'm going to tell him about an article in Drive and I'm going to tell him about the New Zealand ute.'

In his answer, the minister referred to a headline: 'LDV eT60 electric ute now cheaper than its diesel twin—but only in New Zealand'. Well, he schooled me, didn't he? But it's sort of illuminating, isn't it? Does it mean the cost of the electric ute came down? It did with a massive government taxpayer subsidy, but it also meant that the price of the diesel ute went up. So the diesel ute went up and the electric ute went down thanks to a massive taxpayer subsidy. You'd know that if you did a little bit more research. I recommend that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy do some more research. I think it's good to go beyond the headlines sometimes. It's what he didn't mention. New Zealand has just repealed its clean car scheme. They repealed it in December 2023. New Zealand transport minister Simeon Brown had this to say in his media release announcing the repeal of the ute tax:

The previous government's scheme, which provided subsidies for people purchasing electric vehicles while taxing hardworking farmers and tradies who have little choice about the type of vehicle they need for work, is inequitable and fiscally irresponsible.

Many drivers who need utes for work can't avoid charges under the scheme as there are few viable alternatives that meet their needs.

That's the point we're trying to make.

I'm not against electric vehicles. I think more people in the city should buy them. If it can get you to Kew, into the city, that's wonderful. That's fantastic. Go home and charge it. It's great stuff. But what the proposed policy does is punish people for whom an EV is not a viable alternative. A lot of them are in our electorates. There's not an electric vehicle that can do the job on a dairy farm. There's not an electric vehicle that can get me from Melbourne to Hamilton in the great member for Wannon's electorate.

A policy that massively increases the cost of these vehicles that are a tool of trade and needed and desired by sections of the Australian community is a tax. It is a tax. What's the definition of a tax? Extra money you have to pay. Every question time is just bragging about this tax cut—$15 a week that you're going to give to people. But what if you're going to push the cost of their new car up significantly more than that? You failed to mention that. I think it's time for a dose of reality in this place. How long is it going to take to pay off with the savings? How long? I heard one of the questions to the minister estimate that it might take 30 years. You've got to own the ute for 30 years before you can pay it off. Again, I'm not against EVs. They have their place.

It's imperative that this fuel emission standard policy is gotten right. That's why we're debating it. But to get it right you've got to consider the people that it will impact. That's what we're supposed to do in this place. It's not just to get up and recite slogans, which seems to be all that happens over there these days; it's to debate substantive policy and talk about the impacts of policies on people. That's what we're trying to do, and the impact is that the cost of cars is going to go up.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to cost-of-living relief, the Liberals always say no—and I'll include my friend the member opposite for also saying no from the Nationals. They say no to cheaper medicines, they say no to energy bill relief, they say no to lower taxes for Middle Australia and, last night, teaming up with their new coalition in the Greens political party, they said no to more help to buy schemes. Shame. On this side of the chamber, we are getting on with the job and we are delivering cost-of-living relief that is carefully calibrated to take the edge off some of the pressures that people are under, including our better and fairer tax plan, which the RBA and Treasury confirmed will not impact inflation.

From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut because on this side of the House we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why 84 per cent of people in my community are receiving a bigger tax cut, leaving more money in their pockets. Our cost-of-living tax cuts are on top of the tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief already rolling out, including—and just to name a few—energy bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, increased bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, building more affordable homes, expanding Paid Parental Leave and, of course, creating jobs and getting wages moving again.

But those opposite are at it again with the scare campaigns and fearmongering with claims that they know are false. Those opposite need to explain why they think hardworking Australians should be denied access to cars that are cheaper to run. Yes, they are cheaper.

We are consulting on a new vehicle efficiency standard that is right for Australia and will help take pressure off families. This isn't about one vehicle over another. There is no ute tax, like those opposite want you to believe. It is about creating greater choice when you want to buy a new vehicle—a greater choice of cars that are cheaper to run, whether they be petrol, diesel, hybrid or EV. My friend and constituent Saul Griffith, the guru of electrification and the lobbyist that your children deserve, loves a ute, and he has his eye on an electric Monaro. Saul says:

The technology has delivered. And there's no reason not to turn every culture war on its head and just say, 'No, you're going to get your electric cake and do burnouts too'.

The weekend is indeed not ending. There is no ute tax. A new vehicle efficiency standard allows suppliers to choose how they meet the emissions reduction target. In other countries with similar standards that have been in place for over 50 years—in countries like the US, mind you—four-wheel drives and utes are still widely available. In Wollongong, our locals drive nearly 18,000 kilometres per year, meaning in 2028 alone people will save $1,392 through the new standards, with an estimated saving of $6,960 over five years.

A bigger electric vehicle market in this country is a good thing. A greater demand for electric vehicles means more jobs for companies like Sicona Battery Technologies in my electorate. Sicona's technology was developed and perfected at my local university, the University of Wollongong's Australian Institute for Innovative Materials, by co-founders Christiaan Jordaan and Drew Minett. I was proud to showcase their innovation right here in Parliament House last year at the Illawarra Clean Energy Expo. Businesses just like this across the Illawarra are leading the way in developing scalable, real-world solutions in clean energy and renewables.

We are expanding the rollout of public charging infrastructure through the $500 million Driving the Nation Fund and the national EV charging network—a network of EV charging infrastructure installed at 117 sites on major highways every 150 kilometres. At the end of 2023, there were over 2,000 fast and ultrafast charging plugs, an increase of over 70 per cent in a year. Governments across the board are ramping up investment in public charging infrastructure.

By implementing a standard, there will be an estimated $143 billion in financial benefits. This includes $108 billion in fuel savings and in excess of $5 billion in health benefits from a reduction in air pollution. So this is good policy for your health and it is good policy for your hip pocket. Our responsible economic management is working in Australia.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has now concluded.