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

I move:

That the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for consideration and an advisory report by 3 May 2024.

For the benefit of all members, I want to explain the motion that I am moving. I am moving this motion in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or a committee to be put after the first reading but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. That is the simple object of this motion—to seek the agreement of the House to refer the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for consideration and an advisory report.

I'm putting this motion forward because, in short, the measure that the government is seeking to pass through this House has become a complete and utter shambles. It is a mess. This, of course, is their measure to introduce a family car tax. This is where the government has basically said to the coalition, 'We're happy to cooperate.' Then they refused to cooperate and they ignored the coalition. Now they're back in the House saying, 'Oh, but we're ready to cooperate.' This is a government that told the industry that they're happy to engage and work constructively. Then they ignore the industry. Now they're back saying, 'Oh no, we're listening and we're engaging with industry.' This is basically family car tax 1.0 now becoming family car tax 2.0.

There's one group in Australia that we can be absolutely certain has been ignored through this entire process. In fact, I put that this government has unashamedly targeted this group in Australia. It is Australian consumers—the everyday mums and dads who right now are struggling amidst a cost-of-living crisis—who can't afford to pay more money to buy the vehicles they love, to buy the vehicles they need. The last thing they need is a family car tax being introduced.

When the coalition first heard last year that the government will be using a vehicle efficiency standard measure, we were very public in saying, 'We are happy to engage with the government constructively.' We put three key principles forward. We needed to see a balance of: (1) prices, (2) choice and (3) emissions. We're very clear with the government that we are happy to cooperate with them, so long as they come in good faith with a measure and engage constructively with the coalition to balance price, choice and emissions. But the government refused to engage. What's more, the first iteration, family car tax 1.0, made sure that there was a complete imbalance between those three key objectives, which is why, indeed, family car tax 2.0 has become nothing more than a fig leaf to try and camouflage what is yet another iteration of a tax.

We do know a few things for sure. No. 1, we know that consumers will pay more to buy the cars they love. We also know that this government either has refused to do modelling on the impact of car purchase prices or is refusing to release that modelling. Think about this. This is their second bite of the cherry here. We were crystal clear when they came out with their preferred model: release your financials. At least be transparent. What have you got to hide? Tell the Australian people—just be upfront—'Our vehicle efficiency standard, our family car tax, is going to increase the purchasing price by X dollars when you purchase your vehicles.' The government refused to have any transparency on the impact to the Australian consumer. And, despite that, here today they walk into this chamber and table legislation on 'family car tax 2.0', and they still either haven't done that modelling or are refusing to release that modelling. It's pretty obvious why. They are trying to hide the impact of this tax from the very people who are being unashamedly targeted by them to pay for it: the Australian people, who are already feeling the pain when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis which has been created by this Labor government.

Now, if there's any claim that they have made it has been that over time the Australian consumer will save money on the running costs of their vehicles. This government claims that the running costs of their vehicles will go down. Why? Because more people will buy electric vehicles—and there's no problem with that, so long as there's choice. But their argument is that, as more and more people buy EVs, they in fact will be drawing down on the electricity grid, and, because the price of electricity is coming down, their running costs are coming down. Of all the modelling that they could have released, there was one: an assumption on the price of electricity. They assumed that next year, in 2025, the price of electricity will be 27 cents a kilowatt hour. And so, when you hear anybody from this Labor government say, 'Yes, this measure will reduce your running costs,' they are assuming the price will be 27 cents a kilowatt hour.

But what did we find out last week? The draft DMO figures came out which basically indicated the real price of electricity for next year. Guess what? Do you think it's 27 cents?

Opposition members: No.

Not a chance. Next year's DMO figures go up as high as 56 cents a kilowatt hour. And so the only argument Labor has to run in favour of this tax is based on a flawed assumption of electricity prices coming down.

Now, should that surprise anybody? It shouldn't. This is the same government that went to the election with a promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills. They know that promise has been broken. In fact, last week's DMO figures proved that it's absolutely broken. Which means they are now perpetrating a deliberate untruth to the Australian people, and they are doing it also with this vehicle efficiency standard claim. Running costs aren't going to come down if the basis of their claim is 27 cents but we know next year it's going to be as high as 56 cents. And then their model goes on to say that every year thereafter electricity prices just keep coming down. Well, they're not going to come down; they're only going to be going up. So not only can this Labor government not be trusted on their claims of cheaper running cost; it is a fact that the purchase price will only go up.

So why, you might ask, would the government be doing this in the first place? They will make all these accusations, as they have before—which I think are a slap in the face of the everyday Australian—implying that everyday Australians are like Putin's Russia because there's no vehicle efficiency standard. Such an argument is absolute garbage when you have this side of the House saying for well over a year that we are happy to be constructive on negotiating such a measure so long as you get those three things in balance: price, choice and emissions. You've had the industry saying that they are prepared to negotiate in good faith. But, again, they have been ignored. There's been one bad faith actor in this negotiation, and that has been the Albanese Labor government.

But why? The reason is that this government applied an arbitrary target to EV sales by 2030. They promised that 89 per cent of all new vehicle sales by 2030 would be electric vehicles. Again, it's one of those many targets by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy which is failing. Their own department was asked, 'What is the trajectory for sales of EVs by 2030?' Do you think their answer was 89 per cent? It was 27 per cent. So, instinctively, what we have seen again from this minister is an act of desperation. Knowing full well he is failing across every aspect of his policy, he knows the only way to reach that target is to slap a punitive tax on everyday Australians to force them to buy the cars he wants them to buy. That's the only way he can achieve his target.

We've seen it right across the board. We know that's what's happening with his 82 per cent renewables target by 2030. That's running at somewhere between one-fifth and half of the pace required. Again, they're steamrolling over regional communities to achieve that target, and now they're going to be steamrolling over everyday Australian families to achieve the EV target.

To be crystal clear where we stand on this: have we ever had a problem, in principle, with the idea of a vehicle efficiency standard? No, which is why we've been on public record saying we're happy for a discussion on this. Have we set principles around it? Yes, we have: price, choice and emissions need to be balanced. Again, that balance has not been struck, which is why we are looking at this and shaking our heads yet again. What we see, in the market, is people being forced, if Labor gets this through, to choose the cars that Labor wants.

Is there any problem with buying an electric vehicle? Of course there's not. The Australian consumer deserves to have the right to choose whatever vehicle suits him, her, or their family. Now, for some people, that will be an EV, and that's a good thing. But, for other people, especially in regional and remote areas, they can't even contemplate the possibility, and, for other families, the variance of price point just means it's out of reach. Now, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, they should not be forced to purchase a vehicle because we have inept minister of government falling short of his targets.

This is why we put this motion to the House: the government has botched this so much. We do require a standing committee to bring light to the darkness of their lack of transparency. We need a standing committee to expose the truth behind what has been a series of untruths perpetrated by this minister and also the minister for transport. For that series of reasons, I put that motion to the House.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second this motion with great enthusiasm. As you know, this New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill has basically become known as the ute and SUV tax, and that's why we need to refer it to the standing committee that the shadow minister has recommended.

I just want to pick this straight up: since this has been introduced or discussed, when we've come up with figures like, 'This could increase the price of a ute and an SUV by up to $25,000,' these figures, with all due respect to him, have not come from the shadow minister. These figures haven't been formulated by anyone on this side of politics. These figures have come from the manufacturers, who weren't properly consulted before this bill was first discussed. In fact, it goes beyond the manufacturers. These figures actually came from Thailand's Prime Minister. When he was in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago at the ASEAN conference, Thailand's Prime Minister—Thailand make a lot of vehicles, and we import a lot of vehicles from Thailand—raised concerns about the speed. Again, it was the speed of what the minister wanted to introduce here that was causing all the problems. Thailand's Prime Minister said that this will—because of the penalties, because of the fines that it would be put on vehicles that they manufacture—increase the cost of the vehicles they are sending to Australia. This was apparently shock, horror, gasp to the government, who denied that it was the case.

This comes back to the core of this government, of their not consulting. There's a history, there's a form that they have. We've got the religious discrimination bill going around at the moment. We've got other bills going around. And this government does not consult widely—or, when they do, you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. You then get a part of the bill—what they think is relevant to you. Then you're not allowed to talk about the bill and what you think might be its ramifications.

That's why this government keeps making bad decisions. I note a member of the crossbench here, a teal. They were going to come into a parliament talking about how the sun was shining in—transparency. I'd like to hear a lot more from the teals about the non-disclosure agreements this government is forcing on all the negotiations they're doing, because this is why they're making bad decisions.

I also would also ask, does this surprise us? Unfortunately, no. The shadow minister said very eloquently that the minister who has carriage of this has form. We could go way back to when he was the minister for immigration. He had form then. He was probably the worst minister for immigration we ever had, when he was the minister back then. And he had form when as shadow Treasurer he said, 'If you don't like the franking credits, don't vote for us.' Well, that went well for him. So he has form. And I say to any marginal seat holder over on the Labor side of politics, be very nervous about the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Be very nervous about him, because anything he's trying to introduce will probably make you a one-termer. So I encourage every marginal seat holder in the Labor Party to talk to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, because he's the best person you've got to make you a one-termer.

Let's just go back, again, to the question of why the minister has rushed this and why he has not consulted on it. And he's got more than this ball in the air. He's also got his renewable energy target. But before I go there, I will say that the shadow minister missed one point in that great address he gave to the parliament. The one thing you didn't mention when you were talking about the modelling, with all due respect—and yes, they did model that it was 27c per kilowatt hour, and you said it's going to be 56c—is: when will they be charging them? At night! Well, good luck with that, if this minister has carriage of this, because we won't have any power at night, with the current Minister for Climate Change, because the lights will have gone out; it'll be 'Blackout Bowen'! Seriously, the renewable energy target that he has, with both sun and wind, means that the power won't be going on at night, so good luck with charging your EV at night if he's minister for much longer. Forget the price; you won't be charging up. There'll be nothing coming through. Again, this goes back to the target that this minister has on renewable energy.

As the shadow minister said, we are happy to be involved with the fact that we get better emission standards within vehicles. We are also happy to meet our net zero 2050 emission targets. They're important. We actually understand, too, that renewables are part of that, and we're happy to have that conversation. But the reckless targets that this minister has on renewable energy mean that he's desperate, as the shadow minister said, in the sense that he set targets for renewable energy that are unachievable. There's not actually the technology to make renewable energy reliable through the targets he has set. So, the first easy pick was, 'Oh, well let's go for the EV; let's go for the transport industry.' There are obviously some people with some sense over there, because, as we know, he's crab crawling away from this. He's obviously been rolled in cabinet. Obviously they've gone to him and said. 'Well, you might not have spoken to the manufacturers, you might not have spoken to all the stakeholders, but we have, and they're telling us that your plan doesn't work.' Well, it would have been nice to have consulted on that earlier, before he embarrassed himself by coming in with a bill that he's now having to crab crawl back from. So at least there is some movement there, but this minister is dangerous.

I take the interjection that batteries work. Well, they don't work very well for the volume you're talking about. If we want to go to what works, that will be interesting to see. He also says, 'Let's go to the cost aspect.' He says that renewable energy is going to make power cheaper. One thing he misses there—and I'd love the rationale for this—is that he needs 28,000 kilometres of new transmission system for that system. That's a red alert for people on the other side: 40 per cent of your power bills is the transmission system, and he wants to build 28,000 kilometres of new transmission system, which some industry people say is going to be over a hundred billion bucks. Good luck bringing that down with your power bill.

Unfortunately, I'm surprised. I don't know how the factions of the Labor Party work—but obviously not well given that this minister is still a senior minister in the government. He has had form for over 10 years. There's not much he touched that didn't turn out badly for him, the government and the country, as I said, when he was immigration minister and shadow Treasurer. If you wanted to run through a top three of bad performing ministers on the other side, he would always be in the top three. There's some competition for it. I'd throw the minister for infrastructure in there because she's pretty close all the time as well.

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

I am reluctant to enter the debate, but we are straying. If you want to criticise other ministerial portfolios, that's fine, but it must be with regard to the legislation, not necessarily by weighing in with character assessments on other ministers. Keep the debate on the straight and narrow.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I have great respect for you. I will take that advice. Back to the minister, who had form for a long time. As I said earlier, I've been a backbench marginal MP in my time here. If I were a backbench marginal MP in the Labor Party and if there were one person that made me very, very nervous, it would be the minister for climate change.

I thank the shadow minister for putting this motion up. This is a motion of goodwill. This is the shadow minister putting up a goodwill motion from the opposition, who is saying: 'We want to help. We want to be part of the conversation. We want to refer this to the committee that the shadow minister has recommended in this motion. We want it to go there. We want to be part of that discussion. We want this country to do its job by meeting net zero by 2050. We want this country to do its job with what we want to do with vehicle emissions, but we want to do it so people can still afford them. We want to do this so that the lights don't go out. If they're going to plug in their electric vehicle at night, we want the power to be on and we want to do it in an affordable way.' With great pleasure, I thank the shadow minister for moving this. It's a great pleasure to support him in seconding it.

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

Before I give the call to the assistant minister: during that debate the shadow minister, the member for Page, referred to political parties of other organisations which I understand don't exist. You made reference to the crossbench; could you just refer to all members by their correct title.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question before the House is that the question be now put regarding the motion moved by the honourable member for Fairfax.

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

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the member for Fairfax be agreed to.