Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

It is again wonderful to see the government following the lead of the opposition in relation to initiatives for the Australian people! The blueprint that Kim Beazley announced in October 2005 indeed foreshadowed a number of the initiatives that the government now takes. Of course, we know that the government has no eye on the needs of the Australian motorist; its eye is on its own survival. That is the basis on which we now see the government making an announcement on a number of initiatives relating to fuel.

Many motorists who have the capacity to convert their vehicles to LPG will appreciate that there is an additional benefit which will now be available to them. Indeed, Labor was talking about additional benefits last October in our energy blueprint. But the problem for motorists who now wish to convert their cars to LPG is that there is already a three-month backlog for most converters to convert existing motor vehicles to LPG. If demand rises, that backlog will of course be pushed out.

One of the explanations that the converters such as the Gas Man give for the delay is that they cannot get enough skilled tradesmen to make those conversions. So, again, another of the problems that this government has presided over, the skills shortage, will have an impact on Australians and delay the implementation of LPG conversions for those who are in a position and have the ability to make a booking and convert their car.

I was having an informal conversation with Russell Scoular of Ford last Friday in relation to Ford’s program. Ford has an e-gas car that they sell off the factory floor, but there is a three-month delay in ordering vehicles because of the ability of their suppliers to give them the necessary parts to produce only those vehicles that are now in demand. So if demand increases, unless something changes rapidly, we are going to see an even greater delay in the ability of motorists to purchase an e-gas vehicle from Ford—that is, to Ford’s capacity to get the parts from suppliers to produce the cars even earlier.

Kim Beazley, in October last year, announced Labor’s blueprint in relation to these fuel issues that the government have been asleep at the wheel on for some time. Labor want to make alternative fuel vehicles tariff free, cutting up to $2,000 off the price of current hybrid cars—a real benefit for consumers. We announced that in October last year. We want to work with state and local governments to give city traffic and parking advantages for these vehicles so that there is an additional benefit for motorists in taking them up. At that time, we wanted to examine the granting of tax rebates for converting petrol cars to LPG but we see that there are some difficulties in achieving that conversion on a timely basis. To do all of that, Labor announced back in October that we would also be looking at other fuels because Labor were very keen to see some foresight in the management of Australia’s energy needs for the future.

Labor announced we would conduct a feasibility study into a gas-to-liquids fuel plant in Australia. It has taken this government effectively another eight months to announce the same thing, in that Minister Macfarlane is apparently now looking at those proposals. We proposed to offer petroleum resource rent tax incentives for developers of gas fields which provide resources for gas-to-liquid fuels projects. I encourage the government to look at that. We proposed to examine a new infrastructure investment allowance for investment in Australian gas-to-liquids infrastructure—something this government could also well think about. We would develop a targeted funding scheme for research and development in this area and work with industry to improve engine design and fuel quality standards. Labor is the party that has had the foresight on those matters—not like the government, simply pursuing a matter to try and win some votes as the election draws closer.

What was the government thinking back before October last year when Labor announced its initiatives? The Prime Minister said at that time:

I can fully understand the anger of motorists at the price of petrol …

          …            …            …

World oil prices are not something the Australian Government, or any government, can influence. They are out of our control.

At that time, the government had not done any hard thinking on the matter. Back in June last year, Mr Lindsay Tanner asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources a number of questions on notice to identify any work the government was doing to prepare Australia for the effects of future peaks in oil prices. He asked if the government had estimated when these peaks might happen; what the decline in global production might be; what the impact on prices might be; and, if the government had done any modelling on the impact on the Australian economy. The minister’s answer to each and every one of those questions was no—no in every case. The government had done nothing. The government had given no consideration to these matters. The industry minister has also said—this is prior to October last year:

At this stage Australia’s fuel security is still good … Do we need to find more oil? Yes we do. But short of finding more oil I don’t know what the solution is.

So we have a government with no ideas. Labor has produced its blueprint, and the government is keen to pick up anything it can to save its miserable electoral skin.

Let us not just talk about what Labor says about itself. The editorial in the Australian today, which does not often give Labor credit for its initiatives, has congratulated opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson. It says:

Martin Ferguson has raised the issue of gas or coal to liquids as the best long-term answer to the current oil price shock, and he is correct. The Government should send a clear message that it is serious. And it should explore everything, including tax incentives, to encourage the multi-billion-dollar investment necessary.

So the Australian is prepared to say that Labor is on the right track, and it is about time this government was listening. But, of course, we will see this government take decisions which it perceives are in its electoral interests, not the interests of the Australian public.

In terms of those rather pathetic comments in the ministerial statement with regard to ethanol and Labor’s position on ethanol, let me say this: Labor was critical that the government would not implement a standard which would give motorists certainty about the fuel they bought and the ethanol content. For months, Labor was talking about the adoption of an E10 standard so that motorists, when they bought fuel with ethanol content, would know that their warranties would not be voided, as some manufacturers were suggesting, and that there would be consistent quality in the fuel. There was evidence that some fuel, particularly in the Sydney market, had quantities of ethanol far in excess of 10 per cent, and the government did nothing for months. But what did they do in the end? They picked up Labor’s proposal. They implemented an E10 standard, and there is a basis for secure ethanol content arrangements which give motorists in most of the vehicles on the Australian roads confidence that they can safely put ethanol fuel into their vehicles without voiding their warranties and damaging their motors.

Labor’s position, again, has been vindicated by the actions of this government. But now the government is seeking to portray Labor’s position as something different from what it was. Labor had the foresight to see that there needed to be proper standards. The government ultimately adopted them. Now it is pure, shabby politics for the minister to say what is in this statement.