Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I say to the former Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation: I believe they do deserve it. We are completely consistent in this regard, unlike the Greens. In a desperate bid to get their amendments through, they are willing to vote for tax subsidies for people involved in the forest industry, something that I thought they were so vehemently opposed to.

If we have a look at the actual details of the Greens amendment, we realise that people who will be exempted are those that will be buying the Audis, the Saabs, the Alfa Romeos and Mercedes-Benzes, including the European sports car, which of course is very unpractical for the Australian family. I hope Family First realises that. I also hope that Family First realises that a lot of these low-emission vehicles are in fact turbocharged. Some states have laws against learner drivers and P-platers driving these turbocharged cars. As a result, if you want a family car in which to teach your child to drive or get the child to pick up some younger children, you will not be able to buy these vehicles, because they are outlawed for younger persons driving. As a result it will be very anti-family because most families do not have the luxury of deciding to have three or four cars parked in the garage and then picking and choosing the one that might be convenient for the day or for the particular purpose. They have the one motor vehicle that has to suit all the purposes that the family might engage in. That is something which I think—with great respect—Family First has overlooked.

Also, these vehicles that are going to be exempted under the Greens amendments are diesel powered. The cost of diesel is significantly higher than other fuels, including LPG. We should be looking, I would have thought, at trying to save family budgets some money. Of course, LPG is not necessarily all that fuel-efficient by the very narrow definition of seven litres per 100 kilometres, but it is so much cleaner per 100 kilometres and per seven litres. So, once again, we have these artificial criteria created by the Australian Greens in a bid to get their legislation through.

The diesel engine, in a comparison over 100 kilometres, produces 184 grams of CO2, or carbon dioxide, whereas petrol engines produce only about 166 grams. Therefore, what they are doing is providing a benefit to diesel engines, which in fact emit more than petrol engines. You have to ask: how does that assist the environment? You really do start to think that the Greens get a substantial number of their votes from that cohort of the community that can afford imported luxury vehicles in the price bracket of $57,180 up to $75,000, because there is no other logical explanation for them to have picked these considerations. Of course, there are a number of hybrid vehicles over $75,000, but not a single Australian made car will be exempted under their proposals.

This legislation, as we in the opposition have said right from the beginning, is bad. It is flawed. It was brought in on the basis of fighting inflation. The crossbenchers have now had the opportunity of reading the Labor report into this bill. In paragraph 2.19, the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, chaired by a Labor senator, acknowledges that this measure will be inflationary. I say to those on the crossbenches, those who assert that they are there to keep the government honest: how can you assert to the Australian people that you are here to keep the government honest? The government says that this measure is to fight inflation, yet we know for a fact it will be inflationary, but you say: ‘We are not going to hold the government to account. We have done some sort of deal with the government in relation to pet projects or particular measures, so we will allow the government to misrepresent this legislation to the Australian people.’

In relation to Senator Fielding’s proposal for the tourism sector, all that will be allowed are four-wheel drives and ‘other vehicles’, as may be determined by the regulations from time to time. Where is the openness and transparency of the deal that is being done? Do Senator Fielding and Family First actually know what the government will regulate if this legislation is passed—which vehicles will be allowed and which vehicles will not? I think he has bought a pig in a poke. He has no idea, with great respect, what is actually going to be delivered to the people of Australia with that exemption.

It is the same with his primary producer exemption. Somehow there is a view by the government, the Greens and Family First, it appears, that those people who live in rural and regional Australia are only primary producers, are only farmers. But of course there is the local vet, there is the Australia Post contractor, there is the mechanic, there is the fencing contractor and there is the local general practitioner, and they need exactly the same sort of vehicle to exist out in regional and rural Australia as the primary producers do. But according to Family First it would appear that not all families are equal. Some are more equal than others, or some are more ‘first’ than others.

If you are a primary producing family, you will get an exemption, but woe betide if you happen to be a veterinary family, an Australia Post contractor family or a plumbing family. You will not get that exemption. I would invite those who are supporting the other amendments to come up with their rationale for why our requested opposition amendments, which are so clear, cohesive and simple to administer, should not be carried.