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

Another great fault of the government amendment in relation to emission standards is the fact that there will be no exemption for vehicles that run on biofuels, such as ethanol, that are considered to be zero-emission vehicles. When you do policy on the run and you try to stitch up a deal on flawed legislation you make it even worse. That is exactly what has happened in this situation.

We have interesting excerpts from Senator Fielding’s speech during the second reading debate, when this bill was first before us. It is interesting to reflect on some of these things. Senator Fielding quite rightly acknowledged ‘this tax increase is a blatant tax grab’. It is and it is inflationary. Why would you bother going any further in considering it? It is a blatant tax grab, it is inflationary and it is going to hurt the Australian car industry. Why would you even consider it? These are some of the comments that Senator Fielding, I think quite rightly, made during his first contribution. He said:

... there are also small businesses that depend on their cars as a tool of trade but their vehicles do not fall into those exemptions. Small tourism operators and farmers are two important groups who will get slugged by this tax increase.

Note the words ‘two important groups’. What about all of the other groups, all of which I have recounted previously and Senator Fielding must have had in his mind? They are to be forgotten. They are the second-class of families and small businesses. They are now to be junked, dumped overboard, for this deal. Senator Fielding went on to say:

Family First also wants to see an exemption or some other way for four-wheel drive vehicles that are registered in rural areas, in recognition that families in rural and regional Australia are doing it tough.

We happen to agree with him that families in rural and regional Australia are doing it tough. Now, all of a sudden, it is only farmers, primary producers and tourism operators who are doing it tough. It is no longer the vets, the stock agents, the plumbers and the mechanics—all of these people are doing miraculously well all of a sudden since 3 September. Then, according to Senator Fielding:

There is also a question of whether the extra tax should be applied to the most fuel-efficient cars, but the same argument could be used for safer cars.

One consequence if this legislation gets through will be that motor vehicle manufacturers will design vehicles to be as light as possible. What do all of the road safety people tell us? In general terms, the heavier the vehicle, the safer it is. As a result, in the name of environmentalism we are going to be sacrificing road safety. That is what the engineers and all the innovators will tell you. You really have to ask why we are pursuing this when we know what the results will be.

The opposition also reminds the Australian Greens that the definition of ‘primary production’ includes:

(g)

felling trees in a plantation or forest; or

(h)

transporting trees, or parts of trees, that you felled in a plantation or forest to the place:

(i)

where they are first to be milled or processed; or

(ii)

from which they are to be transported to the place where they are first to be milled or processed.

Of course, the word ‘processed’ could even include, dare I say it, woodchipping. The Greens, I understand, will be supporting this in complete contradistinction to that which they continually say. This is the sort of policy inconsistency that you get when you make policy on the run. By creating exemptions you make the legislation even worse.

If you want to engage in the politics of envy, if you want to talk about luxury cars and people who are filthy rich, I simply say, to the Labor Party in particular, that somebody who buys a $60,000 Toyota Tarago does not do so as some sort of status symbol, to show everybody down the street: ‘Hey, I’m rich! I’m a millionaire.’ For people who drive a Bentley, that might be the case. For people buying LandCruisers with a bullbar, with spotlights and all the optional extras required in rural and regional Australia, to slug them and say that they drive around in a LandCruiser to promote themselves as millionaires would be news to every plumber or mechanic in rural and regional Australia—and especially to every farmer and tree harvester in rural and regional Australia. They need these vehicles for their businesses. That is why we as an opposition are saying, ‘Let’s just increase the threshold from $57,180 up to $90,000 and then apply your punitive 33 per cent luxury car tax but leave the others where they are between the $57,000 and the $90,000 threshold.’

As I have said before, here we have a very unfortunate engagement in the politics of envy. We see that from the utterances of Senator Carr and indeed from the Prime Minister himself when, at question time, he waves around a picture of a Porsche. Five per cent of the luxury car tax is obtained from the Porsches and Bentleys of this world. The overwhelming majority of the tax is ripped out of the Australian community for those who buy the LandCruiser, the Toyota Tarago or indeed the Holden Commodore HSV. If you want to have a luxury car tax then have a super luxury car tax applying as of $90,000.

There is the story of the Porsche, the Ferrari and the Lamborghini that Messrs Swan and Rudd are so happy to parade in the public arena, but how many Bentleys or Porsches can you buy at $57,180? None, unless, as Senator Joyce says, ‘It’s hot.’ You cannot buy cars at that price. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan know that to be the fact, yet they deliberately seek to portray our concern for middle Australia, for the small business sector, as somehow doing the bidding of the rich. Indeed, this government sponsored amendment—which is, if I might say, in direct opposition to the opposition’s amendment—is all about championing, but not the Australian car industry or the 34,000 families who depend on breadwinners in the Australian car industry. If I were a member of the AMWU, I would be asking the trade union leadership, ‘What on earth were you doing at the last election giving donations to the Australian Greens, who are now forcing the government into making amendments that will add another nail to the coffin of the Australian car industry?’ We on this side are busily trying to pull those nails out to give true life to the Australian car industry, yet Labor and the Greens are busily trying to drive in that extra nail. I ask workers in the Australian car industry to check up on their union bosses, to check what they have been doing and why they are supporting the Australian Greens in this very unfortunate amendment.

There are many other matters that I will canvass but, once again, I say that this is inflationary. It hurts the Australian car industry, it hurts innovation and, what is more, it is doing all this at a time when the Australian car industry is suffering very badly. Even at this very late moment, I invite the government and the Greens to reconsider their opposition to our amendment and their support for their own government sponsored amendment.