Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear Senator Abetz describing Senator Cameron as old-fashioned. In fact, I would have thought Senator Cameron is rather cutting-edge given that the Bush administration has just defied the capitalist ethic and bailed out, in what can only be described as a public purse rescue, the corporate sector with billions and billions of dollars. I have not heard too much about ‘let the market operate by itself’, ‘small government’ or ‘no regulation’. I have not heard any of that! I have heard instead: ‘What’s the government doing to shore everything up?’ That is a legitimate question but, at a time when the extreme capitalism that was practised by the former Howard government—let the market rule; government get out of the way; small regulation—is suddenly in a state of complete collapse and the ideology that underpinned it is in collapse, the views of someone like Senator Cameron represent the reality of what is going on at the moment. So whilst you might say that the Berlin Wall has fallen, it is Wall Street that has fallen and it is your ideology that has fallen into a state of collapse.

However, that is not what I rose to comment about. Senator Abetz does provide some options to comment on these matters from time to time. The other thing I am delighted about is that Senator Abetz is now taking an interest in climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is a bit unfortunate that he chose to show off his new-found knowledge by quoting Euro 5 standard because Euro 5 standard is actually a non-CO2 fuel emission standard. So saying it is old-fashioned in terms of climate or fuel consumption is an interesting way of putting it because it is not a greenhouse gas standard; it is a standard about particulate matter and smog type emissions and not carbon dioxide emissions.

I say to the opposition, who are now suddenly interested in what the Europeans are doing, that in fact the Europeans set themselves a voluntary standard of 140 grams of CO2 per kilometre some years ago. However, their current average new car standard has got to about 160 grams of CO2 per kilometre. It has been recognised that that is not moving fast enough towards the voluntary standard of 140 grams and so in late 2006 the European Commission worked towards proposing a legally binding standard, which they then did on 7 February 2007. That says that the European Union must adhere to a standard which limits CO2 to 120 grams per kilometre. That is a very, very stringent standard which virtually no cars can currently meet. So several car manufacturers in Europe are in somewhat of a spin trying to work out how to get down to that low level of emissions.

But now that I know that the coalition supports the standard of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometre I am really pleased because we can move for similar standards here in Australia. I really welcome that level of support. Having said that, I recognise that new cars in Europe are achieving about 160 grams per kilometre, with a voluntary standard of 140 grams per kilometre working towards a compulsory standard of 120 grams. I note that the vehicles that we are exempting here in this particular amendment average about 155 grams of CO2 per kilometre. I am not saying that that is perfect; in fact, I agree with Senator Abetz that we should be getting down to 120 grams per kilometre as soon as possible. I am inclined now to move for that standard knowing that I will get the support of the coalition because they are keen to see our greenhouse gas emissions moved to such a stringent standard. In the meantime, I am very happy that we have been able to strike a standard between what the average new European car is achieving and the voluntary standard that they are aiming to get to. Recognising how far behind the eight ball we are in Australia because for 10 years the coalition did nothing on fuel efficiency, nothing on carbon dioxide emissions, you can hardly expect the Australian market to be getting to 120 grams as fast as that, but I would love to see it happen. I am encouraged that the opposition supports that so I will be looking forward to moving on that at a later time.

I am very pleased about that and also because I now know that Senator Abetz supports Euro 5 standard for smog. That would be terrific for Sydney and Melbourne as well. I am really keen now that I know that I have the numbers in the parliament here to move on these really stringent emission standards for CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. It can only be great for air quality in our cities. I look forward to having that level of support in the future. I am sorry to have disappointed the opposition by not moving for more stringent standards on this occasion but I think I am being more than reasonable in exempting the vehicles that we are exempting. And I remind the Senate that while Senator Abetz is asking, ‘Which vehicles will be exempted?’ they are exactly the same vehicles that he wants exempted from the luxury car tax except it is not very many of them. He wants all of the vehicles over $57,000 exempt from the increase in the luxury car tax—every single one of them.

We have a consistent philosophical position on greenhouse gas emissions, on fuel efficiency, on Australian vehicle manufacturing and on everything from putting money into supporting the development of the Australian car manufacturing industries to green standards, to green cars, to bringing that through the tax system, to creating incentives to drive people’s behaviour to buy these fuel-efficient cars, to changing government procurement policies so that the government purchases the green cars that we then make. That will accelerate their take-up in the second-hand market. We all know that the taxi market is largely able to source its vehicles as a result of the turnover from government corporate fleets. That way we will radically improve the vehicle fuel efficiency of the Australian fleet and of CO2 emissions over time. At the same time that will give people the permanent rest they need, the permanent shielding they need, from the underlying increase in the oil price, which is going to flow through to increased petrol prices.

So the faster we get onto green cars the better off we are all going to be environmentally and in terms of our pockets, because I think that as people pull up at the petrol pump and fill up watching that oil price go up, as it is doing, they will be wishing that their car had much better vehicle fuel efficiency, and as they watch the carbon price go up they will be wishing that their vehicle had significantly reduced CO2 emissions. This is about not only CO2 but peak oil. It is about recognising the need to drive less and, when you do drive, driving more efficiently. It is also about saying that, unless we drive the Australian car manufacturing sector to be globally competitive and recognise that that competition is in the context of smaller, cheaper and more efficient cars, then we are not going to get very far.

I would also inform the Senate that, with the Europeans having now set CO2 emissions at 120 grams per kilometre as the target in Europe, there are some environmental groups arguing that that needs to go to double the fuel efficiency over the next decade. They are arguing for 80 grams per kilometre by 2020. Bear in mind what I am saying at the moment, that new cars in Europe are about 160 grams per kilometre. So the environment movement in Europe is saying, ‘Let’s halve that,’ by 2020.

That is how fast other places in the world are moving in terms of campaigning for such significant increases in fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions. We have to ask ourselves: how long can Australia compete unless we get onto exactly the same footing? That is where the $500 million for the green car fund and the Bracks review recommendation that that go to $1 billion ought to be supported. You will never prop up the Australian car industry by creating a subsidised market through government procurement and subsidising those factories. It is unsustainable into the future unless there is a market for those cars beyond just the government and fleet market. That is just not sustainable for vehicle manufacture and that is why they are in so much trouble at the moment. If you are serious about creating jobs in Australia and keeping car manufacturing, then those car manufacturers have to make the cars which people want to buy and which can be exported overseas as well. That is where we need to be going and that is why this is a very sensible amendment. It is about putting a signal into the market that that is the direction we need to take.

That is what this is about, whereas the opposition does not want to support any rise in the luxury car tax. I have not heard them support one single revenue-raising measure, but I have heard them come up with endless ways to spend money. So if you do not support revenue-raising measures but you support all the increased expenditure including the taxation and you do not support getting rid of the surplus, I would like to ask: where is the money going to come from? In opposing this increase in the luxury car tax and having no philosophical reason of any kind for that other than saying that we should not be asking people to pay more, Senator Abetz should tell us whether he supports reducing the surplus to pay for the pension increase and whatever else. How does he intend to raise the money? I think that we have not actually heard from the coalition where the money is going to come from and I think that in order to have integrity about how to spend money you have to be able to say what you would be prepared to do to raise money.

The Greens stood up in here and opposed the tax cuts when everybody else supported them. We said that we wanted that money for health and education and pensions and the like, and we copped a lot of political flak for saying that we did not support tax cuts. That is the position we took and it is a position of integrity. It was not one that people agreed with in terms of how people voted in here, though I think the community probably agreed with it. But, nevertheless, we were prepared to say that that is where we would have the money to spend—on pensions and public schools and public health. So I put to the coalition: instead of the grandstanding that has been going on, if they do not support a tax measure like this, where do they suggest we take the money from to be able to spend it on the pensions and the other expenditure measures which they have been touting in recent weeks?