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

They cannot have it both ways. I can accept that they have come to this view and have now been converted along the road to support Fuelwatch, but what it shows is that all their previous reports and discussions on Fuelwatch have been flawed. As a result, one has to question the robustness of the way that they approach their business—and that is the point that I am seeking to make.

Confronted with the ACCC’s new approach, we have to balance against that four independent Public Service departments that all recommended against it. And, of course, now, thankfully, Senator Carr has stopped his interjecting, because I am sure he would have been at the cabinet meeting where those four departments’ recommendations against Fuelwatch were presented. Despite all the evidence against Fuelwatch, he and other Labor ministers in cabinet voted for Fuelwatch for one simple reason. It was for politics—for the spin—not the substance, because cabinet ministers were told by their own departments that there was no credibility to the claim. Then, of course, on top of the view of the four departments, you have got such distinguished people as Professor Don Harding, Mr Henry Ergas and Associate Professor Frank Zumbo—whom I see in the gallery and who has shown very real interest. When you combine all that evidence, and the late conversion of the ACCC as the only ones who actually support Fuelwatch, I confess that I do have some questions about the way that they have arrived at their conclusion.

But, above all, Fuelwatch would be, without any doubt, anticompetitive. Retailers could not reduce their price for 24 hours because, if they did, they would be fined. How could that be of benefit to Australian consumers? Of course, it would not be. It cannot be and it never will be. Fuelwatch will overwhelmingly hurt the small independent operator and the small chains. Interestingly, the supermarket chains seem quite comfortable and relaxed with Fuelwatch. Yet Mr Rudd disingenuously inserts into the public debate that somehow the opponents of Fuelwatch are the friends of big oil. I can tell you that the Senate Standing Committee on Economics heard time and time again from independents and the small chains that they were opposed to Fuelwatch and the big companies told us that they could live with Fuelwatch. Who is on the side of big oil? But, once again, it is all about spin—say whatever you like and hope you can get away with it. That is where the importance of these Senate committees comes in, because we can unravel the spin and get to the substance. What we have done in this case is expose the huge flaws in Fuelwatch.

The legislation will impose penalties—and this is interesting—as of 30 November 2008 on those retailers not providing price information. Today, if I am correct, it is 12 November. There are 18 days to go before its implementation, and the small operators will have to be set up for that. I hope, without reflecting on or suggesting the way the Senate will vote, that this will not happen—and I suggest to the Senate that it cannot happen. Interestingly enough, though, Labor have got a logo in place but not the mechanics to make it work. So they have got the spin in place but they do not have the substance in place. That is the hallmark of the Rudd Labor government—spin above substance each and every time.

It is time for Labor to level with the Australian people. Labor should say they should never have made their promise about reducing fuel prices—a promise they knew they could never keep. They should also acknowledge that all this Fuelwatch nonsense was about trying to create an impression of taking action rather than actual action. Labor should admit their spin contained no substance. Labor should repay the Australian people the $100,000 wasted on developing a logo for Fuelwatch.

Hopefully, today, Fuelwatch will be laid to rest. Fuelwatch has been running on empty now for a very long time. Labor, still sitting at the wheel, despite the needle being on empty, think they can still drive this vehicle. Well, it has been on empty for a long, long time, and I think later on today, hopefully, we will see Fuelwatch coming to a spluttering halt. That is what happens if you keep trying to drive on empty for too long. That is a lesson that I hope Labor will learn from this exercise. The people have a right to be angry with Rudd Labor. They are right to be angry over the electoral deceit, the spin, the waste of money, the abuse of the Public Service, and the overpromising and the underdelivering.

I conclude as I began: the exercise of Fuelwatch provides us with a great insight as we approach the first anniversary of the Rudd Labor government. It provides us with an insight as to how Rudd Labor does business: overpromise and underdeliver. Spin first; do not worry about the substance. If need be, abuse the Public Service. If need be, for your political agenda, abuse the parliamentary processes. If need be, manufacture the evidence. If need be, have policy based evidence rather than evidence based policy. This has become the hallmark of the first year of Labor in office, and Fuelwatch embodies all those fatal flaws of Rudd Labor. That is why, sad as it is that the Senate has to be debating Fuelwatch, it does provide an excellent window into the operations of Rudd Labor. Fuelwatch is a dud and should be opposed. (Time expired)