Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to congratulate those who are involved. Certainly, as I look around the chamber, the contribution over a long period of time by Senator Siewert must be recognised, as must that of Senator Scullion and also Senator Crossin.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you would have thought that this would have been a fine opportunity to demonstrate the very best elements of the combined roles of federal, state, territory and local governments and the private sector in trying to resolve this horrific issue. But, as we know in the case of the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012, should it actually be passed, it is only ever facilitation legislation anyhow and will not achieve its goals. I, too, recognise Senator Siewert's passion over time for this particular area. But initially, if I may, I acknowledge the work of the then Minister for Health in the Howard government back in 2005, Minister Tony Abbott, who first introduced the concept of this low-aromatic fuel. The package, along with negotiations with the BP company on this occasion, also included activities to support communities and to engage in youth diversion programs, rehabilitation, policing, communication and education strategies. It remains today, as we know, critically important that we do have that broad approach in trying to solve this issue.

From a straight epidemiological point of view, the fact that there has been a 70 per cent average reduction in the incidence of petrol sniffing and the fact that in areas where there is no provision of regular unleaded petrol that it is even more effective—up to 94 per cent—are wonderful stories and must be supported. But what this shows is the need for the engagement of different sectors at different levels.

Let me give you an instance: at a local Aboriginal community level back in 2004-05, what would the capacity of that community have been to go to the fuel majors and say, 'We need the introduction of a low-aromatic fuel'? Their capacity would have been zero, and the capacity of local government in those areas equally zero. Even a state or a territory would not have had that capacity. So here was an example, quite correctly at federal level, where the then Minister for Health was able to go to the senior management of the fuel industry—the fuel majors; on this occasion, the BP company—and convince them of the need for what would have been an incredible cost to change a regular unleaded product into a low-aromatic fuel.

That is a prime example of where we did need the intervention of the federal government at a level senior enough and persuasive enough to be able to get an international fuel major to change the composition of its fuel. And so there is a prime example of where federal government intervention is needed. But, equally, in this particular instance it is patently obvious that the most effective roles will be those of the states of Western Australia, possibly Queensland and South Australia, and especially the Northern Territory to enact legislation to give effect to a solution that will work.

It was only in July of this year that the minister for Indigenous health, Minister Snowdon, was urging the states and, presumably, the Territory to tackle petrol sniffing by matching the Territory's legislation that relies on community involvement and tougher policing powers to tackle volatile substance abuse. That is the appropriate role for the federal minister; it was in July, it was yesterday and why it is not today seems unusual to me, and I think it deserves explanation.

At that time in July, Mr Snowdon was favouring the approach driven by local communities. He told ministers that it was difficult to see how a Commonwealth ban on unleaded fuel, which he had previously described as a legal minefield, would have a greater impact on addressing petrol sniffing than state and territory legislation. I have heard nothing in the debate this morning to cause me to understand why Minister Snowdon would have a different view today, 22 November, to that which he had at the time these comments were made, and I will come back to some of his other comments.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report itself recommended that the bill not proceed—not proceed!—for several reasons. One is not relying on the corporations power, and my colleague Senator Smith eloquently made the point that so many fuel retailers would not fall under corporations law. Maybe sole traders and maybe partnerships would not fall under the jurisdiction of corporations law. We know, as the committee itself said, that there are different definitions of fuels to which legislation applies. The committee said that there is a need—and I agree—for ongoing coordination with state and territory governments to prevent supply issues. And I wish to come back to supply issues; having in fact been a fuel distributor and retailer in one of Australia's states, it is an area of which I do have some understanding. A further recommendation of the committee was that there should be a review of Opal, the low-aromatic fuel, production and distribution subsidies, to which I will also refer.

So we have the committee saying that the legislation at federal level is not appropriate. We have the minister saying that it is appropriately a state and territory issue. Until yesterday, the Labor government were of the view that it was properly a state and territory issue. I do not know why there has been this change of heart, and it needs to be explained to this chamber— again, because this legislation is only facilitating legislation and of itself will not have the desired effect. I emphasise again, as others have in this chamber—and it would be no different for any reasonable-minded, thinking Australian—that we should be able to grasp and complete the study of this exercise and remove regular unleaded petrol from sale.

The position of the coalition is simply this: first of all, the bill itself will not stop sniffing, for the reasons that I mentioned. You have only got to have a sole operator or a partnership and the legislation does not apply to them. In the light of the preceding matters, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the current bill not be proceeded with. As a consequence, we would say that this is the wrong instrument, that it is inappropriate to use a Commonwealth arm of the law. In fact, I repeat what Minister Snowdon said in February this year—that the Commonwealth legislation creates 'a potential legal minefield'. Let us avoid the potential legal minefield and let us come up with a solution that will actually work. There is a better, more effective way.

I know that, only in the last few days, Senator Scullion, who has responsibility in this area from the coalition's point of view, has been in contact with the ministers or their senior executives in each of the states of South Australia and Western Australia, and of course with the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory and the Minister for Health and Alcohol Policy, to move all of this forward. So we are all working in concert. There is nobody working at variance with our end objective. We simply plead for a circumstance where we can bring this home, where we can give effect to this particular legislation and make sure that we eliminate petrol sniffing.

The bill does not address the Opal fuel supply and subsidy issues cited in the committee report. The committee itself recommended—and this is recommendation 4:

… that there be further examination of the wording of the explanatory memorandum, consultation and exemption clauses, to ensure that fuel manufacturers are properly included, and the bill does not have unintended consequences—