Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The issue with the obsession of Prime Minister Albanese, Minister Bowen and Minister Catherine King with fuel efficiency standards is that they are not in any way equivalent to the comparable international markets. The pace and the time frame are not the same. It's very easy for the government to stand up here and say, 'Every other country in the world, except Russia, have fuel efficiency standards,' but it's not the title on top of the page of the policy that matters; it's the detail underneath it.

When we're comparing ourselves with other countries, it's actually not an apples-versus-apples comparison. For example, we're told the USA have got exactly the same policy that we're implementing here. That's just not true. It's laughable; it's an absolute load of hogwash. Just because you put the same heading on the top of the policy, it's not the same—certainly, when you look at the detail. For example, the USA's fuel efficiency standards and their supporting policies are different to the ones that the Albanese government is seeking to impose. Firstly, the time frames are not consistent. The US are progressing at a much slower pace than the time frames Minister Bowen and Minister King are imposing. To put it in simple terms, we're attempting to climb three-quarters of the way up Mount Everest, whereas the US are merely trying to get to base camp. So it's just not equivalent. Secondly, the US, through their Inflation Reduction    Act, are pouring billions of dollars into subsidies for battery manufacturing and direct subsidies for the consumer that come off the purchase price of the vehicle, and that's not what this policy is in any way proposing either.

The biggest issue that the manufacturers have with the government's plan is the speed of the introduction. It is true that the vehicle industry is saying that we should have fuel efficiency standards. But it's the pace at which they are being implemented by this government that is the biggest problem the industry has, because it is going to drive up the cost for consumers. It's going to drive away the choice, as Senator Brockman was just saying, for consumers—people who actually want or need to have a dual cab, a big van or a vehicle that would enable them to do their job or those with lifestyle preferences who want to be able to hook up the caravan or the boat and go on that big drive. I'm from Western Australia, and the drives are very long and large over there. It is not like Canberra, where the coast is just there. The places you've got to go to—I try to get up to Exmouth as often as I can each year in July, and it's a 13-hour drive. It's a long way.

The problem is the pace and the cost that is going to be imposed on people who still want to be able to buy the HiLux, Ranger, LandCruiser or the Patrol. For some, it's going to be $6,000 more, and, if you're wanting an even bigger vehicle like the LandCruiser or the Patrol, we're talking up to $13,000 more that's going to be added to the cost of them and their choice. This policy has been designed with an inner-city mindset, where you don't have to travel the big distances or carry the heavy loads. The rest of Australia who either work with their hands and their heavy tools or enjoy the lifestyle benefits of an SUV or ute are going to be significantly impacted by the tax on their choice. It's their choice, and we are wanting to take that away.

The reason the manufacturers are saying that it is not possible to fit within the time frames is that the technology is not there. I'm sick and tired of hearing frankly ignorant statements from people who don't actually understand the science. They say, 'Oh, it is just a matter of time.' I had someone only recently tell me: 'Hang on, Matt, it's just like how we went from 3G to 4G to 5G mobile phone technology. There's just this innovation, and of course that's what's going to be applied to motor vehicles.' The problem with that argument—it's just not a comparison at all—is that that is mastering the use of radio spectrum. I don't know if anyone realises this, but radio spectrum doesn't weigh anything. There's no mass to it. What we're talking about with motor vehicles is, of course, the fact that they're heavy, and batteries are extremely heavy.

The F-150 Lightning, the big American truck, which isn't actually selling that well in America, I've got to say, has a nearly 900-kilo battery in it, and that's storing about 120 kilowatt hours of electricity, which takes about three hours to recharge on a charger. There are some fast chargers around that might do it a little bit more quickly. You might get that down to about a half an hour if you're on a really fast charger. So it's really impractical. The equivalent, if you compared it with an ICE vehicle, is about 18 litres of fuel—petrol or diesel. So you've got this 900-kilo battery that is equivalent to 18 litres of fuel. It's not a direct one-to-one comparison but I think it's about 16 kilos of fuel, and then you've got the weight of the fuel tank and all that. So we're talking about 18 to 20 kilos compared to 900 kilos. It is just not practical.

The other problem is that they say, 'But battery technology will improve.' What we're talking about is a tenfold increase that would be required. As I said, it takes half an hour on a really fast charger, and I'm talking about when you've got the power station right there and the interconnector right there that you're able to connect onto. It takes about half an hour to charge that vehicle. On a standard charger, such as a 50-kilowatt charger, it's about a three-hour charge. So imagine driving to Exmouth. Senator Smith knows where that is. That's a 1,300-kilometre drive from Perth. You only get a 100-kilometre range with these vehicles when you're towing. Imagine having to pull over for three hours after every hour. That would ruin your weekend. A trip of a couple of weeks up to Exmouth would turn into a couple of months. How ridiculous!

The problem is that there's nothing on the periphery of battery science that gets us there. Even if you were to improve the energy density of a battery to the point where it became equivalent, you would turn that three-hour charge into a 30-hour charge, because that's what you'd actually have to bring yourself to to get that equivalence. It's just insane. I don't know if you realise this but a unit of electricity is a unit of electricity, just like a kilo is a kilo and a litre of water is a litre of water. You can't shrink a litre of water. There's no advancement in technology that can shrink it, and you can't shrink a kilowatt hour of electricity, because those electrons are electrons. There's no adjustment of that through the advancement of technology. If you're going to charge up a 500- or 600-watt hour battery, which doesn't exist and isn't even in the pipeline of existing, you would probably need to have one of our nuclear power stations right next door to the petrol station so that you could actually have enough chargers right there to be able to have the throughput of vehicles at any time.

We know that it's not actually practical, and I defy anyone here in this place or anywhere else to challenge what I'm saying that it's rubbish, and I'm telling you that this is just science. It is just reality, and there is a detachment from reality in what the government is proposing. If you are a tradie and you use your hands or you use heavy tools for your job, you've got to carry heavy weights. My mate is a plumber. When he bought his van he told me that he drove it around without any tools or things in the back of it. He drove it around for a while and he was getting about 11 litres per 100 kilometres in that car. As soon as he put the roof rack on, put the tools in the back and put his drain machine in there, all of a sudden it turned into an average consumption of about 20 litres per 100 kilometres. It's just the laws of physics: when you carry heavy stuff, it takes more energy to move it. That's the reality here.

But this policy is void of any reality. All you're doing is detaching Australians from choice and taxing them. You're taxing their choice. Australians want to be able to go about their business without the interference of government, and government is getting in the way of people's choices, whether it's their job or their lifestyle, and it just can't continue. Please, government, go back to the drawing board and fix this up. You're sending the bejesus up people. People want to be able to be backed up in their choices.