Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) to questions without notice asked by Senator Collins and Senator Gallacher today relating to fuel excise and defence procurement.

I probably have a couple of laps under the belt—there are a few miles on the speedo and I am not sure that I was dreadfully hurt by Senator Johnston's suggestion that my question was incongruous and stupid. But I do want to press home to this minister that the good, loyal citizens of South Australia, the good, hardworking workforce at the Australian Submarine Corp and all those involved in defence activity and manufacturing do not think that these questions are incongruous and stupid. They, their employers and the small businesses that rely heavily on that manufacturing activity in South Australia clearly do not think it is incongruous and stupid to ask whether they will be prevented from bidding on a vital national defence project. Thousands and thousands of South Australians have indicated a very, very strong position in respect of all defence activity in South Australia, in particular the building of the next-generation submarines.

The minister also failed to confirm—forgetting South Australia for a minute, Senators—that Australian companies will not be given the opportunity to bid. So it has gone from ASC in Adelaide to all Australian companies not being invited, or he will not confirm at this stage that they will not be invited, to bid. I do not think that such questions are incongruous and stupid; I certainly do not think that at all. He failed to commit that the ASC will even be invited to bid. Despite billions of dollars of taxpayers' investment in that activity throughout the whole Collins build and the sustained effort of keeping those submarines going until 2020, he will not even confirm that they will be able to get into the process. But he does say there will be a two-pass process that everybody will be happy with. If you go to a place and say, 'This is our promise: we will build the submarines right here at ASC in Adelaide,' and then shift ground, prevaricate and change your stance to being unable to confirm that ASC will be able to bid for a vital national defence project and unable to confirm that Australian companies will be invited to bid for the Future Submarine Project, you really are on very, very soft ground.

It is very clear that all those people on the other side who will face the electoral test at the next election have shifted their ground. Matt Williams, the member for Hindmarsh, wrote to the Prime Minister imploring him to change tack and commit to this. Senator Ruston, Senator Edwards and Senator Fawcett are 1, 2 and 3 on the Senate ticket. We do not know in which order, but we all know that they have distanced themselves from this broken promise.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a South Australian Labor person, I wouldn't talk about—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Macdonald, because 'incongruous and stupid' could well apply to you. It could well apply to you in some circumstances—it could well apply. So thank you for that interjection.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind all senators to direct their comments through the chair.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say, Mr Deputy President—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us about the Labor Party Senate ticket last time!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is that there is a Liberal coalition government and it would appear to be incongruous and stupid that they are not making decisions and that they are whingeing and whining about some other period of government.

You get elected to do the job. This incongruous and stupid minister ought to step up and do the job. He ought to commit to submarines in South Australia. He ought to allay the concerns of the workforce. He ought to allow Australian companies—heaven forbid!— to bid for work on Australian defence projects. I do not think that that is unreasonable. As far as I can see, 'incongruous and stupid' would apply more to the minister than the questions that the opposition crafted, because I note that people genuinely believe that they are good questions.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is great that Senator Gallacher referred to the question that Senator Collins posed to Senator Abetz about the fuel tax. Let me give you a brief history on fuel tax. Mr Deputy President, you are not the youngest man around here and you would well remember 1983 when the Hawke government was elected. The excise on fuel per litre in 1983—Senator Macdonald might want to listen to this figure—was 6.3c a litre. In the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments, it went from 6.3c a litre to 34c a litre. It was the biggest increase in excise on fuel in our nation's history: 6.3c to 34c. It then went from 34c to 38c under the Howard government with the indexation; twice a year, the excise on fuel would go up. But then it was frozen in around 2000 by the Howard government. That was a good thing for two reasons. Firstly, it kept the price of fuel down; it would probably be 15c a litre more expensive today if that indexation had not been removed by the Howard government. Secondly, the budget was in surplus. I know that 'budget surplus' is a very strange thing for those opposite to understand. I think 1989 was the last time the federal Labor Party delivered a budget surplus. The excise was frozen at 38c.

I welcome the indexation brought in, and I will tell you why. When the former Premier Nick Greiner and Deputy Premier Wal Murray were in power in the New South Wales government they brought in what was called the three-by-three policy: 3c a litre for three years—it went on longer, of course. Two-thirds of that tax was collected in the urban areas—that is where the greater population is—but the good news is that two-thirds of it was spent in the rural and regional areas.

I was discussing this with Anna Burke on Sky's Agenda the other day. Of course, Ms Burke is a member in Melbourne, and she does not have a dirt road in her electorate. She probably does not like money being spent on roads. We guaranteed that we would build the roads of the 21st century. Guess what? To build those roads actually costs money. We have inherited this budget mess. It was going to be a budget surplus by now, according to those opposite. Was it the world's greatest treasurer, Wayne Maxwell Swan—the former Treasurer, Mr Swan—who was going to deliver a surplus? We have not seen a surplus—far from it. We directed the budget to rein in spending, to get our books in order and to stop mortgaging our children's futures away, but we also want to build those roads. I live on a dirt road. It has been a mess for a long time but a few months ago Inverell Shire Council did an enormous job of repairing the roads and the school bus run. They did a great job.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They won't be able to afford to drive on them.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron is probably not very familiar with dirt roads. He might have been out there once in his life many years ago, who knows?

We want our roads fixed, and it is going to cost money. We have already doubled the Roads to Recovery Program for 2015-16 for our local governments. It is a great program that was brought in many years ago. I commend those opposite for keeping it when they were in government. Thank goodness they did not wipe that out, or we would not have roads in the bush. We need this money to fix our roads. Out there, as Senator Cameron may not be aware, is where the cattle are carted to abattoirs; it is where wheat, cotton and those primary products are transported—many of them having to travel on rough, degraded dirt roads. Those roads need to be repaired. I look forward to every cent of the $2.2 billion over four years going into roads. That is most important. When that indexation legislation comes to this place within 12 months I hope that the Greens party, and Senator Rhiannon as well, support us on that legislation so that we in the country areas can have decent roads.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

We want to spend it on roads and we want to fix our roads.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Public transport? We are already spending squillions on public transport in the cities. We want to spend the indexation funds on the roads to repair our roads. I know that in theory the Greens' policy is that they support increases in indexation. Please give it to some people out in the rural and regional areas to fix our roads, and then we can have safer roads, better roads so that the future generations can enjoy those better conditions that we so desperately need.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amazing listening to the Nats lecture us on the spending of taxpayer dollars on roads. I wish to take note of answers—or attempted answers—to questions that were asked today. Before Senator Williams leaves the chamber, I say that I find Senator Williams to be a decent human being. He really is; there is no doubt about that. Sadly, when he has to defend policy that is off the reservation, he leaves himself wide open. As did Senator Macdonald with his quip to Senator Gallacher—and Senator Gallacher wiped the floor with him—with the 'stupid' comment.

Can I just say that no-one in this building hates road taxes or petrol taxes more than me. Mr Deputy President, I speak with authority in this building when I talk about how that 38c a litre gets distributed to roads. I challenge anyone who has paid as much in tax on fuel as I over the years; if you can, step forward, bring it on. I would love to have the debate. As an ex-long-distance-owner-driver I remember that back in the 1990s—a very difficult time for me—I was on a campaign in Western Australia called 'axe the tax'. It was a grassroots movement to attack the then Liberal government about taxing truck drivers and fuel consumers out of existence. I remember vividly standing on a makeshift platform out the front of parliament house. I found it unbelievable that I was sharing the podium with a fellow named Barry Court, who happened to head, at that time, the Pastoralist and Graziers Association. He also happens to be the brother of the then Premier Richard Court. I still pinch myself believing that I would have anything in common with a far right conservative, as the Court family produced in that area, to argue against taxing truck drivers and taxing fuel consumers. I will tell you why, Mr Deputy President, because Senator Williams is so far out here. If every single cent collected by the Commonwealth in the fuel tax is delivered to building and maintaining roads, whether it be rural, regional, country or city, I would have absolutely no problem. But I challenge anyone opposite to prove to me that every single cent collected in fuel tax is distributed across this great country for turning dirt roads into bitumen, because we know that it could not be further from the truth.

I also want to touch on the disconnect with reality that we see in this chamber, and it is not only in this chamber. I have no doubt that my colleagues on the other side of the building see it even more because there are more of them misleading the population. When we talk about fuel tax or petrol tax, we must not forget Mr Hockey, the Treasurer of this country. When he was questioned about the effect of the introduction of a fuel excise on low-paid people he came back with that famous line, something like, 'It won't hit the poor because they don't have cars or actually drive very far.' This is from an out-of-touch, cigar-chomping Treasurer, and I find it absolutely incredible.

As I travel this great nation, as I go through Western Australia, or New South Wales, or Victoria, in my role as chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, I do not see a lot of wealth in a lot of our country towns. I do see it if I am travelling through Karratha or Port Hedland, but not in all of Port Hedland. I do not see it in the wheat belts, and I do not see it in the growing areas. In fact I will talk about the south-west and the great southern area of Western Australia. I have noticed that Senator Smith, who is from Western Australia, is silent on this. When you travel the main streets of Wagin, as Senator Bullock would know as a Western Australian, or Narrogin—the great farming towns where wealth really was generated from their feeding our nation—there are a lot of shops boarded up, there are a lot of businesses that have gone. We in the city, or we in this chamber, may sit here on our very gracious remuneration and think, 'What is a couple of dollars a week?' Well, to a lot of people out there in rural Australia, where Senator Williams comes from and where he espouses to represent, I do not think they share that same reasoning.

I also want to tell you about remote Aboriginal communities where I work throughout the Kimberley. I have to tell you that fuel is a major cost for the Aboriginal people to get to health services, to get to food, or to get their children a better education. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 191, I wish to explain some material part of a speech that I made which has been misquoted or misunderstood by Senator Sterle and Senator Gallacher. Senator Gallacher misinterpreted my speech by way of interjection. I was suggesting to Senator Gallacher that he would not want to make reference to the Liberal Party Senate preselection in South Australia, bearing in mind the Labor Party had a preselection where the leader—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. Standing order 191 only applies to a debate in which you have already spoken, to make that clarification. You have not been part of this debate, you cannot use that standing order, so please resume your seat. A point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, an interjection is taken under the rules as a speech. I participated by way of the speech. My interjection was that the Labor Party would not want to make a thing about it after what happened to the Labor Party preselection in South Australia.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. Senator Seselja.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did want to talk a little bit about submarines, but before I do that I want to address Senator Sterle's commentary. I think it is a little bit rich for Senator Sterle, who just voted to keep a carbon tax, to claim that 40c a week is a disaster. In comparison to the carbon tax that he voted to retain we are talking about a significant difference.

Let's get to the issue around submarines, because I think there has been some interesting commentary about the disaster that Labor left us when it comes to the submarine program, or the lack of a submarine program, under the former government. We know why we have this mess. Over the last six years Defence spending dropped to levels not seen since 1938, a cut or deferral of some $16 billion. I will go to some of the commentary, specifically on Labor's failures on submarines in recent times, to explain exactly how we got into the position that we are in. I quote Greg Sheridan who wrote in The Australian, today, about replacing the six Collins class submarines and said:

The crisis is brought about by three policy decisions—three costly mistakes—that the Labor Party has made over the past three decades. The first was to design and build an orphan class of submarines—the Collins—in Australia. The cost was insane, the performance lamentable, the legacy debilitating.

The second was to do nothing about the subs for the six years Labor was in office under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Rudd's 2009 defence white paper extravagantly committed to build 12 new subs in Australia.

Impossibly, these were to have range and capabilities far beyond the Collins or any conventional sub, in effect nuclear subs with conventional engines. Having made this grandiose gesture, and stressed its extreme urgency, Labor did nothing of consequence about the subs for its entire term.

The third great Labor policy dereliction has been to frame its response to the Abbott government's attempt to find a replacement for Collins entirely as a campaign for local jobs in South Australia.

He goes on:

… Successive reviews under Labor made it clear that Australia does not have even a fraction of the design, engineering and construction capability such a project would need.

The article goes on to say:

Whatever sub Australia buys, all the deep maintenance and sustainment will be done in Australia.

So when we hear the Labor Party talk about this issue, we have to point to the history under the Labor Party—not just over the last six years but over the past several decades.

That is quite aside from the fiscal situation the Labor Party has left us, the fiscal situation we find ourselves in as a result of the profligate spending of the former Labor government—and it is not just about their profligate spending. Whilst they were overspending in a whole range or areas, they were depleting our defence capability by spending the lowest proportion of GDP on defence since 1938. We on the coalition side believe that that is irresponsible. I commend the Minister for Defence for his efforts to fix the mess that was left to him by the Labor Party—not just in the last six years but going back a number of decades. The absolute priority of the defence minister is to do what is in Australia's national defence interest. It is not simply about a dressed-up industry policy, as the Labor Party would have us believe.

I will make a few final points. One is that we had virtually a blank canvas on the issue of submarines when we came into government. That is a big part of the problem we are seeking to address. The second point is that we had crippling amounts of debt bequeathed to us by the Labor Party. Thirdly, defence spending under Labor fell to the lowest levels since the Second World War. Finally, regardless of what decision is eventually made, we will continue to support, through maintenance and other areas of defence capability, significant jobs here in Australia. Any attempt by the Labor Party to imply otherwise should be rejected as simply false. (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the latest broken promise from this government of twisted priorities. In doing so, I will touch on answers given by Senators Abetz and Johnston in question time today. Earlier this week, as a matter of public importance, we discussed a series of promises broken by this government. Today I will talk about the latest in that series of broken promises—namely, the increase in the fuel tax, which will hit motorists for $2.2 billion over the next four years. This tax hike will disproportionately hit regional Queenslanders, who are already reeling from the savage cuts of an out-of-touch state government. But do not take my word for it; take the word of a noted Queensland leftie, Senator Ian Macdonald. On ABC Radio, Senator Macdonald said:

You have to have a car whether you are rich or poor.

He also said:

Regional Australians don't have the alternative of public transport …

Senator Macdonald is well aware of the impact of his government's latest broken promise and of the sneaky way it is being introduced into this place.

There are people other than the Labor Party railing against the government's fuel tax measure. Earlier in the year, when there was a prospect of something like this being included in the federal budget, the RACQ pointed out that an increase in fuel taxes would slug Queenslanders hardest. They said at the time:

To hit one of the biggest consumables that families pay for each week when living costs are so high is extremely disappointing. We're a decentralised state so we'll be hit harder because we travel further.

The CEO of Gold Coast Tourism, Martin Winter, said at the time that raising the fuel excise would hit the industry just when it was making some strong strides forward. Another notable critic of this change is the Queensland Treasurer, Tim Nicholls, who said that an excise hike would not be popular in Queensland—I think that is an understatement! He went on to say:

I would simply say that I don't believe Queenslanders would be very comfortable with an increase in the petrol tax at the moment.

So there are quite a substantial number of people coming out and saying that this is a very bad move. The Australian Automobile Association estimates that the average motorist will pay about $142 extra per year for fuel by 2016-17. They have also said that the latest move by the government is 'weak, sneaky and tricky.'

In an answer in today's question time, Senator Abetz made some comments that I just cannot let go. Senator Abetz said that the coalition parties are renowned for being lower taxers and that the Liberals and the Nationals are the parties of low tax. However, the ABC fact-checking facility, which is always very handy, points out that tax as a proportion of GDP averaged 21.4 per cent between 2007 and 2013 under Labor—whereas under the previous Howard government the tax take hit 23.5 per cent of GDP. Let us get our facts right and see who is really responsible.

In closing, I will touch briefly on Senator Johnston's answer on submarines. Before the election, the now Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, said:

We will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The coalition today is committed …

Given the opportunity to confirm that position today, the minister gave a very weak response. I visited the Collins-class submarine facility at the ASC in Adelaide and, unlike the defence minister, I could not help but be impressed and proud of what we are capable of building in our own backyard. All this is being put at risk by the twisted priorities of this government.

Question agreed to.