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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all coalition questions without notice asked today.

Today, we heard about a deferral and an avoiding of the reality when it comes to fuel efficiency standards and EV, and a ute tax and SUV tax that is going to be placed upon Australian households. There's a real detachment from reality when it comes to this debate.

We all can accept that things are changing in innovation and opportunity for vehicles, but the time frames that this government is putting in place are going to have a dramatic impact on households and on various industries. Senator Watt, in response to a question that he received, talked about the manufacturing industry. Well, I want to talk about a part of the manufacturing sector here in Australia that is going to be severely impacted by this change that the government is bringing into place and the haste with which it is doing it, and that is the caravan-manufacturing industry.

Did you know that over 90 per cent of the caravans that we all see driving on the roads—and sometimes holding up the traffic in the school holidays, heading up north or wherever they might be going—are manufactured here in Australia? In fact, 92 per cent are manufactured in Victoria alone, in the suburbs of Campbellfield and Epping. The policy that the government has is going to have a dramatic impact on that industry. It is shocking. That industry is worth, to rural Australia, over $11 billion in visitors who visit regional Australia with their caravans. When you hook up your caravan, you don't just go down the road to stay in your capital city. People from the country might do that when they come to visit family or others, but most of the people live in the capital cities, and they spend their holidays out in the regions. They hook up their van and they drive a distance to go to that holiday spot.

But we know that an EV is not able to deal with those distances. Why is this? Because the gravimetric energy density of a battery—the best generation of lithium ion batteries—is 250 watt-hours per kilogram, whereas the gravimetric energy density of fuel is 11,700 watt-hours per kilogram. That means that a large vehicle like the F-150 Lightning, a big American truck, is failing in its sales overseas, because people realise that it's actually not that practical if you've got to carry something heavy. They're not selling those vehicles, and Ford are having to scale back their delivery of those vehicles. The battery in that vehicle alone weighs 900 kilos. That is equivalent to 18 litres of fuel. With 18 litres of fuel, you can get about 100 kilometres when you're towing something. That's the reality of the real-world tests that have been conducted, particularly in America, where these vehicles are currently available. You can only tow for 100 kilometres. If you're going from Perth to Busselton, it's normally only about a two-hour drive, but you would need to pull over twice over that distance and wait for three hours for your vehicle to recharge. And that is if the facility has a fast charger. You'd have to wait, because it's a 120 kilowatt-hour battery in that EV. It is simply not practical.

I'm not against EVs. My wife has one. It's fantastic. She drives around town. It's a small vehicle—perfect. But anyone who needs to tow something or who needs to put some heavy weight in the back, because that's their job, is going to find that these vehicles are impractical. The problem with this policy that the government is introducing is that it's putting a tax on people's lifestyles and a tax on people's jobs. That is the worst thing that you could do for productivity—putting a tax. The reason why a tradie will carry, for example, a heavy jackhammer, is that they've got to get through some heavy concrete. You're talking about the laws of physics here. You cannot defy them with mystical policies that you might bring in. You've got to deal with practicalities when it comes to this policy, and you are not doing that. It's all about the pace that you're going about it, because there is nothing—I defy anyone who wants to disagree with me: point to anything, even on the far periphery of any innovation—when it comes to battery technology or the storage of electricity in a vehicle, that will demonstrate that it will go anywhere near the time frames that your policy is going to implement.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again in this place, with the coalition, who absolutely hate the car industry, hell-bent on destroying good jobs. I have to remind the Senate and the senators in this place about the car industry that used to exist in Australia.

We have senators who make contributions on this point where they keep forgetting the fact that, when Joe Hockey was Treasurer, he rejoiced in the fact that Ford, Holden and Toyota shut up shop in this country, and we saw close to 200,000 jobs connected to the car industry go out the door and offshore.

I'll tell you what it has to do, Senator Chandler. I don't normally take interjections from you—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a good one!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a good one. The point here is that, if we had a car industry in Australia today, cars would today be much cheaper than they are currently. We have to import cars because those opposite decided that, as a matter of policy, the government was no longer going to support a local car industry.

If my memory serves me correctly, Australia is the only country in the OECD that does not have some form of car industry. Every other country does. It is quite embarrassing that we do not have the ability in this country to make things here, particularly cars. It wasn't just about the motor vehicles that were made here. It was also about all the indirect jobs resulting from making motor vehicles. We had a bunch of engineering jobs that were connected through our TAFEs and universities. There were a number of boilermakers. I know this because my dad used to be a boilermaker; he worked for Ford for many years. My grandad worked for General Motors from when he first came to Australia up until the day he retired, 45 years later. And General Motors went overnight.

There were all of those other components in the supply chain that a number of small manufacturers contributed, not just to motor vehicle making here in Australia but to other sectors in the economy that they fed into. So we had this knock-on effect. As I said, there were around 200,000 jobs that simply went overnight as a result of the closure of the industry. They were worth around $29 billion to the Australian economy back then.

It is important to remind everyone—the people here in the gallery and those that are watching—about the Liberal Party's legacy when it comes to manufacturing, particularly in the automotive sector, because we also want to look at where we see ourselves in the future. It is important that there are greater investments, whether they be in hydrogen, electric or hybrid-style vehicles. All of these are part of the market that we now live in. The automotive industry is one that's very dynamic at the moment. It is interested in looking at new technologies and looking at ways of reducing the cost of new vehicles in this country to ensure that we do have better standards.

Who would object to having better standards in the future? It would be the same debate that we would have had several decades ago around seatbelts. There would have been people who said, 'It is my right not to wear a seatbelt,' but—guess what—we now have standards that say that you have to wear a seatbelt for safety reasons. In the same way, we're trying to adopt better fuel standards that are currently being met around the world. But, for some reason, there are people here in this country and in this parliament that still want to live back in the old ages. They need to get a reality check and understand that, to move forward as a nation, as an economy, we need to also adapt to what is actually happening around us outside of our own little bubble.

The rest of the world has already moved on. They are already using what we call premium petrol 95 as their standard. As a result, fuel efficiency is helping to make a contribution towards lowering our emissions here in Australia. I just wanted to make that point and place on the record that, when we look at how many jobs have been lost in the car industry, it is those opposite that should be blamed. They now have the audacity to come into this place and tell us that somehow we're getting it wrong by actually helping Australians access affordable, cleaner vehicles with greater standards in this country.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to all coalition questions. I'm not sure where to begin. There are a couple of really important ones here. I'll start with Senator Chandler's question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher, around Leila Khaled.

I note that the minister said that it is a priority for this government to keep the community safe and united. Well, we haven't really seen that. We haven't seen it with what has transpired in relation to the events of 7 October, and we haven't seen it with the rise of antisemitism in this country. That is a significant concern.

I note that the Green Left and the Socialist Alliance are the host of this annual Ecosocialism conference in Perth where this pro-Palestinian terrorist is expected to speak. Whilst the comment from the minister was that there isn't any awareness of it, it would be important for us to have very clear answers saying that if an application is made then the application will be rejected, because we don't want somebody in this country who spreads this kind of messaging. I think it is important to reinforce that publicly and to reinforce it in a manner that leaves no question whatsoever as to the position of this government on antisemitic materials.

The next one is in relation to Senator Price's questions regarding white privilege. A number of times the Minister representing the Prime Minister noted that the government accepts the outcome of the Voice referendum. However, that was not the question that was asked. The question that was asked, multiple times, was: does the Prime Minister agree with Labor's candidate in the seat of Dunkley that the referendum was a display of the worst white privilege in the country? So it's not around whether you accept the outcome. It's about whether the leadership of the government agrees with the candidate in Dunkley that the referendum result was the worst of white privilege in our country, particularly when we note that some 56,000 people who live in Dunkley and who voted in Dunkley in the referendum will also be voting in the by-election, and the Labor candidate has labelled the exercise of their vote, their democratic vote, as the worst of white privilege in our country. That's a real concern. I do note that the minister made the comment that it is an excellent candidate that they have in Dunkley, whose focus is jobs, housing and education. I'm just concerned about why the most public commentary was in relation to the Voice referendum result.

Then I come to the questions from Senator McKenzie in relation to the new car tax. Last week I had the privilege of being in Parramatta, in Western Sydney, with our candidate for Parramatta, Katie Mullens, and our leader, Peter Dutton, speaking to motor dealers in relation to this issue. One of the consistent messages we received was that there is an understanding that there is a need to reduce emissions—this is important—but the issue is that the time line and the way in which this government is addressing this issue is not appropriate for the problem. Having this rolled out within the next 10 months, on 1 January 2025, is just too fast. One of the impacts, according to the motor industry, is that it will keep people in their cars for longer. They gave the example of New Zealand, where the current average age of a motor vehicle is 15 years. In Australia it's under 10 years. This new motor vehicle tax will keep people in older cars for longer periods, and those cars are higher-emitting vehicles than something that perhaps is produced today. This is an unintended consequence of this new car tax, notwithstanding the issues that my colleague spoke about earlier around the fact that a lot of these cars are going to cost a lot more money. And you don't have a choice to pick a different car. You can't have an electric ute hauling a bunch of building materials, because it just can't get there.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once upon a time—a very, very long time ago—when the National Party was probably just a twinkle in the eye, a grand new development came along, an exciting development that terrified much of the world.

And that great development was the automobile. At the time, people were concerned and alarmed: 'How on earth could I possibly get my harvest to the market in that thing? It just won't work! The petrol won't take it far enough. The roads are all made of dirt. Oh my goodness! We can't do this. This is going to ruin how we live our lives. The world will end. What about the horses? Who's going to protect the horses?' Come on. Why don't we just get over this and realise that this is about technological development? This is about the future. This is about looking towards how things are changing.

We've got a situation where we are one of the last countries in the world without meaningful standards in this arena. What does that mean? It means that the dirtier cars in the world are being dumped on our doorstep. That is what we are being left with, because we are behind. We have fallen far behind. Look at the United States. They have had vehicle standards for 50 years, and we are standing here, listening to the Liberal Party and the National Party talk about how this is going to end something. That's their favourite line, whether we're ending the weekend or we're ending the future of gas guzzlers, which obviously are their favourite option here. This is about more choice. This is about driving towards a cheaper way of driving your car, but it is an option.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you can afford the ticket price!

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie is interjecting there. I look forward to having this conversation with you in five or 10 years time, Senator McKenzie, and you can admit how wrong you might be. Here we stand with a great opportunity in front of us—an opportunity that is supported by many of the car makers. Just today, just a couple of hours ago, we saw Toyota launching a new fully electric SUV—fully electric!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's good! How much is it?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Toyota, Senator McKenzie. And that SUV, the bZ4X, is going to make a difference. This is another manufacturer getting on board, understanding what the future looks like. More choices for people—that is what we are about. If you want a petrol SUV, Senator McKenzie, you can still go and buy one.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: the senator continually reflects that I am somehow anti-EV, which I am not and have never been.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not an adverse reflection, and you know it's not a point of order. But I would say, Senator Grogan, direct your comments through me, rather than directly to Senator McKenzie. That would have been a better point of order, Senator McKenzie.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would say, Deputy President, that my reactions were just responding to the interjections that I'm hearing, and no offence was meant.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please don't respond to the interjections.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's so tempting, though, right? In summary, we don't want to be the dumping ground for inefficient cars in this country. We have a vision for the future, and we have a vision which leaves people with more choices. We are taking these standards forward—in a proper consultation, can I add, where we have had great engagement with a number of vehicle manufacturers who are keen, very supportive and right behind exactly what it is that we are trying to achieve here. I think it just leaves those opposite to get on board and stop the scaremongering. The automobile, when it was introduced, did not bring an end to the horse. The automobile, when it was introduced, developed many, many times, over and over again, and that is exactly what it is doing again here now.

We are looking to the future, and we will have cleaner vehicles, more choices for motorists and a better future for Australians.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I likewise rise today to take note of the responses provided to coalition questions during question time. Often, when standing up to take note in these debates, particularly now that we are in opposition, we really have justified why the hour from 2 pm to 3 pm each day is called 'question time' and not 'answer time', because time and again the opposition comes into this place asking questions of the government—important questions, questions that in many cases have been relayed to us by constituents back at home, by stakeholders and by communities across this country—and time and again there is no response from the government. There is no clear answer; there is equivocation, there is spin, and there is absolutely no substance to what this government is trying to achieve on behalf of Australians.

We did have a wide-ranging list of questions here today. My colleagues Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Kovacic have gone through some of these issues, but whether we're talking about the granting of visas, border security, national security or keeping Australian communities safe, whether it's this government and its uncanny ability to wink to the radical left in this country or it's taxing the family car, this government has its priorities absolutely wrong. It is all spin and no substance.

I want to touch on just a few issues in my contribution in the chamber here this afternoon that were raised during question time. The first one is the government's failure to keep the community safe in this country and to take truly seriously some of the concerns we are currently seeing play out across the country. The concern that I particularly have is the government's failure to take the rise of antisemitism seriously. A couple of weeks ago my colleagues on the legal and constitutional affairs Senate estimates committee Senator Paterson and Senator Scarr asked some very pertinent questions of the Department of Home Affairs, questioning why the government have developed a specific package of support that is going to deal with Islamophobia in Australia but haven't developed a similar program to tackle antisemitism. My colleagues point out that there is a crisis of antisemitism in this country, and we know that this the case because it is being borne out by statistics on the reporting of prejudice-motivated crimes. But when my colleagues Senator Paterson and Senator Scarr asked these questions in Senate estimates, when they put questions to the Department of Home Affairs asking them why they hadn't done more to tackle antisemitism, they said, 'I will take that on notice.' I think many of the senators on the side of the chamber are getting progressively sicker and sicker of hearing that at Senate estimates. Yes, we recognise it is the right of bureaucrats and of ministers to take questions on notice, but it does get very frustrating when we are bringing important issues to Senate estimates and, indeed, into question time, and ministers are taking questions on notice and are not providing fulsome responses.

We saw that again today in a conversation we had about Labor's new tax on family cars, and I find it interesting that other Labor senators want to come in here and talk about ancient history—they want to talk about what governments past have done—but they don't actually want to come in and talk about the fact that under the new proposal by the Albanese government the family car is going to cost significantly more. This is going to impact really badly on individuals, households and businesses across Australia that are buying big cars. We know that this tax means it's going to cost more than $11,000 more for a Toyota RAV4, more than $12,000 more for an MG ZS, and more than $25,000 more for a Toyota Land Cruiser. When I'm driving up the Midland Highway in Tassie, I see quite a few land cruisers on the road, and it absolutely staggers me that they are going to be $25,000 more expensive under this Labor government. But you wouldn't hear that from the Labor senator's contributions during take note of answers. You wouldn't hear that in the response from any ministers to questions asked by the coalition today because, as I said at the start of this contribution, this government are all spin—they are zero substance.

They come here every day and refuse to actually engage in the issues that are important to all Australians.

Question agreed to.