Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin is absolutely correct. The member for Moncrieff should have a look at how wide-ranging the bill is. The second reading amendment makes it even more wide-ranging. Out of respect for the House, I am going to move from this issue very quickly and close by saying this. The minister and the Prime Minister have costed their energy plan. In particular, they have costed the LPG grant. Therefore, it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about finance and how the Commonwealth budget works that they know how many people will have the opportunity to take up the LPG grant—of course they do. That is the only basis on which they can cost it.

We accept that they have to make some assumptions. If it is, say, 2.8 per cent of people, if they want to put a caveat in saying it is plus or minus one per cent, we will be happy with that. Minister, you know the answer to the question. Simply come in here and tell Australia how many people will benefit from the centrepiece of the Prime Minister’s energy policy—the centrepiece, the big bang, the LPG grant. How many people will benefit? My back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 400,000 vehicles or people—depending on how you count it, it varies—out of 13 million, or less than three per cent in each electorate, including the electorate of Moncrieff. Come in and tell us, Minister. That is all we ask. We just want you to be open with the Australian people and tell us what this means for them.

Given what I believe will be a very small impact, what is there in the minister’s energy proposals that does anything tomorrow, next week, next month or even next year to put downward pressure on petrol prices? Petrol is the fuel on which people will continue to rely. You isolate one fuel as the centrepiece of your policy—

See this speech in context