Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the taxation of alternative fuels bills 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

In accordance with standing order 39(f), the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—This is a report into four government bills that affect the tax treatment of alternative fuels. Three of the bills apply an excise on liquid petroleum gas, compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas. The fuels were not previously subject to excise, which will now be applied at 50 per cent of that applied to petrol. The fourth bill continues a grant scheme for the next 10 years where the amount of the grant offsets the amount of excise levied on biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The majority on the committee support these bills, and it is worth looking at what some people have said about the proposal that goes with them. I go back to May 2003, when the then Treasurer—the former member for Higgins, Peter Costello—announced the then government's alternative fuels tax arrangements as an long-term important reform, saying, 'Australia must have a more consistent and sustainable fuel tax regime.' In December 2003, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, said, 'These reforms will result in a more consistent and neutral tax regime for fuels used in vehicles.' The then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, at the same time emphasised the importance of investment certainty and that the measures then introduced would achieve that certainty in an identical manner to the way in which it will be achieved by the bills considered by the committee in the present report. Furthermore, Mr Costello stated in his press release:

… today I am announcing important long term reforms to the excise treatment of fuels. The reforms establish a broad sustainable taxation framework for fuels, by addressing a number of anomalies in the current fuel tax system and providing increased long term certainty for investors, while meeting Government commitments and providing time for industry to adjust.

You will not often see me get up here and say that the former Prime Minister was right, that the former Treasurer was right or that the former Deputy Prime Minister was right; but they were absolutely right about those reforms and the effect they would have. Today we have an absolute policy vacuum on the other side. The member for Moncrieff, the deputy chair, who is going to speak next, and particularly the current member for Higgins,-who was an adviser to the former Treasurer at the time those reforms were introduced, must really be severely conflicted about what they are going to say here today in opposing the bills that the committee considered.

These bills are in the national interest. They had bipartisan support. The former government thought they were necessary. But because we now have Mr No in charge of the opposition, good public policy on these issues does not matter anymore; those on the other side are just saying no to the sake of saying no and this is probably the worst example we have seen of the positions that the Leader of the Opposition forces them to take. It does not matter what the issue is now, whether the former Treasurer introduced identical reforms to the ones in these bills or whether the former Prime Minister was a strong advocate of the reforms in these bills; those on the other side say, 'We're not going to support them because we don't support anything that the government puts up.' It is an absolute disgrace that they are taking this position on Australia's long-term fuel interests and trying to score a cheap political point. What is more, it is hypocritical. We hear day after day about the government's not being able to make cuts to the budget, to the deficit and to the bottom line, but this budget measure saves over $500 million, and what are those on the other side saying? They are saying, 'No, you shouldn't do it.' Hang your heads in shame—the position that you are adopting on these bills is disgraceful.

How can the member for Higgins come into this place and, for the sake of political expediency and supporting an opposition leader who will say no to anything, oppose these bills, despite having worked for the former Treasurer and given him advice that his reforms were good policy? It is unbelievable that we are in this situation, and it is a great shame that hangs over the heads of the opposition. We even have the unusual situation of Senator Minchin, who is not known for great policy development—in fact, his position is probably best characterised as extremely pragmatic and political—saying that this legislation should be supported by those on the other side. So a long history of bipartisanship on the way in which the measures in these bills should be dealt with is being trashed completely because those on the other side are not interested in what is good for the Australian people, in what is good for this industry or in making sure that we set up a fair regime for alternative fuels. All they are interested in is saying no and opposing what this government wants to do to make sure that Australia is better placed on these alternative fuels and on our budget bottom line.

These are important pieces of legislation, and both we and those on the other side have known the implications of them since 2003; they have not suddenly been rushed on the parliament. The Prime Minister and the former Treasurer made their statements in 2003 and set in place the policies that these bills are trying to implement, and it is an absolute disgrace that some eight years later we are seeing a complete reversal and a complete absence of policy from those opposite. The only argument that they are going to put forward here today is that it is going to affect cost-of-living issues. They are now going to try to mount another scare campaign on what is essentially their own policy, undermining it by arguing that these measures are going to affect consumers in their adjustment to the cost of living. Where is that cost-of-living adjustment going to come about? They are going to say that taxis will be more expensive, but the increase on an average $20 taxi fare, if it is passed on by the various state governments who regulate the cost of taxis, will be about 80c. So, for the sake of the opposition's attacking and undermining Australia's sensible budget and fiscal stance and undermining policy on alternative fuels, we are having an argument about 80c in a taxi fare.

The opposition stand condemned for their persistent negativity about any bill that comes here, particularly these three bills. The majority of the committee—the government members on the committee—took the sensible approach, advocated by the former Prime Minister Mr Howard, the former Treasurer Mr Costello and the former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Anderson and supported by Senator Minchin. The government has taken the sensible approach. The government members on the committee recommend these bills to the House, and that recommendation is contained in this report.

See this speech in context