Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a great privilege to be able to speak on this bill, the Fuel Security Bill 2021, this afternoon and on the importance of fuel security for the nation. When I speak to Goldstein residents, there are a number of issues of concern to them that come up. One of them, critically, is how we secure the Australian national interest in terms of strategic threats, economically and in a defence capacity, and make sure that we have the reserves we need as a country so that we can hedge our risk and be confident going into the future. There are a lot of issues that come under those banners. People are concerned about environmental risk—the various challenges we face and how they could degrade the future of the country. We have people who are concerned about supply chains and the technologies that we're going to need for the future, including having access to the materials we need as a nation to have a viable manufacturing sector—one that can be resilient and strong and can support the Australian economy, in terms of jobs and our national security. That was highlighted at the start of last year in terms of access to certain types of materials, particularly PPE, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One of the issues that regularly gets raised with me by constituents is fuel security, and it gets raised on different sides of the ledger. It gets raised with me in terms of the fuel dependence that this country has, traditionally on different types of petrochemicals, and what the need to diversify means for the future of Australia, economically and environmentally. I have a lot of sympathy for the constituents who raise those issues, because I want to see a diversification of our energy sources, much more so than the science deniers on the other side of this chamber, who seem to be only obsessed with limiting supply down to a narrow scope. I'm a great believer in hedging risk and going with technology where technology can take us. As I've said many times, I believe the future is going to be awesome. The question is whether you're prepared to embrace that technological innovation.

I welcome the discussion that so many people have raised in the areas of stationary energy, whether it's in terms of hydroelectric power, gas or renewables—not just as energy outcomes in themselves but as part of the discussion about how they can be used to build the transport fuels of the future, particularly around the potential for renewables to be part of the solution of moving to hydrogen power. That won't just deal with some of the challenges we have in a stationary energy capacity. If you look at the long-term future of things like transport energy, it's going to be dependent, at least in part, on hydrogen and its potential. Particularly if you look at the long-term risk of electric vehicles and some of the challenges we have around battery technology and recycling, as well as resource constraints around things like lithium-ion, we need fuels like hydrogen to be part of that future.

There are also more traditional concerns that people raise with me, such as our fuel security, not just for domestic industry but also for the fuels we're going to need for our national defence. This is not an academic exercise. If you look at the greenhouse gas emissions profile of the Commonwealth, a lot of it is actually absorbed in the defence forces, which use a high volume of transport fuels: shipping and bunker fuels; avgas, which is a critical ingredient for things like the Air Force; and traditional petrochemical fuels, diesel and the like, for fuelling things like tanks and other vehicles. Fuel security matters not just for our economy but also for our national security, and hedging that risk is going to be critically important for the future. But that, of course, requires a long supply chain. We have supply chains where we have domestic reservations and domestic supply. We import a large part of our fuels, particularly from Singapore, but people are increasingly concerned about what happens in an environment where those trade avenues are blocked off—it needn't be through conflict; it could simply be through some sort of blockade—and whether that will cut the country off from the rest of the world.

One of the great strengths of our country, on many levels, is that our geographic location means that we can hedge that risk by importing fuels from just about anywhere else on the planet, because there are so many different avenues for shipping routes. They're not all desirable. No-one is arguing they are all desirable, but, in the case of crisis, we have options. Many other countries do not. In fact, as a completely outside comment, a couple of years ago, I went to Armenia, a landlocked country that essentially has three out of four borders closed. It does not have the same luxury of options as we do in terms of its geography and its capacity to access open markets. We have options directly from the Middle East, directly from Singapore, directly from South America and directly from the United States, which is one of the reasons at the start of last year the government took an option to buy some fuel reserves in the United States. It gave us more options. But it's not just about having access to the fuel; it's also about having access to the shipping of it. But they're more critical in terms of refining—so that we can domestically provide resources to the Australian economy and to our national security. That's what this bill is about.

This bill is about completing the supply chain so that, if you're in the refining business, you have an incentive to continue to operate in Australia against a backdrop where we've seen a number of refineries close. We're maintaining and conserving that domestic capacity so that we can provide that degree of security for our country. As I said, it has a big impact in terms of our defence, but it also has a big impact in terms of other sectors, like agriculture, transport and mining, which are the foundations of the Australian economy and the foundations of wealth that lead to the employment of Australians. It compounds in terms of other sectors, like manufacturing and a service based economy, and ultimately provides the wealth which we all enjoy so that we can have a wealthy and prosperous country and provide the health and education services and other essential services that Australians need.

The objective of this bill is to lock in commitments from refineries so that they have clear incentives to operate, and, if there is an environment where there's a shortfall, that, of course, they get the incentive they need to continue to operate as a backstop as part of a safeguard for the interests of the nation. I've had some constituents write to me and say, 'I don't agree with what the government is doing here,' because they are concerned about environmental factors. I do understand that, but the reality is the primary basis of doing this is as a backstop for the security of the nation.

Of course, we have to make trade-off decisions and serious decisions in this parliament about the long-term interests of the nation, and that is what this bill does. It's quite clear what the impact will be. We'll stop the closure of remaining refineries operating in Australia for the next five years. It will result in 1,250 direct jobs not being lost and a further 1,700 jobs, or thereabouts, not being lost in the construction sector. Of course, it will stop a negative impact through higher prices in all fuel dependent industries. Just about every industry has fuel at the heart of its competitiveness. It's always been one of the foundations of what has made this country economically strong—not just that we've got extractive industries, agriculture and primary industries that create the wealth but also that we've got a competitive energy market that's enabled the realisation of that wealth. If you remove the competitive energy, or even the accessibility of energy, you undermine the very core of the Australian economy. When it comes to bigger discussions around stocks, it of course underpins that sense of security and confidence for the country. The way it's doing it is by providing payments directly to companies, should they end up in a situation where they drop below a certain threshold, particularly below a certain threshold in terms of a competitive price.

It's quite clear what many of the interests in this space think, because they're aware of the risks that come if we don't implement this policy, but, more to the point, what it does for the confidence of the economy if we're to back it in. I'd hope the members opposite, despite their virtue-signalling—sorry, it's not even virtue-signalling; virtue-signalling implies that there's some sense of virtue, and this is just partisanship-signalling. It's an amendment to whip up the troops, as it were, to get them excited as they watch their leader fail and flail as a consequence of their lack of vision for this country and their absence of any idea about what they want to progress. There are no other issues they want to put on the table—unless they would like to revisit the previous election agenda. We can debate that out as much as you wish. I'm quite happy to debate that.

We had the member for McMahon complaining before about Labor's last election defeat. He was, of course, the architect and the author. We see other members, like the member for Gellibrand over there, who are doing an outstanding job of ensuring that members of the coalition are re-elected, and we wish them all the best in their continued success! But we're going to get on with governing for the interests of Australia. That is the basis of this legislation. We just hope that they might, at some point, put down their partisan weapons and decide to be positive contributors. In this debate so far, that has not been the case. We hope that might change, but we know from the lessons of history that, if you want to look at future behaviour, the best indicator is past behaviour, and we know that's less likely to occur. But that's okay. That's their issue. The Australian people are ready to judge you, opposition members, very harshly at the next election, and we look forward to it.

Let's face it, they're not normally friends of mine. They're not normally fans of mine or of this government. In fact, they're normally fans of the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, and the Australian Workers Union and what they're saying the Morrison government is doing. It must have come as a knife cut in the heart of the Australian Labor Party when the national secretary, Dan Walton, of the Australian Workers Union said of the Morrison government's Fuel Security Bill and associated legislation, 'We are extremely satisfied.' They know what's on the line: their workers, their jobs, their members and, of course, the health and security of our country. He went on to say:

The security of the production payment provision, along with the investment to make cleaner fuel, will underpin longevity for both refineries. Today's announcement will save thousands of jobs, both directly at the refineries and indirectly through jobs supported in the community.

That's one of the things that has been lost by members of the opposition on this bill. It's not just that we're locking in arrangements to ensure that we guarantee the security of supply, for the Australian economy, of certain fuels for refining, but we've also increased the obligations and standards that come with it. So you're going to have cheaper, better, more environmentally sustainable and less particulate fuel supplies in this country. It's, literally, security and environmental responsibility in one. This is what we do as a government. That is not what they do as an opposition.

Let's get beyond just the naked vested interests of the workers union and look at some of the other sectors that have voiced their similar support. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, whose interest, principally, is in making sure that we have an environment sympathetic and supportive to motorists, said:

Australian motorists and the environment will be beneficiaries of the Federal Government’s plans to support the operations of fuel refineries in Geelong and Brisbane …

They said it was a 'significant and positive step'. Good on them. They're right. Let's go to the Australian Trucking Association. There are many people who work in the trucking industry and they're a critical part of making sure that we have the supply chains, so when you go to the supermarket you can get some milk or apples, some fresh food, so that the next generation can stay young and healthy. They have said:

Diesel and liquid fuel security are critical to Australia’s economy—98 per cent of the energy for the transport sector is sourced from liquid fuel.

…   …   …

This is a big win for every road user.

Correct. If there are higher costs, what happens is they flow through to the prices Australians pay—you pay—when they go to the supermarket or when they go to purchase goods and services. The Australian automobile Association says:

The Government is right to be focussed on Australia’s need to comply with our International Energy Agency obligations, and it is right to be helping fund construction of an expanded network of fuel storage depots around Australia.

That's what this bill also does. At every point, this government is delivering: security of our national energy supply, competitiveness in our national energy supply, making sure that we back the industries that need support right now—particularly, frankly, in the great state of Victoria—as part of a plan to rebuild Australia's future.

See this speech in context