Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 seeks to amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, to exempt from fringe benefits tax cars that are zero or low emissions held by the provider and used by, or made available for the private use of, employees. It is a classic Labor government market intervention cheered on by rent seekers who hope to get a free ride on the backs of other taxpayers. I support the greater rollout of electric vehicles in Australia, but this bill is a very clumsy attempt to get there and, as such, I won't be supporting it.

Firstly, a bit of background: the previous government's Future Fuels and Vehicle Strategy detailed a technologies-led approach to reducing transport emissions while ensuring that Australians can drive their preferred type of vehicle. We didn't seek to pick winners in the market. Three principles underpinned the former government's policy: firstly, partnering with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment in future fuels; secondly, focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies; and, thirdly, expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choices and minimising costs of integration into the grid. In government, the Liberals and Nationals committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicle technologies. This included about $250 million to ARENA to roll out fast charging stations across the country. Round 1 of the program resulted in a sevenfold increase in fast chargers in our cities and regions.

Listening to some of the speakers this afternoon, it would appear as if there are no electric vehicles operating in Australia, but that's far from the case. Off the back of this investment we've seen very good results. We've seen the sales of plug-in electric vehicles triple from 7,000 in 2020 to more than 20,000 in 2021. The coalition's approach was estimated to create the environment for 1.7 million electric vehicles to be rolled out by 2030. The electric vehicle market is strong and it is growing. In my maiden speech on Monday, I spoke to the need for governments to only intervene where there is a need to. There is absolutely no demonstrated need for this legislation.

This legislation throws up many different questions. Firstly, how much will it cost? The government's explanatory memorandum says that it will cost $205 million over the forward estimates, but the Parliamentary Budget Office's post-election review contains a medium-term projection of $2.3 billion over the decade, with a per annum cost culminating in $639 million by 2032-33. That is a huge economic opportunity cost for government, and this bill is not fiscally responsible.

What will the market impact be? I note that EV demand skyrocketed under the previous government, as I mentioned, almost tripling between 2020 and 2021. It did not take either an elaborate market intervention or endless buckets of public money to achieve that. Supply of EVs is already increasing in line with natural market forces. EVs currently maintain their largest ever market share, and multiple major car companies, including Mazda and Nissan, have committed to becoming fully electric within the next decade. The latest figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, who were in the building yesterday, show sales of pure battery EVs last month represented the highest market share ever recorded. This bill won't make a difference to the trajectory of this growing industry.

Another question this raises is: will this lower costs? The Institute of Public Accountants say it won't. Their evidence on this bill says:

Private buyers and sole traders of EV's cannot access these significant savings … The Governments assertion that this initiative makes the take up of EV's more affordable is misleading …

There was further evidence to say that this bill:

… will deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners.

The next question I have is: what will be the environmental impact? The evidence of the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water failed to quantify what the emissions reduction impact of this bill would be. The Institute of Public Accountants stated the policy will have negligible impact on reducing carbon emissions from the transport sector—a negligible impact. That's $2.3 billion over the decade for a negligible outcome. So it begs the question: what will be the economic impact? The bill will attempt to artificially stimulate demand in what is already a growing market, and even the most rudimentary understanding of supply and demand will tell you that this bill will only add to inflationary pressures that are already being felt across the country. A number of experts have raised serious questions about the equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures on the EV market that this bill will bring about. This bill certainly poses more questions than it does answers.

I note the comments from the previous speakers, the teal Independents who've already spoken before me, applauding and welcoming this bill, and outlining their support for this bill—with a few caveats, I note. It's alright for them to support this bill, it's alright for big companies employing executives in their electorates who will benefit from this bill, but it does little for the workers in my electorate and their infrastructure needs. It does nothing for everyday working Australians. No matter which way you slice it or dice it, this bill benefits the well-off and places a disproportionate financial burden on the already strained backs of everyday Australians. This bill is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is robbing Port Pirie to pay Point Piper—and I challenge any member to say that three times fast.

The government has also drafted the bill at an almost frantic pace, without considering its specifics or broader impacts. I've touched on some of the submissions that have been received and some of the commentary from third-party groups. Labor cannot say, let alone confidently predict, what impact this bill will have on carbon emissions, on the EV market and on localised electricity infrastructure—or even outline a way of measuring its success or even make a prediction on the long-term financial implications beyond the forward estimates.

If this Labor government is serious about helping to facilitate a sustainable and affordable uptake of EVs in this country, then it should take a leaf out of the coalition's book and make targeted investment in critical EV-friendly infrastructure, instead of being seduced by the siren song of direct intervention and market manipulation in this industry. I would like to see the federal government instead turn their focus to delivering real cost-of-living relief to everyday Australians, and perhaps they can start with honouring their pre-election commitment of an energy price reduction.

This is a high-cost, low-impact bill, thrown together on the fly without sufficient consultation, and which threatens to divert piles of public money in complete disregard of the cost-of-living pressures that continue to cause so much unnecessary pain under this Labor government. I encourage members to vote against the bill.

See this speech in context