Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I must say this is a bit of a catch-all MPI today with a wide range of topics. But, notwithstanding its breadth and the fact there are a whole range of moving parts here, on every single one of the moving parts we have a very good example of areas where the government is making significant progress on behalf of the Australian population and one where the policies of those opposite, both when they were in government and currently2, are in stark contrast.

I'll start with fuel supplies. It's one where there is a great deal of misinformation, and I think it's absolutely critical to put out there from the outset that Australia is facing solid fuel supplies. Our national fuel supply is in good shape. The shipping that is meant to arrive is arriving, and Australia is achieving its minimum petrol stockholding obligations. It is really important to get that out there. It's important to clarify that, across petrol, jet fuel and diesel, Australia is achieving its minimum petrol stockholding obligations. In relation to petrol, we have 36 days supply, 1.56 billion litres currently in stockpiles. In relation to jet fuel, we have 32 days supply. In relation to diesel, we have 34 days supply, and we have 35 days supply of urea. It's really important to clarify that, at that national level, Australia is achieving what it needs to.

As the minister indicated in question time, we're not denying that in some local areas there are difficulties for some customers and some businesses in obtaining diesel. That is something which the minister made very clear. But what we need to understand is that that is an issue of spikes in demand, particularly in local areas. It's not an issue of national supply levels, and that is very important. The government has made clear that this is an international crisis, and the important obligation on the government's part is to make sure that our international supplies are maintained and that our stockpiles are maintained, and that is exactly what is happening.

When it comes to what's happening to industry, when it comes to what's happening to some of these localised areas where there are difficulties in obtaining access to diesel, the minister has convened the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee. It's in fact met on a number of occasions. The minister for energy, the minister for agriculture and the minister for industry convened a roundtable just today in order to engage with industry. This is exactly the kind of proactive engagement that is appropriate at this time to understand the local contours of these issues and to understand the issues sector by sector. And it's exactly through that kind of engagement that the feedback to the minister has been on the whole that what we need to do is to make clear to people that they shouldn't be purchasing more than they need, that they shouldn't be purchasing double or triple their normal usage. That's the message we should be getting out responsibly, both through the government and through key stakeholders. In fact, it should be the message that the opposition is getting out there, but, for political reasons, clearly that's not the case.

It's also important that we look at what the government is doing when it comes to the retail side of this. When it comes to petrol, the Treasurer has asked the ACCC to closely monitor fuel-pricing behaviour to ensure that international events are not used as an excuse for excessive price increases, for price gouging. Not only has the Treasurer done that, but this government has put in place very significant penalties for such behaviour that breaches Australian Consumer Law. So, when it comes to fuel supply, it's important to point out that the national fuel supply is in good shape and that our stockpiles are in good shape and, in fact, at 15-year highs but that, yes, the government is going to work through with stakeholders, as we did today through three senior ministers meeting with stakeholders. The government will work through with stakeholders to manage some of those local issues.

When it comes to affordable energy, I just turn to recent modelling. When it comes to the transition that this nation needs to go through, recent modelling by Treasury compares an orderly transition and a disorderly transition. Anybody that's familiar with macroeconomics knows that orderly transitions are transitioning earlier rather than all at the last minute and would expect that it would be better to have an orderly transition, but what Treasury has done in a rigorous and comprehensive way is to actually quantify the difference. What Treasury found was that, by 2050, if the economy goes through an orderly transition as opposed to a disorderly transition, an orderly transition would see an economy that is $2 trillion larger. An orderly transition would see per capita GDP $4½ thousand higher. It would see more jobs, it would see higher paid jobs, and, critically, it would see significantly lower wholesale electricity prices with an orderly transition.

But what's perhaps most scary when it comes to the energy transition, which those opposite seem so averse to, is that what's even worse than a disorderly transition is one other option they looked at, and that's no transition. So those opposite, after having essentially taken a disorderly transition to the last election, have, during the course of this term, chosen to go to no transition. Their big policy development in this space, this term, has been to abandon any targets—to abandon net zero by 2050. So we go to an even worse position, based on the Treasury modelling. It is really quite remarkable for those opposite to come in here with an MPI on affordable energy when all of the economic modelling makes clear that an orderly transition is the best way forward. Those opposite seem to have gone from a bad policy last election to an even worse one this time based on nothing other than a populist whim.

Finally, I'd like to talk about economic security for Australia's families and businesses. Again, the contrast at the last election couldn't have been clearer. We went to the last election promising a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer—two tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, after having already delivered one, and there will be one delivered in this upcoming budget and one the one after. Those opposite, at the last election, campaigned against those two rounds of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. They promised they would come into this place and undo them. It's not clear where they stand on that now.

What about the economic security of owning your own home? We went to the last election promising to help more Australians into homes with an expansion of the five per cent deposit for first home buyers, which is something we've delivered.

Economic security is about security in your health care, and this government is delivering more access to bulk-billing. We're already seeing the results of that flowing through. We're delivering on more urgent care clinics. I've got two operating and being heavily utilised in my own electorate. People seeing doctors, not having to go to emergency departments and being able to bulk-bill it is providing security to Australian families right now.

Economic security is also about your job and your training. That's why this government promised a 20 per cent cut to HECS, and that's what we delivered in the first bill introduced into this chamber. That's why we're delivering paid prac. The Minister for Education gave such a powerful example of that in his answer in question time today about a nursing student who is going to be able to pay for an Uber to go home after a shift finishing at midnight rather than having to contest with public transport.

Economic security is about dignity in retirement, and there are so many areas that this government is delivering. The Treasurer spoke about this in question time today. It's about payday super, making sure that the over $5 billion that isn't going into people's accounts, primarily people in vulnerable jobs and low-paid workers, goes into people's accounts and supports their dignity in retirement.

But it's also about the LISTO, the low income superannuation tax offset, a really important bill that's going to pass the Senate today with the support of the government and the Greens. But those opposite are opposing it because their rationale is to give bigger tax breaks to those with $10 million accounts and no extra support for LISTO.

Economic security is about having a good job. This government has seen inflation come down, but we've achieved that while supporting 1.2 million jobs being developed in the economy, and that's incredibly important for individuals and families right across our society. This government believes in supporting jobs growth while at the same time responsibly managing the economy. One of the first thought bubbles from the new shadow Treasurer was to say that the Reserve Bank shouldn't have a dual mandate and that we should explore dropping employment growth and full employment from the Reserve Bank's mandate. I'm not sure where that is yet. Nobody else senior on the opposition backed that idea in, but it certainly hasn't totally gone away.

On issue after issue, when it comes to family security, individual security, this government has backed in sensible economic development, jobs growth and then all sorts of measures for cost-of-living support that time and time again, those opposite vote against or campaign against, yet they come into this place with an MPI that suggests that somehow they're the champions of people's economic security. It just flies in the face of what has happened over the course of the last term and this term, and it flies in the face of what those opposites say. So this government stands up for fuel supplies, for affordable energy and for economic security.

See this speech in context