Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Nationals, the  honourable member for Wide Bay, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to properly analyse the impact on motorists of its proposed FuelWatch scheme.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we have witnessed again a government who has no answers to the problems of rising fuel prices around Australia. Increasing fuel costs are tearing at the heart of the budgets of Australian families from Western Australia to Victoria to Queensland, and from city to country. Rising petrol prices are tearing at the capacity of Australian farmers, Australian families and Australian businesses to balance their budgets. Rising fuel prices mean that families have to go without essential items in their daily lives so that they can meet their transport needs. Today we have been told by the Minister for Resources and Energy that it is just a little problem—not something we should be all that worried about.

The Treasurer told us earlier this week in question time that the people are happy with what the government is doing, and the Prime Minister has well and truly given up by saying, ‘We have done all we can.’ Here is a government faced with rising petrol prices, which made pre-election commitments to put downward pressure on the price of fuel. The price of fuel continues to go up and up and this government has no answers. It says it is only a little problem, the people are happy and, ‘We have done all we can.’ That is not a good enough response. There is an instant thing that the government could do. It could lower the excise rate. That is entirely within its capacity. A 5c reduction in the price of fuel would flow immediately from a 5c reduction in the excise rate. In fact, it would be more than that because there is some GST on top of the excise—it would be about 5.5c a litre. That is immediate, practical, permanent help. It would flow through into lower prices and better opportunities for Australian families to balance their budgets. It is something that is easy to do and worth doing.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not do it in government.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to the minister, who is now walking out of the chamber, we did do it in government. In 2000 when we introduced A New Tax system we substantially reduced fuel excise. We did it again in 2001 and then we abolished indexation of excise, so we froze the excise rate. We have form. We have delivered. We are undertaking to do it again and to take a further step in reducing the government’s tax take, particularly at a time when the price of fuel has reached such exceptional levels.

The government’s only answer to this question is to introduce Fuelwatch. The Prime Minister and government ministers seem to be basing their case for FuelWatch around an ACCC report in 2007 into unleaded petrol. It is quite a substantial document of many, many pages. Today in question time the Prime Minister was unable to identify a single line in the report which recommended that Fuelwatch be introduced. The report does not recommend that there be a Fuelwatch scheme. Indeed, it raises quite a number of serious issues that would need to be resolved, and satisfactorily resolved, before you could even contemplate such a scheme. The government is basing its case on a flawed interpretation of an ACCC report and statements which simply do not stand up.

Amongst the things that the ACCC indicated that needed to be resolved before you could progress something like a Fuelwatch scheme were limitations on the analysis that has already been undertaken which might influence the direction of the recommendations; the effect of a price commitment arrangement on independents; whether regional and country markets are sufficiently competitive to benefit from increased price transparency; the effect of Fuelwatch on price cycles and, therefore, some consumers’ ability to predict the days of the week when prices are likely to be relatively low; and the dependence on the media and various systems of publication to realise the full benefits of the scheme. There were also administrative and compliance costs associated with a national scheme. The ACCC concluded that a detailed assessment addressing these issues would have to be made before the government could confidently embark on any one of these options.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the government in fact accepted the ACCC’s advice that there needed to be some significant further investigation before embarking on this measure. In fact, all the advice that they received from the minister for resources, perhaps the man who knows more about these issues than any other minister, was that they should not proceed with Fuelwatch, that it was likely to damage motorists, reduce competition and affect particularly the people of Western Sydney. The reality is that the government were confronted with the reality that this scheme would not work. They rely heavily on the experience in Perth to underpin their proposals for a Fuelwatch scheme. However, the report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into the FuelWatch scheme and its operations in Western Australia emphasised, quite clearly, that there were other factors that needed to be considered in assessing whether or not there had been a reduction in the price of fuel in Western Australia since the introduction of FuelWatch. The evidence was quite clear.

In fact, on 24 April 2003, the West Australian contained an article entitled ‘FuelWatch branded a flop’. As early as 2003 they were saying that FuelWatch was a flop. They went on to point out that FuelWatch has failed because Perth motorists were paying 3c a litre more for fuel than in the eastern states. They introduced this scheme—all the bureaucracy and inconvenience to small business—and the cost of fuel was actually higher in Perth than in the other states. And we heard today in question time that it has not changed; the price of fuel in Perth is still higher than in the eastern states. The figures from motormouth.com.au are: $1.40 in Brisbane, $1.49 in Melbourne, $1.50 in Sydney, $1.51 in Adelaide and $1.55 in Perth. Indeed, if you look back over recent weeks, in almost every week the price in Perth, with the benefit of FuelWatch, was higher than in the eastern states.

Almost all observers believe that the only real downward pressure that occurred in Western Australia in relation to fuel pricing during the period that FuelWatch has been in operation resulted from the introduction of Coles and Woolworths into the market. There was a reduction of one or two cents in the average price of fuel in Western Australia at about the time that Coles and Woolworths entered into the market in 2004. Frankly, the experience in the eastern states has been the same. When Coles and Woolworths went into a market, the price went down. If you go to a town that has a Coles or Woolworths petrol station, the prices tend to be lower there than anywhere else.

So there is no doubt at all that there were clear factors that influenced fuel pricing in Western Australia and in the eastern states. There are pluses and minuses in each of the markets. Western Australia actually has a freight advantage in bringing fuel in from the Asian refineries, so there is a strong case that the price in Perth should always be lower than in any of the other markets. Instead, it has been largely higher than in the eastern markets. The fact is that FuelWatch has been a failure in Western Australia and for that reason there is no logical basis for it to be spread to other parts of the nation.

You do not just have to take our advice that FuelWatch has been a failure: ask the motoring organisations. I know that members opposite are very keen to quote the NRMA, its president, who I understand is currently seeking Labor Party preselection, and his deputy spokesman, who was once a Labor Party minister in this place, as being supportive of Fuelwatch. But if you talk to any of the other motoring authorities around Australia, they have a completely different view. The RAA of South Australia said in a press release on 14 April 2008:

... most of the ‘experts’ pushing for the Western Australian FuelWatch scheme seem to be poorly informed.

The RACQ said:

The Federal Government’s desire to get fuel prices off the newspapers’ front pages at any cost could be at the expense of most motorists ...

The RACV, the Victorian organisation, has been particularly strong in condemning the Fuelwatch scheme as being of no value whatsoever. They have said on regular occasions that this scheme will not work. They said:

... no one has yet provided any evidence that motorists in Western Australia are better off than motorists in the eastern states ...

FuelWatch has not worked in Western Australia and it will not work anywhere else.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has rejected the concept of price controls on fuel. The 24-hours-in-advance notification of prices will actually depress competition in the marketplace.

If you want a clear example of how this scheme is so fundamentally flawed, how can you have a scheme that actually fines a service station that dares to put its price down during the day? There is a $5,000 penalty. And the crime: it put the price of fuel down. I thought the government was trying to lower fuel prices and would want to encourage service stations to lower prices whenever they possibly could. But in reality under the Western Australian scheme and the scheme that is proposed to be introduced at a national level, any service station that dares to lower its prices on the day will actually be fined.

One of the other interesting observations that people have made in Western Australia when a service station managed to get trapped at a low price level is that it tended to run out of fuel or the bowsers broke down. There are all sorts of reasons why, when it was losing money, a service station would walk away from the arrangements on the day until it could reprice its fuel at a competitive level.

The other issue of particular importance is the impact of this scheme on independents. Independent operators will do very badly under an arrangement like this. They only have one or two outlets. Considering the capacity of Coles and Woolworths type networks, how can the independents possibly manage their losses—manage their profits at one service station against the losses at another? They are the people who get trapped. They are the ones who are held out on a limb.

The member for Leichhardt made it absolutely clear during his visit to parliament before he trotted off home that he could not care less. To use his words:

I am not concerned that FuelWatch is going to reduce the number of independents.

He let the cat out of the bag. The member for Leichhardt said that Fuelwatch is going to reduce the number of independents. It is actually going to reduce competition and he could not care less. These independents have been critically important in many markets, particularly regional markets, for putting some downward pressure on fuel pricing. To lose those independents not only is a shattering blow for small business—the people who have to bear the administrative load of this arrangement—but will also affect motorists and consumers, whose price for fuel will rise.

While I am talking about regional areas and the impact of this scheme on those areas, what possible use is a Fuelwatch scheme—with all of its administrative costs, including the cost to the budget and the cost to small businesses particularly—in a country town with one service station? You do not need to look up on the internet to find out what the price is—there is only one price in town. And yet these sorts of service stations can also be put through the whole administrative burden of a scheme that has been devised by Labor.

So you might say: ‘This scheme is no good in the country. It is not going to have any impact or value there. So maybe it is good for the cities.’ Yet we have the minister for resources belling the cat and making it absolutely clear that it is the people of Western Sydney who he thinks will be worst off. I do not want a competition between who is going to be worse off. If this scheme is to be introduced, the government must give us a commitment that no motorist will be worse off and that the price of fuel will not go up.

The Prime Minister has, during question time, repeatedly refused to give a guarantee that the price of fuel will not go up under Fuelwatch. He has not been prepared to do it. He has not been prepared to give a guarantee that his scheme, which is going to cost the taxpayers and the industry money, will not actually also cost motorists money—that the price will not actually go up. Certainly we know that the bottom prices will disappear, but will the high prices go up as well? The reality is that Fuelwatch will not work. It has not worked anywhere in Australia and it is a failed attempt to address rising public concern about the price of fuel in this country. The Labor Party have no answers. The government have no solutions. They are not prepared to take any significant action. All they are prepared to do for this ‘little problem’ is to tell everybody that the public are happy, that they have done all they can and that it is all a problem of other people. They are not prepared to grasp the nettle and do what they can to reduce excise charges. They could do that tomorrow. They could reduce it tomorrow. They introduced new excises overnight. Overnight they could also reduce the price of petrol, and that is what they must do. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate, particularly as it is about fuel prices and their impact on Australian working families. The Leader of the National Party just put forward a critique of Fuelwatch. He ignored the fact that the ACCC concluded in its report that the downward pressure on prices as a result of introducing FuelWatch meant that petrol prices were on average 1.9c per litre less under Western Australia’s FuelWatch scheme. The fact is that Fuelwatch provides convenience to motorists. It is about information that is already available to the owners of petrol stations being conveyed to the consumers—and that is what the ACCC has found.

In spite of the fact that we have had question after question about Fuelwatch from those opposite, they still will not say where they stand. They still have no idea where they stand. They say—as we heard from the Leader of the National Party—that they stand for a reduction of fuel excise of 5c, but the fact is that such a proposition was rejected by these same people when they were ministers. The then Minister for Transport and Regional Services in the previous government is now the Leader of the National Party. When this was on the agenda back then, he said—quite correctly—that it was economically irresponsible. His leader, John Howard, whom he supported through thick and thin, took them over the cliff and they followed like lemmings onto the opposition benches. For the 12 years in government they rejected the measure that they now say must be implemented by the new government. They had 12 years. And there are reasons why that is the case.

The Australian Trucking Association met here in Canberra today, and the member for North Sydney, who is still obsessed by trade unions and is still supporting Work Choices, indicated across the chamber today that it was just a union gathering. I had the privilege to address the 600 transport operators meeting here in Canberra and I understand the Leader of the National Party also had the privilege to address them. It is a pity that the Leader of the National Party was not there for the opening address by the Chairman of the ATA, Trevor Martyn, because this is what Mr Martyn had to say:

Of course it has been suggested the Australian government could reduce fuel excise but it would be just a gesture. The price of diesel has already gone up by 48c and is likely to rise an extra 20c. A tax cut of even 10c per litre would hardly be noticeable. Instead the best approach the Australian government can take is to focus on the long term and fix the road transport laws that are stopping us from using the latest and most efficient fuel designs.

This is consistent with what the ATA has said in critiquing the now opposition and giving support to the now government on our transport policies. Indeed, the ATA’s CEO Stuart St Clair, a former National Party member of this place, said on 2 May, about the leadership that had been shown by the government on issues relating to transport:

... the decisions would increase safety, slash red tape and make it easier for the trucking industry to attract and train new employees.

The Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, has shown a great deal of leadership in confronting the shambolic system we have now and recognising that it needs to go ...

That is what industry has to say. On 29 February under a headline ‘Rudd government listens to the trucking industry’—this is about heavy vehicle charges, which the opposition has blocked in the Senate—the industry had this to say:

... the trucking industry was also a winner from the Government’s $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Plan.

“Minister Albanese has listened to the industry and delivered a strong result for trucking operators and Australian families,” Mr St Clair said.

Well, the opposition’s opposing of this measure, like their blocking of many measures, puts that $70 million productivity and safety package at risk.

But what is all this really about, given that it does not stack up? What this is really about is the split there in the coalition, according to the Manager of Opposition Business, who said this about what united them in question time just this week. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

No matter who ends up leading the Liberal Party, the one thing they are united on, when they cannot be united on who should be in the parliament or who should lead their parliamentary party—

Mr Hockey interjected and it was captured in Hansard:

Is how much we hate Labor.

That is what they are reduced to. They have no ideas and make no constructive contribution. Indeed, the Australian on 19 May reported on the split between the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition over the plan to cut petrol excise by 5c a litre. The article reported that the shadow Treasurer told the Leader of the Opposition that it is ‘bad policy’ and that he would put it in writing in an email to Dr Nelson’s office. The Australian reported that the shadow Treasurer told his colleagues in a leadership group meeting that he did not agree with the policy but he would defend it publicly.

We know also that the member for Mayo, who cannot decide whether he will stay or go, so arrogant is he about the plaything that he regards the parliament to be, also had a few things to say. On Lateline on Monday, 19 May there was this exchange:

TONY JONES: Well, I’ve got to ask you; do you seriously think this particular policy, the cut to the fuel excise tax, will be the Opposition policy at the time of the next election? Do you think it’ll stick around for that long?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Mmm, well it might do, it might very well do.

TONY JONES: You look a bit reluctant to say that it will?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: It’s two and a half years away; I can’t predict everything that’s going to happen in the future.

That is not surprising. The member for Higgins had said way back in 2005 in a doorstop in Washington:

I’m saying that changes in excise will not counteract what is really causing high petrol prices, which is global oil prices and refining capacity.

They have just given up on any economic responsibility whatsoever. They do not know where they stand on Fuelwatch either. Senator Adams at the Senate doors today said:

I think FuelWatch is working. Some places are a lot higher and others are a lot cheaper. Myself I am very aware of what is at the bowser. If there is cheaper fuel at a price somewhere and if somewhere else is 10c dearer I will certainly go there.

Senator Adams, Liberal senator from Western Australia. Unbelievable! The shadow Treasurer who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:

What we are going to do is oppose the key part of FuelWatch, which is the controversial part, that sets prices or requires the prices be fixed 24 hours in advance.

So it is unclear whether they are for it or against it. We gave them the opportunity to vote on it yesterday and they ended up moving a dissent motion just so the member for North Sydney could cover up their tactical incompetence during the censure debate that occurred before the parliament.

This is an opposition in real trouble. Today an email has been sent around to the state executive, federal MPs, Alex Hawke, Scott Morrison, state MPs and MLCs parliament secretariat, from Cecilia Warren of the New South Wales Liberal Party. It outlines the resignation of the President of the New South Wales Liberal Party, Geoff Selig—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The office-bearers of the Liberal Party have nothing whatever to do with this debate. The comments are irrelevant.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not heard what the minister has got to say. I cannot make an assessment until I do.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The president, the vice-president and the treasurer have resigned from their positions today, and I table the email that has gone around this parliament. It is interesting that they singled out Alex Hawke, an extreme right-wing member, and—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under section 76 the minister is to speak to the subject matter. The subject matter of the MPI is the failure of the government to properly analyse—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is speaking on a matter of public importance. The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been no points of order from us, because they do not want to hear it. The fact is that their whole debate on petrol and on FuelWatch is all about hiding their divisions. The fact that today the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party have taken over and dominated—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I go back to my point of order on relevance. That is absolutely not relevant. If the minister wants to speak—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat! I remind the member that he did get a warning today; I was going to inappropriately point that out, but I will not. The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It goes to the motivation of what the elements here are about. They are trying to hide the fact that they are in disarray. The Leader of the National Party is not quite sure whether his party will continue to exist or not. The New South Wales Liberal Party has been taken over by the extreme Right and anyone with a moderate view has retreated from the scene. The people responsible for the racist leaflet in Lindsay during the federal election now dominate the New South Wales Liberal Party—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the House that the matter of public importance is the failure of the government to properly analyse the impact on motorists of its proposed Fuelwatch scheme. If the minister has got nothing to say about that and just wants to run down—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dunkley for his point of order. I ask the minister to return to the matter before the parliament.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very concerned that when it comes to FuelWatch and petrol prices we have not one view, not two views, not three views, not four views. Everything this opposition do is all about their internals. It is all about the fact that they are only united according to the member for North Sydney by their hatred of us. The member for Cook enters the chamber—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are very perceptive and I am sure that you realise this is a request to have something relevant to the MPI.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister was talking about Fuelwatch at the time you took the point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be interesting to see what the member for Cook has to say. I hope he participates in this debate, because he cannot participate in debates in branches in Cook because they will not let him join—although the Cronulla women’s branch will have him.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Fadden—who has had a warning during question time—on a point of order.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for pointing out my minor infraction. My point of order goes to standing order 90 and imputing of an improper motive to the member for Cook and his ability or thereof in a branch.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fadden will resume his seat. The minister has the call and will return to the matter of public importance.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the people behind him will stop assisting. The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know what the member for Cook’s views are on the matter before this House. And perhaps the member for Mitchell can put his views on Fuelwatch and petrol before the House as well, if he can march into this House. They have to separate them, of course, at all quarters. They have to put him on the extreme right because the member for Cook, who could not get to double figures in a preselection, had to be imposed by the extreme Right, so he has been loyal. It is all about the leadership tensions in the New South Wales Liberal Party. The same branch that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer come from is now totally dominated by the New South Wales Right. Brendan Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition, said he would take action— (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the failure of Fuelwatch to provide cheaper fuel for both general motorists and the transport industry. I ask: how will Fuelwatch keep fuel prices down for the trucking industry when the Labor government is increasing diesel fuel excise and heavy vehicle registration fees? How does Fuelwatch fix that particular problem for the transport industry? How will Fuelwatch lower the Labor government’s increase in fuel tax from 19.6c a litre to 21c a litre?

The transport industry is facing a triple blow from the Labor government: an increase in heavy vehicle registration fees, an increase in diesel fuel excise, and the failure of Fuelwatch to deliver consistent cheaper diesel prices at the fuel pump in every town and city across Australia. These imposts will deliver an increasing cost burden for Australia’s already struggling small- and medium-sized truck operators and their families, specifically the majority who operate on very narrow margins. There is no doubt that we have some extremely efficient and committed small, medium and larger operators in the trucking industry in Australia. I have great respect for those in the transport industry who deliver 1.69 billion tonnes of freight throughout this country.

The government will also push up prices for every consumer. As trucks carry over 70 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight, the flow-on effect of increased costs to the transport industry will be passed on to all consumers, Australian families, businesses and individuals through food prices. And let us not forget that an increase in transport costs also makes Australian exports less competitive and that one in four jobs in regional areas such as my own is dependent on exports and most exports, particularly agricultural exports, start their journey by road.

Let us look at FuelWatch in Western Australia, my home state. There is no evidence that watching fuel has actually reduced prices. In fact, recent evidence shows weekly prices are generally higher in WA than in other mainland states. Monitoring shows that prices are consistently higher in Perth than in other capitals. Interestingly, the weekly price cycle has lengthened to a two-week cycle, so motorists who fuel up their cars weekly are forced to buy at a higher price every alternate week. That affects the 76 per cent of motorists who fill up at least on a weekly basis. It is a very interesting fact that the ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel, has said that Fuelwatch is not about saving motorists money, that it is ‘not a process whereby consumers might be able to save one or 1.5c per litre off their fuel costs’. In fact, the ACCC has been reluctant to attribute any downward pressure over time on WA prices to FuelWatch, pointing out that other forces were at work in the market—the Coles and the Woolworths. And if we are trying to increase competition, what about the effects of FuelWatch on the independent retailers in Western Australia? Many say FuelWatch is driving them out of business.

There is evidence that FuelWatch has given motorists in WA less choice. An all-party report to the Queensland parliament in 2006 noted that an independent fuel retailer, Matilda Fuel Supplies, urged the committee not to introduce price mechanisms as in WA because it would be a disaster for the independents, and we have heard more about that. We heard in the House yesterday the question to the Prime Minister from the member for Cowan, Luke Simpkins, who asked:

Is the Prime Minister aware of the case where a Perth service station owner was fined almost $5,000 for the crime of simply dropping his petrol prices during the course of a day?

The member for Cowan then asked:

Can the Prime Minister confirm that his legislation establishing the failed FuelWatch scheme nationally will contain similar penalties as those in WA?

I, like Luke, would ask: how can it possibly be in the best interests of motorists and the transport industry to prevent service stations from lowering their fuel prices during the day?

In my electorate of Forrest I recently visited Elanora Villas in Bunbury, a retirement village and aged-care facility. Geoff Irwin, one of my constituents, had convened a meeting with a group of residents who wanted to talk to me. One of their key points was that, because of the high cost of fuel, they were rarely able to go out anymore. You can imagine what impact that has on pensioners. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Fuelwatch will ensure that those particular pensioners will not be one cent worse off under a national FuelWatch system?

How does Fuelwatch assist fuel buyers in small, isolated, rural and regional towns, where there may be sometimes one at best, perhaps two, fuel suppliers? What happens in Walpole? What happens in Northcliffe? What happens in those small towns? How does Fuelwatch work in those small, isolated communities? Do they have to drive to the nearest major centre to fill up on each alternative cheap Tuesday? That would be a good job!

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that would work, given that this may be 50 or even 100 kilometres away!

Alan Cadd, the Managing Director of Informed Sources, an independent research company, told AM that analysis over the past three months shows that people in Perth are paying more for their petrol than those in Melbourne. He said:

Perth is 4.5 cents higher, but even if you look at those people who are able to buy on the lowest days of the week, Perth is still at least one cent a litre higher than Melbourne just by buying on the absolute lowest day each week.

Mr Cadd in fact urged the Prime Minister or someone in his department to contact the independent group of Informed Sources regarding the issue. In spite of the selective comments of the Prime Minister, the ACCC’s report on petrol prices states that the number of independent service stations has actually decreased in Perth since 2001—the period that Fuelwatch has been in operation. SSA chief executive Ron Bowden said:

Independent service station operators brought petrol discounting to Australia and their continued existence is vital if consumers are to have access to competitively priced petrol in the years ahead.

He went on to say:

Any initiative that reduces the ability of independents to compete fairly will only worsen the problems they already face in their daily battle with the supermarkets and the oil companies. They need relief, not more problems and comments like those from Jim Turnour—

the member for Leichhardt. He was reported to have said:

I am not concerned that FuelWatch is going to reduce the number of independents.

Well, Jim, I am. And I was appalled when I heard today—and I am sure that there are many across Australia who would have been appalled when they heard—the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism describe the national price of fuel as ‘this little problem’. Let me tell the minister that it is a very big problem. Go to regional Australia, go to my electorate of Forrest, go to Elanora Villas—it does not matter where you go; it is a very, very big problem. Ultimately, I call on the Prime Minister to guarantee that no Australian will pay a cent more for fuel under Fuelwatch.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Few people in the House will be unaware of the theory of peak oil—that there is simply not enough undiscovered oil on the planet to keep up with ever-increasing global demand and that we are therefore destined to suffer from reducing supplies and skyrocketing prices. It seems that there is good news for those who worry about this. There has been a big new oil discovery. It has been made by none other than those opposite. After 12 years in government and six months in opposition, the Liberal Party have discovered petrol. Congratulations on your discovery! Where were you for the past 12 years?

When the Liberal Party were in government things were a little different. They stuck a GST on petrol and sat back and watched billions of dollars in revenue flow in as petrol prices rose. Then they signed up for the coalition of the willing which invaded Iraq, causing massive disruption to global oil production and triggering a relentless rise in the international oil price which continues to this day. Thirdly, they kept the ACCC out of any serious role in monitoring petrol prices. They simply did not believe in it. They were content to allow the absurd roller-coaster ride we have at the petrol pumps around Australia to proceed unabated.

Does anyone here seriously believe that dazzling rises and falls in the petrol price are anything other than a form of market manipulation? Does the price of bread, milk or phone calls move up and down on a daily basis? Of course they do not. But the Liberal Party have now discovered petrol after washing their hands of the pain felt by motorists throughout the past 12 years. Back at the end of 1998, 10 years ago, the average petrol price in Melbourne was around 63c per litre. By the time of the change of government it was $1.33 per litre, more than twice what it was back at the end of 1998, and, of course, it averaged $1.44 in April.

The discovery by the Liberal Party of petrol has taken an interesting form. They have expressed opposition to Labor’s Fuelwatch. That is right—they are opposing it. Those opposite, who have presided over massive rises in the price of petrol and marketing and consumer arrangements which clearly and manifestly failed, want us to keep the status quo. They do not want to see the marketing arrangements change.

What Labor have been doing in relation to petrol is to implement our election commitments. We promised to have a full-time cop on the beat, with full monitoring powers, and we have delivered. The government appointed Pat Walker as the nation’s first Petrol Commissioner. He began work on 31 March. The government has given him full powers under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act to formally monitor unleaded petrol prices to keep petrol companies in check. The government has also asked the Petrol Commissioner to have a renewed focus on LPG and diesel prices—and we are moving to implement Fuelwatch.

This scheme will require petrol stations in metropolitan and major regional centres to notify the ACCC of their next day’s prices by 2 pm the day before, to maintain this price for a 24-hour period and to apply the scheme to unleaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol, LPG, diesel and biodiesel blends. The petrol price information collected from these petrol stations will be made available to consumers through an email, an SMS alert service informing subscribed consumers of details of the cheapest fuel in their area, a national toll-free number on which motorists can locate the cheapest petrol in the area in which they are looking to purchase fuel and a national Fuelwatch website with station-by-station, day-by-day, suburb-by-suburb petrol price information.

But those opposite have opposed this. They want to stick with the same petrol marketing policies which have failed motorists in the past. As is pretty well known, this scheme is modelled on the scheme which has been at work in Western Australia since 2001. The Western Australian scheme was introduced by which party? It was introduced by the Liberal Party. The ACCC has found that there has been a reduction in prices in Perth of around 1.9c per litre on average for the period from January 2001 to June 2007, compared with the period from August 1998 to December 2000. My colleague the member for Hasluck has pointed out that FuelWatch is a popular consumer tool in Western Australia. The website gets over 200,000 hits per month, and over 30,000 people subscribe to the email service. Even more significantly, it is shown during the evening news on commercial TV stations in Perth. That is the measure of its popularity. Motorists can sit there the night before and decide which particular direction they are going to take in the morning, to go via the petrol station with the lowest prices that day. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. That sounds like something that would be useful for motorists in keeping them informed and helping them to make informed decisions, and I support it unreservedly.

But the big issue is: what is the position of the Liberal opposition? Yesterday the shadow Treasurer was hopping into it. He described it as ‘extraordinary’. He said that Fuelwatch was ‘an assault on competition, an assault on free enterprise, an assault on the market’. ‘We in the Liberal Party stand for enterprise. We stand for competition,’ he thundered. He tried to anticipate the obvious objection to this, that giving motorists information about petrol prices is procompetitive, not anticompetitive, by saying, ‘We are very happy to have prices disclosed on the internet through websites. That is all good; more transparency is fine,’ before going on to oppose what he described as fixing the prices. But the point here is about making disclosure meaningful. It is about real-time free markets. It is about giving consumers a chance. A contract to buy is about offer and acceptance. It is not much good if the price can change from the time a motorist sees it on a website to the time he or she gets to a petrol pump. In the present situation it can and does change, but it seems that, from yesterday to today, the shadow Treasurer has not been able to stick to his militant line. Today he said of Fuelwatch that they are going to support some of it and they are going to oppose some of it, just as this morning he said of the luxury car tax that they might be in favour of it or they might not. Just as his budget backflips caused the finance minister to talk about the soft Malcolm and the hard Malcolm, now we have Malcolm in the middle, a shadow Treasurer who has no idea of whether he is in favour of Fuelwatch or against it—Andrew Peacock without the suntan indeed. The shadow Treasurer is Andrew Peacock without the backbone.

It is worth taking a moment or two to find out what the people who are most likely to know about these things think. I would have thought that Western Australian motorists would have been a pretty good place to start. The Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia has recommended not only that the FuelWatch system be maintained in Western Australia but that a similar system be adopted in other states. In Western Australia this scheme has bipartisan support. That is because it works. The scheme also has the support of New South Wales motorists. NRMA President Alan Evans says:

Our research shows that FuelWatch is a benefit to motorists and if introduced in the eastern states, then they’ll get the benefits the people in the west have been receiving for a number of years ...

Fuelwatch is also supported by the leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party and by his fair trading spokeswoman, who said:

My federal colleagues appear to be unaware of what’s going on in the Sydney market.

It is supported by the leading consumer publication, Choice. So I know who I am going to trust in the matter of Fuelwatch. I will be on the side of motorists; I will be on the side of consumers. Members opposite are anxious to protect the interests of the oil majors. They always have been. But Labor said before the election that we would adopt petrol-marketing policies to help motorists and that is precisely what we are doing here.

The Prime Minister has said this policy ‘does not represent a silver bullet’ but that ‘it does, however, help competition policy at the margins’, and he is right on both counts. It is a testament to how rapidly and dramatically the Liberal and National parties have disintegrated since losing office that they come into this place and raise as a matter of public importance—presumably something they think of as strong political terrain for them—an issue about which they are unable to muster so much as a clear, coherent position. They are all over the place like Queensland cane toads. If this is the best they can muster, they continue to shred their economic credibility. (Time expired)

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a clear contrast when it comes to fuel prices: the government wants to watch fuel prices; we want to cut them. And we have form. The coalition in government cut taxes on petrol and diesel. There was a 6.7c per litre cut in excise in 2000 and a further 1.5c cut in 2001. The coalition also abolished indexation. As a result, petrol is now around 20c less than it would have been without these measures. That is the coalition’s record. And we want to go further, because here in this place, in the response to the budget, we have said that we want to cut the fuel excise by a further 5c. So we want to go further in ensuring that there are lower petrol prices for families and Australians all around the country.

As reported in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, fuel prices have increased by 25.7c per litre since Labor came to power. That is what has happened since November. The government’s answer is Fuelwatch, a plan repudiated by the Labor Premier of Queensland and by the man who is the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, a very honest and decent man, as working against the interests of working families, especially in Western Sydney, where he was born and raised—so he should know. It has also been repudiated by motoring organisations in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia.

This government’s answer when it comes to fuel prices is to sit on the sideline and watch. As with so many measures in the budget, they did not think this thing through. It exposes their lack of judgement and highlights their lack of experience. Yesterday the Prime Minister came into this place and laid out in front of him on the table a forest of spin. We saw it in the papers today. There were papers all over the place.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seventeen piles!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seventeen piles—a forest of spin. Page after page lay before him, but none had the answer to the substantive merits of Fuelwatch or the basis for his claim—and it has been made in this debate—of an average saving of 1.92c per litre. An Informed Sources press release today reads:

Careful reading of the Caveat underneath this section—

which the Prime Minister referred to—

clearly states: ‘There may be other items that may have induced a structural break aside from FuelWatch.’

…            …            …

... the supermarkets entry into the retail fuel market exerted considerable competitive pressure, forcing the prices below their January 2001-April 2004 levels.

Informed Sources Managing Director, Alan Cadd said, ‘We believe this is the effect clearly documented by the ACCC’s appendix S analysis—unfortunately it is not a result of the introduction of FuelWatch.

In their rush to a headline on fuel yesterday and earlier, trying to desperately find some substance to support their focus group driven pre-election rhetoric, they have come up short.

As we learnt in the House yesterday, this plan will fine someone—anyone—who tries to bring the price of petrol down. When it comes to the PM’s Fuelwatch plan, I would like to quote one of those who used to sit opposite, the former Prime Minister Paul Keating: this plan is ‘all tip and no iceberg’. There are some simple facts about Fuelwatch that the government cannot recognise and will not acknowledge, and their failure to acknowledge these was highlighted by the ACCC, who, rather than give the government a pass mark—there was no pass mark from the ACCC—came back to the Assistant Treasurer and said, in red ink, there is a lot more work to be done on this issue.

Here is some of the work that needs to be done. Fuelwatch will make those who can afford to pay more pay less and make those who need to pay less pay more. The Prime Minister seeks to explain it away by averaging out the impact. But you do not get to buy fuel at average prices; you get to buy it at what is available on the day. Fuelwatch will drive independents out of business. It does not place the power in the hands of the consumers but in the hands of the yield managers of big oil companies. Yield managers will be controlling the price in big oil companies because of Fuelwatch. The government need to demonstrate that the scheme will not just establish another costly instalment in the Prime Minister’s bureaucratic fantasy.

The government ran a campaign of deceit. They misled the Australian people. They said they would bring relief. They allowed Australians to believe that this would change petrol prices and that they could do something about it. But, as the ‘Kevin price index’ said in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, the Prime Minister lied. He allowed a deceit to be perpetrated on the people and families of Australia. Now they say they have done all they can do. Now it is all the problem of global oil prices—something they have only recently discovered—arguments they vilified prior to the last election. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question of the extension of Fuelwatch in the form of a national program has shown the government and the opposition in stark contrast. Yesterday the members of the opposition whipped themselves into a frenzy as they attempted to paint an increasingly histrionic picture of the queues and delays that occur on cut-price Tuesdays in states that do not have a Fuelwatch scheme. At one point the Leader of the Opposition referred to a Toyota Tarago with a wheelchair in the back. He then added five children, and he might have added an endangered species or two if it had occurred to him. In a very short time such histrionics have unfortunately become a distinguishing characteristic of the opposition’s approach in this place.

I can say to those opposite that no such scenes of petrol bargain apocalypse occur in the Fremantle electorate, because we are the beneficiaries of FuelWatch in Western Australia. As other members from Western Australia, including Senator Adams, have pointed out, we have moved to a situation where consumers are given the necessary information to allow them to make an informed choice about purchasing petrol. This is about increasing transparency and choice for consumers.

Today, for instance, I know from visiting www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au that the two petrol stations closest to my electorate office in Fremantle are offering unleaded petrol at quite different prices. Coles Express on Hampton Road is selling unleaded petrol for 153.9c per litre, while BP on Queen Victoria Street is selling unleaded petrol for 159.9c per litre. If I were filling a 60-litre tank, I could save myself $3.60 with that knowledge alone. As the Assistant Treasurer has pointed out:

It is time for the opposition to indicate whether they will stand with motorists against anticompetitive conduct or stand with those with vested interests.

I should point out that I have requested and been granted a non-standard private plated vehicle in the form of a Toyota Prius. The tank in the Prius is a pretty small one and I fill it up very rarely. Indeed, I am getting at least 800 kilometres per tank of fuel. I encourage other members and senators to consider a hybrid fuel vehicle when their lease next comes up.

On this point I note that the Western Australian Sustainable Energy Association estimates that getting struggling families into fuel-efficient vehicles has the potential to save, in effect, 45c a litre—not 5c by way of irresponsible, badly costed and roundly criticised coalition petrol excise populism, but 45c. While purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle is not an option that all families have at the moment, it nevertheless points the way forward—just as a commitment to getting more freight off the road and onto fuel-efficient modes like rail and sea freight is the way forward.

I am prepared to acknowledge the big issue here. Petrol prices are going up because oil prices are going up. Oil prices are going up because of the concern about oil supply and about the relationship between supply and demand. Yes, they will go down again, but we all know the long-range trend. Oil and other hydrocarbons are finite. We are using more and more and they are disappearing. You can try to lift your approval rating out of single figures with 5c worth of irresponsible excise populism or you can tackle the big policy challenge. I note Alan Wood’s comments in today’s Australian about the Leader of the Opposition’s petrol populism, where he said:

It is an opportunistic exploitation of the rapid rise in oil prices, and Nelson no doubt feels it has paid solid political dividends.

It is a short-sighted view, because it will do longer term damage to the Opposition’s economic credentials ...

This government is about good policy, and good policy has its own rewards. We have announced a $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund to support the design and manufacture of an Australian-made, fuel-efficient vehicle. I look forward to the day when such cars are common on the roads of Australia and perhaps mandatory in the garages of politicians. This government, on the basis of the evidentiary support of the ACCC, is attempting to tackle a problem that we all know has existed for some time in petrol retailing—that is, that the big petrol retailers are in the know and the consumers are in the dark. Fuelwatch will make a modest but significant difference to consumers in Australia. It is economically responsible and it fits with this government’s program of long-term and proactive transport and energy policy.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former speaker on the opposition side said in this matter of public importance discussion that they were for competition. There were 24,000 service stations in Australia some 15-odd years ago. There are now fewer than 8,000. The ownership by Woolworths and Coles is over 72 per cent—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.