Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that your four key economic departments had provided advice to the cabinet that petrol prices may rise as a result of Labor’s FuelWatch, can the Prime Minister explain why the Assistant Treasurer, in a letter to me of 16 April 2008, asserted:

There is simply no independent advice that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices through FuelWatch.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government in framing FuelWatch has been entirely mindful of not just the advice contained within the econometric analysis within the ACCC report but, as the Assistant Treasurer has also referred, subsequent advice provided to him as well. These have been skipped over, I notice, by those opposite today. When we speak of departmental advice I also draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth that the ACCC falls within the Treasury portfolio. It is there and it has the characteristics described, I think, accurately and elegantly by the member for Higgins—and I do not often say that about the member for Higgins—when he said that the ACCC is an independent regulator—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition quoted from a letter from the Assistant Treasurer which stated that there is simply no independent advice that has reached the conclusion that there is any upward pressure on petrol prices—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the point of order is simply on relevance, the Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I am fully endorsing the member for Higgins in this particular observation that the ACCC is an independent regulator and, as I have just said, falls within the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not a minor matter. It is not an agency staffed with people who are not up to the task. In fact it has the range of expertise unique in the areas of access and pricing. This is quoting exactly what your economic hero the former Treasurer had to say about this particular body. Furthermore, in the subsequent econometric modelling which has been put out by the ACCC today, I draw again to the attention of honourable members the conclusion at the end of this document. I notice that they are not making any questions on the basis of this document because it is so definitive—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing in it!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest that this conclusion is definitive. It says:

The purpose of this econometric analysis has been to satisfy the ACCC that the introduction of the FuelWatch scheme nationally would not, based on the experience in Western Australia, lead to consumers paying higher prices for petrol.

From econometric analysis on a conservative basis, the ACCC can say that there is no evidence that FuelWatch led to any increase in prices, it appears to have resulted in a small price decrease overall.

The government has been entirely mindful of this advice in framing its position on FuelWatch. It is a contentious matter for debate—we recognise that. But we have turned to the same agency that the former Treasurer turned to in seeking advice on this matter in the first place. If those opposite contest that that is what the former Treasurer was saying when he made those remarks back in June-July last year, I suggest they raise it with the member for Higgins.