Tony Burke

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. To that, the Leader of the House has moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.

Milton Dick

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Ted O'Brien

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Can I speak now? I shall speak now.

Milton Dick

Is the member seeking to second the motion, and is he seeking to speak to the motion?

Ted O'Brien

I am seeking to speak to the motion. We have in the same week—

Tony Burke

Given that even he wanted to reserve his right, I move:

That the Member be no further heard.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! When I am putting motions before the House, it's highly disorderly and disrespectful. Members need to hear the decision that they need to make. The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved forthwith by the Manager of Opposition Business—That this House condemns the government for its cynical action in unilaterally suspending debate on the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and using its numbers to ram this bill through the House in complete violation of the principles of transparency and accountability, which this government promised to bring to the operation of the parliament.

What we have just seen in this House is an outrage in terms of the conduct of the Parliament of Australia and the House of Representatives of Australia. It shows complete cynicism in the way that this government is operating.

Milton Dick

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.

Catherine King

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

It has been 20 years since we've talked about having a fuel efficiency standard in this country. We stand alongside Russia as the only advanced economy that does not have fuel a efficiency standard.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! The minister will pause. The minister is on her feet. She has been speaking for about 15 seconds. That is not the reason for everyone to start screaming and yelling. We're not having that.

The member for Barker. We will listen to the minister. The minister has the call.

Catherine King

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, we have stood alongside Russia as one of the only advanced economies that does not have a fuel efficiency standard, so consumers in Australia are not getting the benefits of the most efficient vehicles, whether they be petrol vehicles, whether they be hybrid, whether they be electric vehicles or diesel vehicles like the one that I drive. This is an important reform, one that is long overdue, one that used to be supported by those opposite. They know that it is an important measure to make sure that people in regional areas get the fuel savings that are desperately needed. We know in country Australia just how important it is that we are part of the net zero transformation and that is what this bill is very much part of—making sure the people in regional Australia get the benefit of fuel-efficient cars. That is what this bill does. I'm very proud that we are bringing this into the House today and getting it through and getting this done, something the member for Bradfield could only dream about.

Paul Fletcher

I move as an amendment to the motion before the House that the word 'now' be omitted and replaced with the word 'not', so the question would be 'that this bill be not read a third time'. The reason I move that—

Milton Dick

Just pause, I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the question be put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the question be put.

Tony Burke

I seek leave of the House to move the third reading immediately.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion of the third reading being moved without delay.

Bert Van Manen

On a point of order: could I have clarification from the minister? Excuse me for asking. If I'm out of order, please tell me I'm out of order. I just want to know whether you're closing down the bill, because I want to speak on that bill. Are you closing down the bill now? Is that what you're doing?

Tony Burke

The debate on the second reading has concluded. The second reading has been put. We've now sought leave of the House to continue with the third reading. Leave has been denied. This motion is to allow the third reading to be dealt with now. That's where we're up to.

Scott Buchholz

What I think has happened is that no-one jumped to speak on the second reading. So now we're going to the third reading. We're going to put that, and there will be an opportunity to speak during the third reading and potentially during consideration in detail. So I'll put that question before the House, brought by the minister.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Stephen Jones

I move:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

I table a statement of reasons. The Albanese government knows that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and our communities. They're the heart of local communities, the significant employer, employing millions of Australians. Small businesses are doing it tough. We know that. In part in acknowledgment of this fact, we introduced a number of measures to provide ongoing support to small business in last night's budget. They'll find their way through the parliament and we'll be debating that over the course of the week and the fortnights ahead.

Small businesses need certainty and they need to ensure that measures announced in the previous budget are legislated in a timely fashion so that they can make their decisions, including their business and investment decisions, accordingly. For this reason it was a kick in the guts for every Australian small business when the opposition blocked the passage of this bill in the Senate for no good reason, leaving small businesses up in the air without any certainty about whether they would get the requisite relief anticipated by the government's tax measures that were announced in last year's budget.

The bill should have been passed into law months ago. This would have given small business and their accountants and advisors the capacity to plan for the year ahead. While the coalition blocks this significant relief for small business, the government is moving forward. We have announced an extension of the scheme. We'll extend the instant asset write-off for yet another year, providing an additional $290 million for small businesses over the course of the year ahead. If those opposite vote against this bill in the form that was introduced in the House after the last budget, they'll be voting to block that support for small businesses at the very time that they need relief, including tax relief, and certainty around the investments that they have made and will make into the future.

So we call on all members of this House to support the measures as they were originally introduced and enable the government to get on and provide the support small business deserves and needs—and were led to believe they could rely upon.

Stephen Bates

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 was amended by the Senate to lift the annual threshold of assets that can be instantly written off by small businesses from $20,000 to $30,000. We want businesses to invest and we want banks to be lending to businesses like they used to. We want productive investment that creates the jobs and industries that we need, instead of speculative investment in asset inflation.

Before financial deregulation in the 1990s, banks lent twice as much to businesses as they did for housing. Now they lend twice as much for housing as they do for businesses. This expanded flow of credit into the housing market has helped turbocharge house prices—but that is a bigger issue than what's in the bill. The biggest issue about the bill is its greenwashing. In last year's budget they announced a $340 million package for businesses to improve their energy efficiency. That was part of the $1.7 billion the Greens secured in exchange for the energy price caps.

With the passage of time we know that the Treasurer cares more about the announcements than about policy outcomes regarding the emissions of small businesses. Firstly, this program expires next month, so the $340 million announcement will be closer to a $3 million program, because no small business will have the knowledge or time to have made these investments. Treasury and the department of climate change have done nothing to promote awareness of this scheme amongst small-to-medium business owners. Secondly, this won't reduce emissions or energy bills for businesses. The short timeframe, even if it was legislated six months ago, means it is impossible for any sort of thoughtful or methodical energy investment saving to occur. Small business owners are just too busy to manage a project in these short timeframes while still trying to carry out their business.

This should be good policy, but it needs to run longer. It needs public awareness. We're not asking for radical changes. We are just trying to get the government to make its policy work so that businesses are investing in energy-saving projects. A period of three years would be enough for businesses to actually plan and use this $314 million. Until that problem is solved, we will insist on the amendments agreed to in the Senate to lift the threshold for eligible assets from $20,000 to $30,000.

Stephen Jones

I note the comments that have been made just now by the member for Brisbane. I simply make this point: it is now 12 months and one day since the government announced these measures for relief for small businesses—the energy investment relief and the $20,000 instant cash write-off. It was the reasonable expectation of small businesses around the country—their advisers and associations—that a measure such as this, which enjoys wide support within the business community and presumably within the parliament as well, that it would be swiftly legislated. As soon as was possible, the legislation was introduced into the House, and it moved through this place and was introduced into the other place.

I can understand members of the other place always wanting to do more. But what we've done in this bill is strike the right balance between providing support for small businesses in a timely fashion and incentivising investments in energy-saving technologies but also enabling businesses to make modest investments in the security and knowledge that they'll have the $20,000 instant write-off available to them. We announced in last night's budget that we intend to extend this measure for another 12 months, and legislation will be introduced to enable it to be extended for another 12 months. The right, good and just thing for this House to do is to ensure that the measures already announced can be enacted and that the new measures can be introduced into this place and enacted to provide certainty and security for small businesses. We all want to ensure that small businesses can invest in the sorts of energy-saving technologies that will be good for their business, saving them money on power bills, but also good for the environment. We all want to ensure that they can make investments with the certainty—on the basis of the advice that they get from their accountants and others—that they'll be able to get the tax relief available to them. Let's do the right thing: let's get this measure enacted now, and then we can move on to the measures that were announced in last night's budget.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the member for Fairfax be agreed to.

Ted O'Brien

I move:

That the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for consideration and an advisory report by 3 May 2024.

For the benefit of all members, I want to explain the motion that I am moving. I am moving this motion in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or a committee to be put after the first reading but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. That is the simple object of this motion—to seek the agreement of the House to refer the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for consideration and an advisory report.

I'm putting this motion forward because, in short, the measure that the government is seeking to pass through this House has become a complete and utter shambles. It is a mess. This, of course, is their measure to introduce a family car tax. This is where the government has basically said to the coalition, 'We're happy to cooperate.' Then they refused to cooperate and they ignored the coalition. Now they're back in the House saying, 'Oh, but we're ready to cooperate.' This is a government that told the industry that they're happy to engage and work constructively. Then they ignore the industry. Now they're back saying, 'Oh no, we're listening and we're engaging with industry.' This is basically family car tax 1.0 now becoming family car tax 2.0.

There's one group in Australia that we can be absolutely certain has been ignored through this entire process. In fact, I put that this government has unashamedly targeted this group in Australia. It is Australian consumers—the everyday mums and dads who right now are struggling amidst a cost-of-living crisis—who can't afford to pay more money to buy the vehicles they love, to buy the vehicles they need. The last thing they need is a family car tax being introduced.

When the coalition first heard last year that the government will be using a vehicle efficiency standard measure, we were very public in saying, 'We are happy to engage with the government constructively.' We put three key principles forward. We needed to see a balance of: (1) prices, (2) choice and (3) emissions. We're very clear with the government that we are happy to cooperate with them, so long as they come in good faith with a measure and engage constructively with the coalition to balance price, choice and emissions. But the government refused to engage. What's more, the first iteration, family car tax 1.0, made sure that there was a complete imbalance between those three key objectives, which is why, indeed, family car tax 2.0 has become nothing more than a fig leaf to try and camouflage what is yet another iteration of a tax.

We do know a few things for sure. No. 1, we know that consumers will pay more to buy the cars they love. We also know that this government either has refused to do modelling on the impact of car purchase prices or is refusing to release that modelling. Think about this. This is their second bite of the cherry here. We were crystal clear when they came out with their preferred model: release your financials. At least be transparent. What have you got to hide? Tell the Australian people—just be upfront—'Our vehicle efficiency standard, our family car tax, is going to increase the purchasing price by X dollars when you purchase your vehicles.' The government refused to have any transparency on the impact to the Australian consumer. And, despite that, here today they walk into this chamber and table legislation on 'family car tax 2.0', and they still either haven't done that modelling or are refusing to release that modelling. It's pretty obvious why. They are trying to hide the impact of this tax from the very people who are being unashamedly targeted by them to pay for it: the Australian people, who are already feeling the pain when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis which has been created by this Labor government.

Now, if there's any claim that they have made it has been that over time the Australian consumer will save money on the running costs of their vehicles. This government claims that the running costs of their vehicles will go down. Why? Because more people will buy electric vehicles—and there's no problem with that, so long as there's choice. But their argument is that, as more and more people buy EVs, they in fact will be drawing down on the electricity grid, and, because the price of electricity is coming down, their running costs are coming down. Of all the modelling that they could have released, there was one: an assumption on the price of electricity. They assumed that next year, in 2025, the price of electricity will be 27 cents a kilowatt hour. And so, when you hear anybody from this Labor government say, 'Yes, this measure will reduce your running costs,' they are assuming the price will be 27 cents a kilowatt hour.

But what did we find out last week? The draft DMO figures came out which basically indicated the real price of electricity for next year. Guess what? Do you think it's 27 cents?

Opposition members: No.

Not a chance. Next year's DMO figures go up as high as 56 cents a kilowatt hour. And so the only argument Labor has to run in favour of this tax is based on a flawed assumption of electricity prices coming down.

Now, should that surprise anybody? It shouldn't. This is the same government that went to the election with a promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills. They know that promise has been broken. In fact, last week's DMO figures proved that it's absolutely broken. Which means they are now perpetrating a deliberate untruth to the Australian people, and they are doing it also with this vehicle efficiency standard claim. Running costs aren't going to come down if the basis of their claim is 27 cents but we know next year it's going to be as high as 56 cents. And then their model goes on to say that every year thereafter electricity prices just keep coming down. Well, they're not going to come down; they're only going to be going up. So not only can this Labor government not be trusted on their claims of cheaper running cost; it is a fact that the purchase price will only go up.

So why, you might ask, would the government be doing this in the first place? They will make all these accusations, as they have before—which I think are a slap in the face of the everyday Australian—implying that everyday Australians are like Putin's Russia because there's no vehicle efficiency standard. Such an argument is absolute garbage when you have this side of the House saying for well over a year that we are happy to be constructive on negotiating such a measure so long as you get those three things in balance: price, choice and emissions. You've had the industry saying that they are prepared to negotiate in good faith. But, again, they have been ignored. There's been one bad faith actor in this negotiation, and that has been the Albanese Labor government.

But why? The reason is that this government applied an arbitrary target to EV sales by 2030. They promised that 89 per cent of all new vehicle sales by 2030 would be electric vehicles. Again, it's one of those many targets by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy which is failing. Their own department was asked, 'What is the trajectory for sales of EVs by 2030?' Do you think their answer was 89 per cent? It was 27 per cent. So, instinctively, what we have seen again from this minister is an act of desperation. Knowing full well he is failing across every aspect of his policy, he knows the only way to reach that target is to slap a punitive tax on everyday Australians to force them to buy the cars he wants them to buy. That's the only way he can achieve his target.

We've seen it right across the board. We know that's what's happening with his 82 per cent renewables target by 2030. That's running at somewhere between one-fifth and half of the pace required. Again, they're steamrolling over regional communities to achieve that target, and now they're going to be steamrolling over everyday Australian families to achieve the EV target.

To be crystal clear where we stand on this: have we ever had a problem, in principle, with the idea of a vehicle efficiency standard? No, which is why we've been on public record saying we're happy for a discussion on this. Have we set principles around it? Yes, we have: price, choice and emissions need to be balanced. Again, that balance has not been struck, which is why we are looking at this and shaking our heads yet again. What we see, in the market, is people being forced, if Labor gets this through, to choose the cars that Labor wants.

Is there any problem with buying an electric vehicle? Of course there's not. The Australian consumer deserves to have the right to choose whatever vehicle suits him, her, or their family. Now, for some people, that will be an EV, and that's a good thing. But, for other people, especially in regional and remote areas, they can't even contemplate the possibility, and, for other families, the variance of price point just means it's out of reach. Now, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, they should not be forced to purchase a vehicle because we have inept minister of government falling short of his targets.

This is why we put this motion to the House: the government has botched this so much. We do require a standing committee to bring light to the darkness of their lack of transparency. We need a standing committee to expose the truth behind what has been a series of untruths perpetrated by this minister and also the minister for transport. For that series of reasons, I put that motion to the House.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

Yesterday the Federation Chamber fully considered the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024. However, the question on the motion to report the bill to the House without amendment was unresolved. Under standing order 188, unresolved questions from the Federation Chamber are reported to the House for resolution.

The process of reporting the unresolved question to the House now resolves the matter.

There are a number of precedents for not proceeding to deal with unresolved questions which have become redundant in such circumstances. I refer members to page 786 of House of Representatives Practice and to the various examples where divisions on unresolved questions were not proceeded with.

I propose to follow the practice of any precedents in not proceeding to a division on this question.

I present a certified copy of the bill.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.