Mr MURPHY (10:30 PM) —I rise to bring to the attention of the parliament an issue that has a direct and daily impact on every Australian family. I am referring to the fact that the fuel efficiency of the Australian vehicle fleet is at the bottom of the list for OECD countries. According to recent figures, Australia's national average fuel consumption for new passenger vehicles is 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres. By comparison the Italian NAFC figure was 6.8 litres per 100 kilometres, the UK figure was 7.4 litres per 100 kilometres and the New Zealand figure was 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres. There is no doubt that these figures reflect the lifestyles of these different countries and the ages of their cars, but the fact that Australia is at the bottom of the list presents a serious challenge to our manufacturers and governments.

According to the NRMA in a submission made to a recent government inquiry, virtually no improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency has occurred over the past seven years. In fact, according to recent reports, the original FJ Holden had a better fuel consumption than present models. It is clear from the statements of the federal government that there is a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of this matter, just as there is a profound lack of understanding of what needs to be done to change the situation. The effect of this unacceptable wastefulness, compounded by the GST, is that Australian families are now forced to spend a record proportion of their incomes on transport. For example, according to a recent Sydney Morning Herald story, the average Sydney household spent $6,127 on transport in 1998-99, up $1,300 from the previous year, with the growth mainly caused by increasing petrol prices.

Simply blaming rising oil prices for these increases, as the government has done, without considering the impact of poor vehicle fuel economy ignores a large part of the problem. The miserable fuel economy of Australia's transport sector has a synergistic effect on numerous economic and environmental problems. Poor fuel economy adds to our growing balance of payments deficit because we are forced to import increasing amounts of oil. At current prices, we are importing more than $2 billion of oil annually. Poor fuel economy increases urban air pollution because inefficient vehicles consume more fuel and release larger volumes of air pollutants. Poor fuel economy adds to Australia's already excessive emissions of greenhouse gases because of the high fuel consumption of inefficient vehicle engines.

Senator Hill recently tried to explain the increase of 16.5 per cent in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 1998 as being the result of economic growth. This is despite Australia's Kyoto commitment to cutting emissions to eight per cent above 1990 levels by 2008 or, at the latest, by 2012. Apparently most of the increase has come from transport—that is, cars and trucks—and yet the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has made no statement about the measures the government intends to take to reduce these emissions. All he is reported as saying is, `It's a reminder that the challenge is a difficult challenge.'

We already know that, Minister, and we also know that there is a significant opportunity for improvement. As Professor Ian Lowe, one of the government's more trenchant critics, has repeatedly warned, Australian industry lags the rest of the developed world by about 25 per cent in energy efficiency. Is the minister aware that the United States government's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles scheme requires that American automobile manufacturers develop and have ready for market mid-size cars that get 34 kilometre per litre or 80 miles per gallon by 2004? Such a vehicle would be about four times as efficient as today's comparable Australian made cars.

While Sydney commuters struggle with a saturated public transport system and the NSW Labor government spends millions trying to deal with ever growing demand, not one cent of federal funding has been made available by this government for improving rail based public transport. The federal government's motivation for this policy appears to be the belief that all transport should be privately owned and road based. Apparently government should withdraw from the provision of public transport. Under this policy, building roads with taxpayers' money for the uncharged use of road freight operators does not seem to be a misuse of public funds, just as handing out billions in diesel fuel cash grants is seen as a fair way to spend other road users' fuel excise. It is extraordinary that in 2000 we have a government that is so short-sighted and so deaf to the warning of experts who say that the world is on the verge of long-term fuel shortages. Instead of squandering billions on fuel rebate handouts the government should be investing in the research and development needed to produce the new generation of vehicles that will make significantly more efficient use of available fuel supplies. (Time expired)