Senator TIERNEY (3:58 PM) —I rise to continue my contribution to the second reading debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001. I again congratulate the Howard government on reducing the excise on petrol by 1.5c per litre. This stands in stark contrast to what Labor did during their 13 years in power. I would like to remind the Senate and also the nation of what Labor did to petrol excise during that time. They have a colossal hide in criticising this government over the last few months on petrol excise. They know, and indeed the public are becoming increasingly aware, that the price of petrol is being driven by what is happening in overseas markets in particular oil production countries that have put up the price per barrel of crude by 300 per cent over the last 18 months. That is what is driving fuel prices up.

Excise is a component, and we have reduced the excise. That is very different from what Labor did in 13 years. I cannot recall on one occasion that Labor ever reduced the excise on petrol. As a matter of fact, they did the exact opposite. They put it up in two different ways: first of all, they increased the real rate number of cents in the dollar; and, secondly, they indexed it, which meant that, as inflation went up, the excise went up in a compounding type of way.

The net effect of that compounding was that, while Labor started office with an excise on petrol of 8c, by the time they left office it was 34c, through that double compounding effect. Budget by budget, on five different occasions, they put up the actual rate and then, each quarter, it was compounded by the inflationary effects. So on 23 separate occasions under Labor the amount of cents paid by motorists went up. Why was that done? Because Labor could not manage their budgets, they could not manage the economy, we had the recession that we had to have, according to Paul Keating, and they ran up public debt to $90 billion. This government has now repaid $60 billion of that. So Labor had no incentive to reduce the excise. As a matter of fact, they took the petrol bowser as a milch cow where they could suck more money out of the taxpayers who were motorists, putting it up from 8c to 34c a litre. That is Labor's record in government.

Our record over five years has been very different, and we have recently reduced the excise by 1.5c. If Labor were elected again, what are they likely to do in office? We can gain some guidance on what they are going to do from the words of the master himself, Mr Kim Beazley, who on 3AW with Neil Mitchell actually gave us a bit of a window into what Labor is likely to do in this area. Neil Mitchell could not believe his ears, as is revealed from this transcript. He asked Mr Beazley:

Kim Beazley's response was:

So just when you thought the Labor Party were going to roll back, it seems they have changed their mind. But wait, there's more. Neil Mitchell continues his questioning by asking:

Kim Beazley's response was:

Neil Mitchell thought he had misheard Mr Beazley and said:

Mr Beazley then revealed his true colours, when he was backed against the wall. He said:

So there it is: you are not going to get any relief under Labor.

If we are to judge by their 13 years in government, what you are going to get is a continual increase if the Labor Party ever get back into power. Why would they do that? Because their history—and, I am sure, their program if they ever get back—is as big spenders, which is the way they ran this country into trouble through the eighties and to the mid-nineties. After 13 years we had record inflation, record debt, record unemployment and total mismanagement of the economy. Increased fuel taxes would be part of that continued mismanagement by Labor if they ever get back into power.

Let us have a look at what happens in the state arena, because this whole area of charges on motorists through buying petrol is not just a federal government matter; it is also a state government matter. We collect excise on behalf of the state governments and then give that money back to the states. What do they do with it? There is a lot of variation between the states and there is a particular variation between Queensland and New South Wales. I was recently told the story of a motorist from the Hunter Valley, where I live, who went to Queensland and was absolutely amazed to find that petrol was 20c cheaper there than in New South Wales. Why? The reason is that, of the money from excise that the Queensland state government receives, they return $360 million to motorists every year. That is why petrol is 20c cheaper up there. The Premier of Queensland is very proud of that, and he has every right to be proud. He said:

So you have a Labor Premier in one state who is prepared to help motorists. In New South Wales, how much is his counterpart, Bob Carr, giving back? Not one cent, not a zack—nothing coming from Bob Carr. Maybe they should rename Bob Carr's New South Wales as `the state that loves to slug motorists'. He gets the money back, and he gets a lot more back than Queensland does because his is a bigger state, but how much money does he give back to motorists?

The New South Wales state government receive back $707 million every year. How much of that do they return to the motorists? They return $47 million, and they pocket the difference, which is almost $650 million. Half a billion dollars of the motorists' money is pocketed by the Carr government. Is he prepared to put the rate down? Is he prepared to return any of that? Not a cent. Why only $47 million? It is a very interesting sum. I will tell you what happens when you get to the Queensland border. Because the difference in petrol prices between, for example, the towns of Coolangatta and Tweed Heads, which are side by side, is so much—20c in fact—everyone who lives in the northern part of the state near the border would go and buy their petrol in Queensland. So they have a graded reduction in excise: those who live right up near the border get the full 20c, as you get further away it starts to reduce and when you get down to about Grafton it is nothing.

Grafton motorists are slugged the full amount by Bob Carr, like the rest New South Wales, because the government thought they were too far away from the border to notice. What we want to know is: why can't Bob Carr bring that a bit further south—like as far south as the Victorian border? Let us give the New South Wales motorists the deal that the Queensland motorists get: 20c a litre cheaper. New South Wales can do it; it is up to Bob Carr to do it. He is given the money by the government. We call on him to return more than half a billion dollars that he is pocketing that really belongs to New South Wales motorists.