Senator PARRY (3:27 PM) —I think Senator Pratt has highlighted the inadequacies of the government if she is referring to question time and the bad policy—it is certainly from her side. Today in question time Senator Conroy answered a question from me concerning Tasmania and the Tasmanian Labor Premier’s position on the reduction of the fuel excise: the coalition pledge of 5c a litre off the fuel excise, which would be a significant saving for the average family. Senator Conroy basically said that Premier Bartlett was economically irresponsible, an economic vandal. I cannot wait till the Hansard is sent down to Premier Bartlett so he can see what his federal Treasury spokesperson in the Senate says about his particular attitude towards fuel and towards the economy.

For those senators opposite, I point out that today’s Examiner newspaper—an excellent newspaper; the jewel in the crown of northern Tasmania—has an article on page 1 under the heading ‘Bartlett targets fuel excise’. It says:

‘federal counterparts’ being Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy’s policy, and it goes on with the editorial. So it is not on just page 1 but also in the editorial, which says:

organising a summit that should be supported by his federal leader—

Senator Conroy now goes against his Labor Premier—of all people, his Labor Premier. Senator Conroy has got a dilemma. I do not know how Senator Conroy is going to handle this. Premier Bartlett is obviously going to be dismayed, because Senator Conroy has called him ‘economically irresponsible’. How can we tell the families of Australia that reducing the fuel excise by 5c a litre—after GST, 5½c—is economically irresponsible? It is not economically irresponsible. That is a direct benefit back to the families of this country who rely on this.

I want to give you a mum-and-dad example of what happens in Australia today. Senators opposite need to get out a bit more; at least on this side of the chamber we get out and about in Australia and we actually hear what families are saying to us. Listen to this example of a typical family, Andrew and Kate. They have three kids and three cars—a sedan and a couple of hatchbacks. They have a son on P-plates and he is helping with the two sisters, helping to drive them to and from school and sporting commitments and other things. I will go straight to the crux of this—and I have not changed the names to protect the innocent. Their sedan travels 18,000 kilometres a year, at 13.2 litres for every 100 kilometres. Respectively, the two hatchbacks notch up 16,000 kilometres a year, at 7.8 litres per 100 kilometres, and 12,000 kilometres a year, at 7.2 litres per 100 kilometres. A 5.5c per litre reduction—that is, the excise plus GST—would save that family $246 a year. That is the minimum saving. If, as a party that is supposedly concerned about working families in this country making ends meet, you on that side want to say that is economically irresponsible, if you want to say that is not putting money back into the hands of the battling families of this country, that is very irresponsible.

I just want you to explain to the people of Australia why you will not support a reduction in the fuel excise. There is a $22 million surplus sitting there, and this surplus can be utilised in that way. That is money from this country’s public purse, from this country’s working families: give it back. Give it back. Don’t sit on it; don’t save it up for a huge war chest for the next election; give it back now. And, while you are at it, start thinking about pensioners and giving them a helping hand, because, I tell you what, you are slowly going down the gurgler. You are not looking after the families of this country or the pensioners, who are very important. Start looking after the heartland of this country. Mr Deputy President, through you: they have lost the plot and they have got to pick it up again.