Page 2429 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

whether we should just look to go past that, but I think most players in the space think that Euro VI is a good start.

I was just reading an article last night about the fact that Australia runs the risk of becoming a dumping ground, and we have all heard this theory before. Even petrol-hybrid electric vehicles now in the UK are increasingly being pushed out of the system. They are removed from beneficial tax and other treatments. The observation was that these vehicles were probably being sent to Australia because, frankly, you can get rid of anything over here. That is currently pretty much a true state of affairs.

I welcome the addition of that point because, after years of stonewalling on this issue, it would be great to see some serious consideration on better fuel efficiency standards in Australia for new vehicles as well. This will drive improved environmental performance and improved economic outcomes for motorists. I think it is well worth exploring and looking at what is the right standard for Australia, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter today and indicate that we will be supporting the amendment.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Business and Better Regulation, Minister for Human Rights and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (4.01): I will speak very briefly. I want to do so noting that I was actually the chair of that Select Committee on Fuel Pricing, together with members Mr Parton and former MLA Mr Wall, which made the recommendation from which Mr Cain has drawn. I thought it was important to provide some further context to the recommendations, all of which are publicly available but worth underlining.

It was evidence from the NRMA to the committee, first, that was perhaps enamoured with the idea of the New South Wales FuelCheck app. The NRMA spoke very highly of its value, and this was particularly because FuelCheck is not selective about the data that is reported. The private companies’ apps do have a level of business interest behind them, which is understandable. Nevertheless, they are still very accurate and have good coverage. But FuelCheck requires all service stations’ data to be reported and published, so it takes it from 99 per cent coverage to 100 per cent. So that is the difference there—that FuelCheck is not selective about the data that is reported.

The NRMA did advise that it had seen an average reportable price fall in Sydney prices, compared to other capital cities, of a few cents. The NRMA advised that it was keen to expand the FuelCheck application into the ACT so that all motorists could gain that access to real-time fuel prices. On the back of this evidence, the committee then wrote to FuelCheck, run by the New South Wales government, about the cost of establishing their scheme. They advised that the design and development alone had been considerable: $600,000.

We also asked about the ease of including the ACT in the scheme and they advised that the ACT could be included in the scheme. The literal quote was: “Yes, we can expand FuelCheck to the ACT.” That was the advice. But, importantly, they did not advise at what cost or what would be required. So it was on that basis that the committee recommended that the ACT government explore the feasibility of the New South Wales FuelCheck scheme being adapted to incorporate the ACT market.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video