Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill

_{08 October, 2008}

LIQUID FUEL SUPPLY (ETHANOL) AMENDMENT BILL
Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.06 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Liquid Fuel
Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill. Might I start by saying that the Bligh government is very happy to see
that the opposition has decided to support our commitment to deliver a five per cent ethanol mandate by
2010.
The Bligh government strongly supports the implementation of a mandate, and we remain on track
to deliver on that commitment. The implementation of the mandate is consistent with our Toward Q2 vision.
The mandate will help us deliver a greener, stronger Queensland. It will contribute to helping the Bligh
government create a diverse economy powered by bright ideas while helping us to protect our lifestyle and
environment.
The opposition’s bill is really a rushed and watered-down version of the Bligh government’s
commitment. It is striking how similar the aims of the opposition bill are to those of the Bligh government.
We want to implement a five per cent mandate and so do they. We want to implement a mandate by
volume rather than per litre; so do they. We want to aim for a 10 per cent mandate in the longer term; so do
they.
The Liberal National Party knows full well that the Bligh government is already working through the
issues leading up to implementation by 2010 as outlined in our election commitment. Its members know
that we are taking steps to ensure a mandate is implemented to maximise benefits for the local
Queensland ethanol industry and the Queensland community. They know there is serious work that needs
to be done before you can rush something into the House and change the law. The truth is that the
opposition bill is not serious about this at all. What they have presented to the House is nothing more than
a rush job. As there are numerous problems with the bill that have been overlooked and which would make
it foolhardy and irresponsible, the government will not be supporting it. Let me go through some of the
issues that the government has with the Liberal National Party bill.
Under this bill there has really been no consideration given to the administration of the mandate. We
believe this is a significant oversight. The existing administrative arrangements for the Liquid Fuel Supply
Act 1984 are designed for emergency situations, whereas the private member’s bill proposes amendments
that would require routine administration. How this would operate really has not been revealed by the
opposition and it is a matter that would need to be resolved for the mandate to be effectively implemented.
Secondly, under the opposition’s bill, any liability for complying with the mandate would fall
exclusively upon fuel wholesalers. This model means there is a risk that the mandate may not lead to the
required uptake of fuel ethanol by fuel retailers as the government would not be able to compel them to
take up ethanol blended fuel and in many cases the fuel wholesalers would not be able to, either. It is for
this reason the Bligh government is considering legislation to impose liability for complying with the
mandate on petrol wholesalers plus a prescribed class of petrol retailers. This will distribute responsibility
for the mandate more broadly across the fuel industry and help the government to ensure that the mandate
is actually met. We are undertaking consultation with major fuel companies and affected petrol retailers
prior to finalising our decision on liability.
Speech by Jan Jarratt extracted from Hansard of Wednesday, 8 October 2008
File name: jarr2008_10_08_111.fm Page : 2 of 2
The opposition’s bill does not have any provision for the suspension of the mandate should this be
necessary. A suspension provision may be needed during drought or other emergency situations. In
situations such as that, a suspension clause is necessary to allow local retailers to continue operating in
breach of a mandate without being penalised. Unlike the opposition, the Bligh government will be including
a suspension provision in its legislation.
The approach by the opposition to amend the existing Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 in order to
implement a mandate is also a matter of concern. The 1984 legislation was meant to be used in
emergency situations where there was a shortage of fuel. This situation has never occurred in Queensland
and, as such, the legislation has never been used. To use this legislation a mechanism for implementing
an ethanol mandate is just inappropriate. It is really a makeshift solution by this opposition, which is trying
to rush through the House an ethanol mandate bill for cheap political reasons.
The Bligh government wants to deliver a greener, smarter Queensland. We want to protect our
lifestyle and environment, and we want to do things properly. The Bligh government’s approach is to
develop specific legislation that will implement a mandate that is suited to its purpose. The Bligh
government would not be so silly as to support a stopgap measure when we have already made a
commitment to deliver a properly considered and implemented mandate program. That is another reason
we will not be supporting this bill.
Clearly, though, I am pleased to see the opposition coming out in support of the Bligh government
on the issue of an ethanol mandate. We were the ones that went to the people with a commitment at the
last election. However, it is not good enough for the opposition to just cobble together an ill-considered
piece of legislation and seek to score cheap political points. That is not what this House should be about.
The Bligh government’s vision is for a smarter, stronger, greener Queensland. We want to advance
the interests of all Queenslanders, promote stronger industries and protect our environment. We want
Queenslanders to be smarter and we want to do things smarter. This bill will not deliver these outcomes.
Therefore, we are unable to support it.

More Hansard