Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must admit, before I get into the substance of this motion, that the chamber before us really speaks to the seriousness of those opposite. We saw the Deputy Leader of the Nationals come in and move this motion. He hasn't had the wherewithal to hang around and stay through the debate. There was a reasonable turnout from the bloke's world of the frontbench when the bloke was talking. As soon as it became time for a woman on the frontbench of the coalition to speak, there was an exodus from the room. Indeed, there were two backbenchers in this chamber when the previous member got on her feet and started speaking on this matter of public important debate; it attracts four spectators from the side that moved it.

Now, why is this? Maybe it's because outside of this chamber we are seeing yet more leadership turmoil in the coalition. The resignation of another leader of the coalition is happening outside of this chamber. I have some sympathy for the position of the former leader of the Nationals in this respect. He determined the coalition's policy on the Voice to Parliament. He determined the coalition's policy on climate change and the abolition of net zero. Then he got to choose the new leader of the Liberal Party. The National Party now gets to set not just policy in the coalition; it also gets to set the leadership of the Liberal Party. So it's reasonable to say, 'Job done.' Now it's time to move off into the sunset.

On this matter of importance and the enormous audience that we have for it on the opposite side of the chamber, it's worth noting that the biggest cleavage in Australian politics used to be a Left-Right ideological divide. It was different parties with different values and priorities competing to persuade the Australian public about their vision for the future of our nation. Unfortunately, in Australia, as in a number of Western democracies in recent times, a new divide has emerged. It's a divide between the politicians and the political figures who want to win government in order to shape outcomes in the real world—the people who actually want to do things—and, on the other side of the divide, the politicians and political figures who don't want to do the hard work of governing, who don't even aspire to be in government. These are political figures who are happy to live in their own ideological fantasy worlds, political figures who are happy with hot takes, happy to trade in fear and division, obsessed with the latest internet conspiracy theories and unconcerned when their delusions come into conflict with reality.

This issue of fuel security is a perfect case in point. On this side of the House, we take our responsibilities of governing seriously, and, as on all issues, we're ruthlessly focused on delivering in the real world. Serious governments take fuel security seriously. That's why, in 2023, the Albanese government introduced the minimum stockholding obligation, a government intervention that has required Australia's two remaining refineries and major importers of refined fuels to hold baseline stocks of fuels onshore. Of course, this intervention wasn't helped by the fact that four of Australia's six refineries closed while those opposite were in government, including the Altona Mobil refinery in my electorate in Melbourne's west. That said, as a result of the responsible intervention of the Albanese government, we are currently above our minimum petroleum stockholding obligations.

Australia is a fuel-secure nation. It is secure with fuel stored in Australia, in Brisbane and Geelong, not in the United States, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. That's the real-world context that we bring to a real-world international challenge, and the recent conflict in the Middle East has created a serious external shock for global fuel markets. It's an international event that poses challenges to Australia, and we've set about responding to it responsibly. We start from a position of national fuel security. Our petrol companies have confirmed their fuel stock continues to arrive on time and in the volumes expected. There are obviously impacts, though, on the international supply chain resulting from the conflict, and international markets are dealing with uncertainty and global price pressures. But it's important to understand that national fuel supply remains the same and fuel consumption remains consistent. The only thing that has changed is that demand has significantly increased, and that's why we've been engaging with the fuel, transport and agricultural industries, and all responsible stakeholders, who have made it clear industry must act in the national interest and everyone has a role to play in keeping Australian transport moving and farmers growing. We all need to work together to ensure there isn't panic-buying or opportunistic buying on the spot market. That's the biggest risk to fuel security in Australia, and it's a risk that's being fuelled by the opportunistic, fantasy politics of those opposite.

See this speech in context