Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Australia's budget is too exposed to global fossil fuel shocks and too soft on capturing a fair return from our own natural resources. The war involving Iran and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz is a brutal reminder that energy security is national security and that price shocks overseas hit Australian households, freight, food and inflation at home.

If Australians are being asked to absorb the pain of global instability then gas exporters exploiting Australian resources should be paying more back to the Australian public. That means reforming the petroleum resource rent tax properly, and it means seriously considering a 25 per cent export tax on LNG exports as a budget repair and resilience measure. The deeper point is that renewable energy and a renewable economy are not just climate policies; they directly translate to economic security and national resilience.

As we're here talking about an appropriation budget, we need to talk about those aspects. Australia remains dangerously exposed to imported oil shocks. Our fuel system still depends heavily on liquid fuels, and the government's own stockholding framework only requires private industry to hold minimum days of supply. If government supports fuel security it must also support the transition to lower-emissions transport, because lower-emissions transport is itself part of energy security.

The current conflict involving Iran has shown exactly why. Around one-fifth of global oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and the International Energy Agency has warned that the present disruption poses a major threat to the global economy. Petrol and diesel spikes do not stay at the bowser. They ripple through freight, groceries, construction, business costs and inflation. That is how an overseas conflict lands directly in the Australian household budget.

An electrified transport sector, including heavy vehicles, is critical to immunising ourselves against uncontrollable and unpredictable international crises. At the same time, our tax system gives Australians a rotten deal on our main resource: gas. The PRRT is far too weak. The 90 per cent deductions cap should be reduced to, at a minimum, 80 per cent. Exemptions and excessive deductions have allowed huge export volumes and huge profits to generate far too little public revenue. Ordinary Australians are exposed to every international oil shock, but multinational exporters exploiting finite Australian resources do not return a fair share to the Australian people.

First, reform the PRRT so it actually works as a resource rent tax, not a permission slip for minimal returns. Reduce the deductions cap from 90 per cent to 80 per cent. Remove the seven-year exemption. Tighten uplift. Carry forward integrity rules. Increase transparency and crack down on profit shifting.

Second, it is well past time for us to apply a 25 per cent LNG export tax. Australians own these resources. Australians should receive a better dividend for them.

Third, at a time when Australians are already exposed to global oil shocks and rising transport costs, the last thing this country should be doing is making it harder for people to switch to electric vehicles. If we are serious about cutting emissions, improving fuel security and bringing down long-term household costs, we should be accelerating the shift away from petrol dependence, not putting new obstacles in the way. An EV is not just a cleaner car. It's a small piece of national resilience, because it does not draw on those fuel reserves.

What makes this worse is a contradiction that is now coming out of the government's position. It cannot claim to support cleaner transport and lower emissions whilst simultaneously floating new taxes on EVs and winding back incentives that help people make the switch. Today it's been reported that the Albanese government is considering introducing an EV tax in the form of a road user charge, beginning with electric vehicles. It's poor policy design. At a time when Australia's emissions are not declining quickly enough and households are already under pressure from fuel price volatility, introducing a new EV tax that targets only electric vehicles sends a wrong signal and risks slowing down that uptake, undermining efforts to reduce transport emissions whilst completely leaving off the hook those high-polluting, high-fuel used cars.

A well-designed road user charge could be a sensible long-term reform. I don't deny that. However, it should be applied fairly across all road users, with a structure that ensures that higher-emitting vehicles pay a greater share of the cost—in particular, those heavy-duty utes and American vehicles that are dangerous on our roads. If Australia wants genuine resilience in the face of global instability, transport reform must make sense from end to end,. That means stronger EV incentives and better charging infrastructure. Keep fringe benefit tax incentives for EVs. Consider exempting EVs from the luxury car tax and give a clear recognition that renewable power transport is not just a climate policy; it is economic security policy, too.

The war involving Iran has exposed a hard truth: Australia is still too vulnerable to crises we do not control. We cannot keep running a budget that socialises the pain of global oil shocks while privatising the gains from Australian gas exports. Budget repair, fuel security and climate action should not be treated as separate debates. They are the same debate because, in the end, the strongest shield against global fossil fuel chaos is this: a renewable energy system, a renewable economy and an Australia less dependent on the volatility of other countries' wars. It's very clear that wind and sun cannot be stopped by geopolitical oil shocks and cannot be stopped by wars. Yet we're not hearing anything from the opposition in this debate in terms of sensible policy of how we can actually maximise that fuel use. We're hearing a lot in this place about concerns of shortages but not much, when the opportunities are there, about actually prioritising where those fuel supplies should be going.

If we facilitate and accelerate a transition of passenger car transport away from fuel use and to renewables and EVs, we do then prioritise the precious commodity of fuel that we import to be used for those industries that still require it—farming and those areas of industry that have no choice. We import 90 per cent of our fuel to Australia. A vast majority of that is coming from refineries offshore. We are highly vulnerable, and so it is incredibly concerning that what is coming out at the moment from this government, in anticipation of the budget, is a mixed message.

So I urge the government that, if we are looking at budget repair and we're looking at appropriation, we have to be really clear about what is in Australia's long-term interest and make sure that policies match that.

See this speech in context