Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the temporary fuel excise cut has delivered welcome cost-of-living relief for Australian consumers; and

(b) the Government continues to permanently cut the entire fuel excise for Australia's largest and most profitable mining companies, through the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme; and

(2) calls on the Government to cap the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme by introducing a transition tax incentive with the following elements:

(a) a cap of $50 million annually, per consolidated corporate entity, so that it will not apply to small users of the Scheme such as farmers and small businesses; and

(b) permit receipts by consolidated corporate entities above $50 million to be retained for capital expenditure in eligible electrification infrastructure and technology investments and to enable an orderly phase-out of fuels eligible for the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme".

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026 bill seeks to extend the cost-of-living relief provided by the fuel excise cut, and I rise to speak on it today because I will support that relief. I think this parliament, though, needs to have a more honest conversation about the topic and what is really fair for Australians. The fuel excise cut has provided welcome relief to Australians right across the country. Fuel prices have been hurting people everywhere, across my electorate and across every single electorate represented in this chamber.

These price spikes were driven by a conflict in the Middle East—a conflict that sent oil markets into turmoil and pushed petrol and diesel prices to levels that put serious pressure on family budgets. These are real human costs of this fuel shock. I've heard from families and businesses in my community about their struggle to make ends meet. I heard from the frontline services like the Village Chef, our local Meals on Wheels service, which cooks and delivers thousands of fresh meals to those in need every single week. When the war hit, the Village Chef began to struggle to meet the rising fuel costs and maintain its valuable delivery service, impacting vulnerable people right across my community. In that context, it is appropriate that the government steps in and helps cushion the blow, and I know that, in my own community, people have been really relieved to see the prices come down from those astronomical heights that they reached in the early days of the conflict. So I do sincerely welcome the government's decision to extend this measure for another month even at a reduced level.

But there is something deeply unfair lying out of sight. The government is reducing the fuel excise discount for ordinary Australians by half, but at the same time it is retaining the fuel tax concessions for big mining companies in full. That fuel tax cut has been in place for decades. It's called the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, and it's the largest fossil fuel subsidy in the country: $10.8 billion this year and rising to $47 billion over the next four years. The scheme works by refunding fuel excise to big mining companies on all the diesel they burn.

Most people haven't heard of this scheme, so let me be very clear about what it means. Ordinary Australians pay more tax on their fuel than some of the most profitable mining companies in this country. Companies like BHP, Rio Tinto and Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting pay effectively no fuel tax on the hundreds of millions of litres of diesel that they burn every single year—and they use enormous quantities of diesel. Mining companies use about a quarter of the diesel in Australia—eight billion litres. That's enough to fill every big ute in Australia 30 times. It's 3.4 times more than the farming and agricultural sector uses.

The fuel excise discount for consumers has given relief to Aussies: nurses, tradies, parents doing the school run, pensioners, people on fixed incomes and farmers. But it's lasted only three months, and it's working, and it is now being wound back to half strength, whereas the fuel tax credit is permanent and far more generous than this temporary fuel excise cut for Aussie consumers. I understand why the consumer relief was designed to be temporary. It was in response to a specific shock—fuel price hikes because of conflicts overseas. But, as that relief is phased out, I just have to ask the government: why? Why are you willing to bring the fuel tax back for ordinary Australians while continuing to let the country's biggest mining companies off the hook? Those companies don't need cost-of-living relief; they continue to make huge profits. BHP made more than $15 billion in profit last year, yet, under the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, BHP received $622 million in fuel tax credits.

This money would otherwise have been paid in tax—tax that could pay for hospitals, schools and public transport. Instead, it was simply handed back, and we learned in recent months, through files leaked to the media, that BHP chose to scale back its plans to electrify its fleet and instead spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying new diesel trucks. And why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't it buy new diesel trucks and machinery, when the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme means they can buy that diesel so cheaply?

Now the same applies to other big mining companies. The 18 largest companies benefiting from the scheme are all involved in the resources sector. Together they received more than $3 billion in fuel tax credits. Rio Tinto received $432 million in credits, and Glencore received $349 million. These are some of the wealthiest, most profitable resources companies in the country, if not the world. Shouldn't we at the very least be asking these companies to pay their fair share? Instead, they simply don't have to pay the fuel excise year after year, while ordinary Australians are told their reprieve at the bowser is coming to an end.

That's why I'm bringing an amendment to this bill to endorse a proposal to cap the fuel tax credit scheme at $50 million per company. This $50 million cap would mean that farmers and small businesses could receive fuel tax credits because they receive credits totalling less than $50 million—no changes to those groups. This $50 million cap would affect only the largest resources companies in the country, who, frankly, don't need it, because they're already swimming in profits.

The proposal would also allow companies to keep receiving that fuel tax credit above $50 million, but only if they put that money towards electrifying and decarbonising their businesses and their supply chains—to buy electric trucks, diggers and rolling stock and to implement all the technologies and supply chain adjustments that are available to companies but that they are not currently incentivised to make because the fuel tax credit scheme means they can buy diesel so cheaply. This will build resilient transport systems and will bolster energy security.

Capping the fuel tax credit is fair. Keeping it is unfair. It's unfair that right now a family filling up a car pays the fuel excise, that a small business running a delivery van pays it, that a tradie driving to job sites across the city pays it and that a volunteer driving hot meals to seniors pays it. But a multinational mining company burning hundreds of millions of litres of diesel pretty much pays nothing. The government's deliberately choosing to keep this unfair status quo, and it's made this choice for decades, regardless of which party has been in office.

Today, I'm asking the government to look more broadly at extending this one-month half-strength discount. I'm asking the government to ask whether it makes sense in 2026 for ordinary Australians to be paying more tax at the pump than BHP, Rio Tinto and Gina Rinehart. If this government is serious about cost-of-living relief not just for one month but as a matter of principle, then fairness has to be part of that conversation. It cannot ask Australian families to return to the fuel tax status quo, while giving the country's largest and most profitable companies a free pass on the same tax.

I support this bill because cost-of-living relief for Aussies is important, but I want the record to show this parliament has a choice about who pays fuel tax, and right now it's choosing to ask the least of those who can afford to pay the most. I urge the government to cap the fuel tax credit scheme with the same urgency it has shown in introducing this bill today.

See this speech in context