Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable Deputy Leader of the National Party proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government's failure to manage fuel supplies, affordable energy and economic security for Australian families and small businesses.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all see times when we think and notice that governments have tin ears on issues and are not responsive to something important happening in our communities, but, indeed, this one is happening right across our nation. I mean, I understand that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy believes that there are enough fuel reserves in this country to combat any fuel issues we have, but what he didn't acknowledge today and what he and the other side of the chamber have to acknowledge—remember they are in government—is that there is a fuel supply issue in this country. A lot of ministers have come up. I'll quote one. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said, 'There isn't an issue with supply when it comes to fuel.' There is. There is an issue for supply when it comes to fuel. We've had many examples today where distributors, retailers and, very importantly, wholesalers are not getting their normal fuel supply.

This is a huge issue. Some of the examples we got from this side of the chamber this question time are actually quite scary. We're talking about people who are feeding our country. We're talking about trucking companies who need to transport food to our supermarkets. There is a serious issue going on in our country, and they seem to be oblivious to it.

What I wanted to know and what I thought the minister might communicate today—I thought, when he said he was taking action by having meetings, that that was a bit light on. Well, it would have been nice to know what he said in the meetings. Okay, so people have come and said, 'You should make sure people don't do this.' What did the minister say to all those really important industry stakeholders who were in his office this morning? Did he tell them to get moving? Did he tell them examples of the threats to our food security and food supply? Did he go through in minute detail and give specific examples of geographic locations of companies, of businesses who aren't getting fuel? We've been sending them to his office. Has he communicated any of that to the stakeholders? What did the stakeholders say about that? Did they say they will take action? Did they say they will change the normal course of events because of what is going on in this country right now? We didn't hear any of that. Even with all the great examples that are very important to farmers and to communities across this nation, we heard nothing from the minister today even though he had many opportunities to tell us about what he's doing about this.

Now, I know he's a part-time minister. I know he has a really important role with COP, but he has another very important role. He needed to communicate. This is not for us. We might stay here representing and advocating for our communities. It was important for us to hear, but do you know who needed to hear this today? It was the community out there in Australia—real Australians who operate businesses, who are scared and nervous about their fuel supply. What did the minister say today to allay any fears? Nothing. He gave no information about what he's done.

I don't like to be negative, but should we be surprised with this part-time minister? Obviously, the other thing that this MPI mentions is energy security and energy supply. The importance of fuel supply to our food supply, our energy markets and everything else does bring up our sovereignty in a whole lot of areas. I remind the House that the minister is the minister responsible for Labor's reckless $9 trillion net zero 2050 plan, which is obviously an irresponsible plan and one that we can't afford. Part of it obviously is what we know is a reckless renewable rollout that is predominantly happening through regional Australia. We know the 60 million solar panels. We know the 20,000 wind turbines. We know the fact that agricultural land—food supply—is going to be all used up with this reckless renewable rollout. I always remind the other side of the House when we talk about this that a lot of this is done, as we know, for an emission reduction where have to get to net zero by 2050. I think it's really important that the government and every government be reminded that the three biggest carbon emitters across the planet are not signed up to net zero by 2050. It's important that you acknowledge that. It's important that you realise that China is not signed up to net zero by 2050, India is not signed up to net zero by 2050 and the US is not signed up to 2050. They are the world's three biggest carbon emitters. Yet this government believes we should be racing ahead with carbon emission reductions. There's a cost to that. We know there's a huge cost-of-living crisis in this country, and there is a cost to that.

Are we on this side saying we should abandon carbon emission reductions? Of course not. We believe that as a citizen of the globe we should do our carbon emission reductions as well. Our plan is to match OECD average carbon emission reductions. We're taking out China's and India's, because we could keep putting emissions up and still be matching the average if we left China's and India's in. So we took them out. Our ambition is to match the OECD actual. We think that's a responsible action. We think it's a far cheaper action. We think it will have less economic cost to Australia. So we encourage the government to have a look at that plan. We believe it's a better, cheaper, fairer plan for Australia in emission reductions and energy costs. But I don't have a lot of faith in the minister that he will look at that.

What it will mean practically—and I think it's important to acknowledge what this means in the difference in carbon emission reductions—is that Australia will have, by 2035, about a 35 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, which will be, as we say, in line with a lot of the other countries across the globe. Their emission reductions are going to take us to 65 per cent by 2035. Again, that's why we think this is responsible.

The other thing I want to talk about is that this policy and a lot of policies that have been implemented on the other side are why we have a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Why do I say that? It's not me saying that; it's the official inflation figures saying that. The inflation rate in Australia is 3.8 per cent. It came out last week. It went back up. In the US it's 2.4 per cent. Let's acknowledge that: a 2.4 per cent inflation figure in the US and 3.8 per cent in Australia. The average in the Euro bloc is 1.9 per cent, whereas our inflation rate is well over three.

Unfortunately this means that Australian families are working harder for less. Should that surprise us? The minister doesn't seem to be across the fuel supply issue. He's got a really reckless policy that's putting our electricity grid in danger. And let's not forget, going back to the 2022 election, that this minister was the one who made one of the big promises. They said it was the most modelled. And these are not my words; they're the now Labor government's words. They said the policy they were announcing was the most modelled economic policy ever done from opposition in Australia's political history.

That was of course the famous $275 cut in your power bill. That was meant to happen by 2025. What happened between 2022 and 2025? This is always a divert-and-deflect government, so of course it wasn't their fault. They blamed the Ukraine war. Of course, the Ukraine war had started before they took government. But when they didn't meet that promise, it's not their fault, if anything doesn't go right with this government.

Last week we were talking about inflation. Here I'll give credit to a Labor politician. I'm going to give credit to Peter Beattie, because Peter Beattie would sometimes go to a presser or go into the chamber and say, 'I got it wrong; I apologise.' He actually used to admit it occasionally, and he was quite respected for it—going into the chamber or going to a presser and saying, 'I, my government, we got that wrong.' He apologised, and people respected that. This government—it's beyond them. They have not apologised for any policy that they've ever done or for any promise that they haven't met. I think one of the most infamous ones is the $275. It would have been nice for them to say, 'You know what? We thought we'd modelled it well. We got it wrong. We owe the Australian public an apology,' but we'll never get that. This minister needs to get on top of this fuel supply issue. It's real. He needs to tell us what he's going to do about it.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say this is a bit of a catch-all MPI today with a wide range of topics. But, notwithstanding its breadth and the fact there are a whole range of moving parts here, on every single one of the moving parts we have a very good example of areas where the government is making significant progress on behalf of the Australian population and one where the policies of those opposite, both when they were in government and currently2, are in stark contrast.

I'll start with fuel supplies. It's one where there is a great deal of misinformation, and I think it's absolutely critical to put out there from the outset that Australia is facing solid fuel supplies. Our national fuel supply is in good shape. The shipping that is meant to arrive is arriving, and Australia is achieving its minimum petrol stockholding obligations. It is really important to get that out there. It's important to clarify that, across petrol, jet fuel and diesel, Australia is achieving its minimum petrol stockholding obligations. In relation to petrol, we have 36 days supply, 1.56 billion litres currently in stockpiles. In relation to jet fuel, we have 32 days supply. In relation to diesel, we have 34 days supply, and we have 35 days supply of urea. It's really important to clarify that, at that national level, Australia is achieving what it needs to.

As the minister indicated in question time, we're not denying that in some local areas there are difficulties for some customers and some businesses in obtaining diesel. That is something which the minister made very clear. But what we need to understand is that that is an issue of spikes in demand, particularly in local areas. It's not an issue of national supply levels, and that is very important. The government has made clear that this is an international crisis, and the important obligation on the government's part is to make sure that our international supplies are maintained and that our stockpiles are maintained, and that is exactly what is happening.

When it comes to what's happening to industry, when it comes to what's happening to some of these localised areas where there are difficulties in obtaining access to diesel, the minister has convened the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee. It's in fact met on a number of occasions. The minister for energy, the minister for agriculture and the minister for industry convened a roundtable just today in order to engage with industry. This is exactly the kind of proactive engagement that is appropriate at this time to understand the local contours of these issues and to understand the issues sector by sector. And it's exactly through that kind of engagement that the feedback to the minister has been on the whole that what we need to do is to make clear to people that they shouldn't be purchasing more than they need, that they shouldn't be purchasing double or triple their normal usage. That's the message we should be getting out responsibly, both through the government and through key stakeholders. In fact, it should be the message that the opposition is getting out there, but, for political reasons, clearly that's not the case.

It's also important that we look at what the government is doing when it comes to the retail side of this. When it comes to petrol, the Treasurer has asked the ACCC to closely monitor fuel-pricing behaviour to ensure that international events are not used as an excuse for excessive price increases, for price gouging. Not only has the Treasurer done that, but this government has put in place very significant penalties for such behaviour that breaches Australian Consumer Law. So, when it comes to fuel supply, it's important to point out that the national fuel supply is in good shape and that our stockpiles are in good shape and, in fact, at 15-year highs but that, yes, the government is going to work through with stakeholders, as we did today through three senior ministers meeting with stakeholders. The government will work through with stakeholders to manage some of those local issues.

When it comes to affordable energy, I just turn to recent modelling. When it comes to the transition that this nation needs to go through, recent modelling by Treasury compares an orderly transition and a disorderly transition. Anybody that's familiar with macroeconomics knows that orderly transitions are transitioning earlier rather than all at the last minute and would expect that it would be better to have an orderly transition, but what Treasury has done in a rigorous and comprehensive way is to actually quantify the difference. What Treasury found was that, by 2050, if the economy goes through an orderly transition as opposed to a disorderly transition, an orderly transition would see an economy that is $2 trillion larger. An orderly transition would see per capita GDP $4½ thousand higher. It would see more jobs, it would see higher paid jobs, and, critically, it would see significantly lower wholesale electricity prices with an orderly transition.

But what's perhaps most scary when it comes to the energy transition, which those opposite seem so averse to, is that what's even worse than a disorderly transition is one other option they looked at, and that's no transition. So those opposite, after having essentially taken a disorderly transition to the last election, have, during the course of this term, chosen to go to no transition. Their big policy development in this space, this term, has been to abandon any targets—to abandon net zero by 2050. So we go to an even worse position, based on the Treasury modelling. It is really quite remarkable for those opposite to come in here with an MPI on affordable energy when all of the economic modelling makes clear that an orderly transition is the best way forward. Those opposite seem to have gone from a bad policy last election to an even worse one this time based on nothing other than a populist whim.

Finally, I'd like to talk about economic security for Australia's families and businesses. Again, the contrast at the last election couldn't have been clearer. We went to the last election promising a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer—two tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, after having already delivered one, and there will be one delivered in this upcoming budget and one the one after. Those opposite, at the last election, campaigned against those two rounds of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. They promised they would come into this place and undo them. It's not clear where they stand on that now.

What about the economic security of owning your own home? We went to the last election promising to help more Australians into homes with an expansion of the five per cent deposit for first home buyers, which is something we've delivered.

Economic security is about security in your health care, and this government is delivering more access to bulk-billing. We're already seeing the results of that flowing through. We're delivering on more urgent care clinics. I've got two operating and being heavily utilised in my own electorate. People seeing doctors, not having to go to emergency departments and being able to bulk-bill it is providing security to Australian families right now.

Economic security is also about your job and your training. That's why this government promised a 20 per cent cut to HECS, and that's what we delivered in the first bill introduced into this chamber. That's why we're delivering paid prac. The Minister for Education gave such a powerful example of that in his answer in question time today about a nursing student who is going to be able to pay for an Uber to go home after a shift finishing at midnight rather than having to contest with public transport.

Economic security is about dignity in retirement, and there are so many areas that this government is delivering. The Treasurer spoke about this in question time today. It's about payday super, making sure that the over $5 billion that isn't going into people's accounts, primarily people in vulnerable jobs and low-paid workers, goes into people's accounts and supports their dignity in retirement.

But it's also about the LISTO, the low income superannuation tax offset, a really important bill that's going to pass the Senate today with the support of the government and the Greens. But those opposite are opposing it because their rationale is to give bigger tax breaks to those with $10 million accounts and no extra support for LISTO.

Economic security is about having a good job. This government has seen inflation come down, but we've achieved that while supporting 1.2 million jobs being developed in the economy, and that's incredibly important for individuals and families right across our society. This government believes in supporting jobs growth while at the same time responsibly managing the economy. One of the first thought bubbles from the new shadow Treasurer was to say that the Reserve Bank shouldn't have a dual mandate and that we should explore dropping employment growth and full employment from the Reserve Bank's mandate. I'm not sure where that is yet. Nobody else senior on the opposition backed that idea in, but it certainly hasn't totally gone away.

On issue after issue, when it comes to family security, individual security, this government has backed in sensible economic development, jobs growth and then all sorts of measures for cost-of-living support that time and time again, those opposite vote against or campaign against, yet they come into this place with an MPI that suggests that somehow they're the champions of people's economic security. It just flies in the face of what has happened over the course of the last term and this term, and it flies in the face of what those opposites say. So this government stands up for fuel supplies, for affordable energy and for economic security.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me set the scene for you: 'Labor, the musical'. We are so fortunate to have our very own, the very talented Mr Ripley, who is described as a con artist who pretends to be many things, and, in the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the star of Labor, the musical is basically a one-man cast. 'Labor, the musical' has this incredible chorus line. It really is quite the performance, with a whole cast of those opposite singing, 'We care about those who are experiencing the cost of living.' They sing it with such caring and sincere faces. Another of Minister Bowen's roles in 'Labor, the musical' is playing the green superhero Captain Planet and, believe it or not, the energy minister also plays the part of Pinocchio. He wants to be a real boy—no, a real climate champion, Australia's part-time energy minister and president of the COP climate conference.

Pinocchio's lies made his nose grow longer. This morning we saw the minister saying he has empathy for farmers worried about diesel supplies. But then he said, 'We are managing a spike in demand, not impact on supply.' Last time I checked, supply and demand are kind of the same equation. If you don't have enough supply, there is a problem. If demand grows, supply has to grow with it or there is no good outcome. Out in my electorate in Mallee I have spoken to farmer after farmer after farmer who has said that their wholesale distributors are at risk of no supply. Some distributors in Mallee, when they've gone to their base distribution point in Melbourne, have been turned away. That says something about supply and demand.

I noted in question time that the minister said that Mildura had had a demand spike of 100 per cent. Really? So where is the fuel to fill those fuel bowsers so that the people of Mildura can get the petrol that they need, whether it's diesel or otherwise? It's not actually managing the situation when the supply is falling short. Orders are not being filled, independent distributors are having their supplies cut back or cancelled and depots are unable to source fuel. In one report to my office, as I said, a distributor was turned away in Melbourne.

In regional Australia, fuel stations are running out of fuel and what does the minister say? He says, 'There's no problem. There is no problem with supply.' All of those who live out in the regions know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a problem with supply. If the minister who is responsible does not open up the supply, that is on him.

This very tricky Albanese Labor government, indeed, the same minister, time after time fed Australians a pork sandwich—not pork pies, just a sandwich full of porkies. On one side of the sandwich, they are blaming the war in Ukraine for their failure to deliver the $275 energy bill relief. Every Australian remembers that promise. It was promised 97 times yet failed to be delivered. On the other side of this pork sandwich, they are saying now, in March 2026, that there's no supply issue; it's demand that's the problem.

Economics 101—supply and demand: believe it or not, a demand spike, whether warranted or not, creates supply issues. So what's driving Labor's behaviour here? Why pretend there's nothing to be concerned about, nothing to see here? When in doubt, look at Labor's form: raiding regions to buy votes in the cities. How does that happen? Are city motorists' concerns being put first, not our food security and fuel security? Are big businesses, large metropolitan operators, being prioritised under Labor? It's like the old Irish riddle, if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Here's a Labor version: if voters suffer in regional Australia, has anyone suffered at all? We here in the Nationals are elected to be a voice for our farmers and regional communities. Fuel security is food security. Farmers want to sow the crop to feed our nation. Diesel deliveries are being held up, and this must stop.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak for the people of Capricornia who are being absolutely smashed by this government's incompetence and their failure to secure Australia's liquid fuel supply. While the city-centric Labor frontbench sits comfortably in Canberra, families and businesses in regional Queensland are facing the grim reality of fuel rationing and skyrocketing prices that flow through to the cost of everything from groceries to power bills. In my electorate of Capricornia, the situation is reaching a breaking point. I'm hearing from local businesses they are being forced to scale back or shut down because they simply cannot get the diesel they need to operate. I had a charter boat company reach out to me in absolute despair—they have been advised that the fuel purchases are being limited to 200 litres in any 24-hour period. You cannot run a charter on 200 litres of fuel. That is a small business' livelihood being stripped away because this government failed to plan.

It gets worse. The backbone of Central Queensland, our cattle industry, is being brought to a standstill. I'm getting calls from desperate farmers. One farmer has 300 head of cattle ready and waiting to go to market, but they can't move them. The trucking company they rely on has a fleet of 40 trucks, but currently only one truck is running because they cannot fuel the rest of the fleet. Think about the impact of that. That cattle farmer is a supplier of Woolworths. This isn't just a regional inconvenience; this is a direct threat to the food security of every Australian.

It's not just the primary producers. I spoke with a business owner in Parkhurst who employs 25 local staff and runs a mechanic repair business. While he managed to secure some fuel over the weekend, his suppliers have told him they cannot guarantee another drop, because they are prioritising service stations. He's now rationing what he has, but he has only two weeks of fuel left and no idea what comes next. This man has been in business for 12 years and he has told me he has never seen anything like this. This is the reality of Labor's Australia—small business owners who have survived for over a decade now facing ruin because the government can't manage a basic commodity like diesel.

And why is this happening? Because this government is flying blind. We have reports that wholesalers have begun rationing petrol and diesel, cutting off transport companies from bulk supplies and forcing them to buy at a much higher retail price. Regional petrol stations are running dry. The government can't even tell us the state of our own reserves because their publicly reported stockholding data has not been updated since December 2025. If the government was competent enough to begin removing diplomatic staff before the international conflict escalated, why on earth didn't they take steps to secure our fuel supply at home?

The coalition understood that fuel security was a national vulnerability, which is why we established a domestic fuel reserve and a minimum stockholding obligation to increase diesel stocks by 40 per cent. We legislated the Fuel Security Act to give the minister the tools to handle exactly this kind of crisis. The tools are there, but this minister lacks the judgement to use them. He should be demanding transparency from providers right now to find out where the shortages are and to get fuel to our tractors and our trucks. Instead, he offers excuses. We have a part-time energy minister who is more focused on his own ideology than on the fact that the Australian economy runs on diesel. Australians were already struggling with a homegrown cost-of-living crisis before any international conflict escalated. Now, because of this government's addiction to spending and regulating, we are seeing the largest decline in living standards in the developed world.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister and the energy minister. They need to stop the excuses, stop blaming panic-buying and start using the powers they have to ensure that cattle in Rockhampton, a charter boat in my electorate or an Ergon energy truck isn't left stranded because the government forgot that regional Australia exists. Capricornia deserves better and Australia deserves a government that takes fuel security seriously.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise that it is a challenging time in our world at the moment, and we are feeling some of those impacts here in Australia, whether it be family members affected in the Middle East or, more broadly in the community, fuel pump prices. Wisely, the good people of Australia, at the 2025 election, elected a Labor government, and that is partly because they fundamentally understood that during challenging times we are a government that will have their backs. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is strengthening fuel, energy and economic security for the future. A part of that relates to action on climate change.

It is fascinating that those opposite are here lecturing us, after a decade of neglect. They had—was it one, two or three energy policies? It was 22 policies. The thing that's fascinating is that they're lecturing us on a reason to not act on climate change. But if we act on climate change, that means we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which means we become more energy secure. Earlier it was explained to us that we shouldn't have targets. But when we see more fuel-efficient vehicles, when we see electrification, guess what? That actually means we are being more wise with our energy and being more energy secure. What I hear from the other side, and the member for Gellibrand said this earlier, are delusions—absolute delusions.

The Albanese government has indeed been working on the way we decarbonise the transport sector. It's fascinating: Australia has been a dumping ground for inefficient vehicles, because those opposite didn't want to give Australia these opportunities, so they talked down electric vehicles, talked down efficient vehicles. The truth is that people who have those more-efficient vehicles are thinking, 'I'm glad I made that decision.'

We have seen from independent research that Australians have paid billions more for fuel because previous coalition governments refused to introduce fuel efficiency standards. A report showed that if the standards had been introduced in 2016 we would have saved almost $6 billion in fuel costs. That's the equivalent of nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This inaction, restricting low-emission and electric vehicles, has created a lack of productivity for our transport sector. The Albanese government has acted and is delivering the standards that experts have been recommending for more than a decade, improving fuel security, cutting emissions and saving families at the pump.

But this is also a government that wants to see energy independence and energy security for all. This is one of the reasons we introduced the home battery scheme. In my electorate of Swan, 1,400 cheaper home batteries have been installed, while those opposite were promising nuclear power, which would not arrive for decades. The private sector is not waiting, either. Fortescue is rolling out hundreds of electric haul vehicles and heavy vehicles across Pilbara operations, replacing diesel powered fleets that previously burnt millions of litres of fuel. By electrifying one of the largest mining fleets in the world, Fortescue is dramatically cutting diesel demand in WA and helping ease the long-term pressure on Australia's fuel suppliers.

We're also seeing electrification of transport in my community and projects such as Metronet, which is a great project that the WA government and the federal government have funded. We've seen the rail line raised and we are seeing more people wanting to catch public transport. In fact, you can do that for only $2.80 all across metropolitan Perth. So the thing I'd say is that there is a role for metropolitan centres to be more efficient when they have access to that infrastructure to make sure that the areas that are hard to abate have access to those fuel supplies. This is one of the many examples of what the Albanese government is working on, along with work we're doing with the ACCC that the Treasurer has been doing a fantastic job on.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'm glad I'm making a small contribution to this debate, because I didn't know what the answer was, but it's all been made clear to us! People in regional Queensland now can just pick up public transport—they can get the bus; they can get the train!—though they'll drive past five service stations that don't have fuel in them to get to the bus station. And it's only Labor that could come up with that solution—only Labor!

Last week, here in the parliament, we saw a contribution from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who said that we had 34 days of diesel, 32 days of jet fuel and 36 days of unleaded petrol. Five days later, service stations in my electorate, in regional Queensland, are struggling to get fuel. And that's diabolical. They're saying, 'Oh, the reason there are shortages is that there's panic buying.' Yes, because you've got to drive past four service stations that have got no fuel to find one that has got fuel. I'll tell you why.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen makes a very good point. 'Why?' Because what happens in the fuel sector is that there's two clients. There are people who buy on contract—and they might be large transport companies—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't buy 4,000 litres a day.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen. You asked, 'Why?' I'll tell you why. It's really simple. And, if you can fix it, we won't have the problem that we've got at the moment. But rather than interject on me, Member for McEwen, spend a bit of time with your energy minister trying to find a solution to this, because all you guys want to do is finger-point and blame everyone else. Let me tell you why. There's two—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to ask—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, let me tell you why, Madam Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Comments are to be directed through me. This is getting a little too personal. So thank you, Member for Wright.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, you are dead right. You had the opportunity to interject on the member yourself. Madam Speaker, can I suggest—

Basem Abdo (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's that even mean?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To pull a speaker up when he interjected. That didn't happen—to pull the speaker up. The member for McEwen asked, 'Why?'

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wright, I am going to intervene on you, right now. You know better than that. You know better than that. You have been in this chair's position. I do expect a little more cooperation than that. My interjection was directed to you both, so please don't take it one way. If you want to second-guess all of my decisions in the chair, that's going to make it a very difficult relationship for you and me. So please proceed. I just ask you and everybody in the chamber: this is not a personal debate here; it's a matter of public importance; direct your comments through me, so that it isn't—that's why that standing order exists. I give the call to the member for Wright.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Service stations in my electorate do not have fuel. There are two clients in the fuel world. There are those that buy on contract. They're, like, large transport companies; they're the big retailers; they're the Coles and the Woolworths. They say to the refiners: 'I want this much volume, and I'm prepared to pay this much margin.' Then there's the second buyer: there's the buyer who buys it on spot price, who buys on a daily rotation. Most of the wholesalers, the fuel distributors, in my electorate, buy in that market. The minister for energy cannot have it both ways—cannot come in here and say: 'The boats are arriving; we've got the fuel,' and yet, when my spot buyers go to buy from the terminals, they're told: 'There is no fuel for you today.' The fuel's there, or it's not. They're the two markets. If we're going to fix this problem, if the government is confident that the supply is there, then release the contracted fuel to the spot market, to get rid of the panic buying which is in the market at the moment—because it is the government's lack of intervention in this. It is the refiners who are profiteering.

Now, I understand the government has done the right thing by saying: 'ACCC, go your hardest.' But I cannot remember a point in history where the ACCC has had a successful victory over the large operators; it's always the smaller operators. This problem can be solved. I'm going to take up the minister's invitation, that he offered today, to go and meet with him, to discuss how we turn this around, because Australians don't want to hear us squabbling; they want this fixed. And they don't want to see what we've just seen happen in this chamber right now.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're in this situation because of a large issue that's happening in Iran. This is where the crux of this begins. This is not an Australian problem. It's not something this government's thought up. It's because of what's happening in Iran, where we know thousands and thousands of people have been persecuted, raped, tortured, killed by a horrific regime. That has been the main cause. It's a global situation. It's not something that Australia has drummed up, Australia has made or is Australia's responsibility.

But I want to bring up a couple of numbers in particular just to have a look at a couple of things. The numbers are two and six. Six is how many refineries we had in this country prior to the election of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison mess. Two is what we had when we came to government. We also know that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations closed under the Liberal-National mess—not under the Labor government but under them. So to come in here and say, 'Well, you should have this fixed; you should have this sorted' is just ridiculous.

And the irony of the member who raises this MPI—I had a look through his record. He's been here, what, 17 years? He never once talked about fuel. In fact, the only time he's ever spoken about refineries was him trying to get funding for a sugar refinery in his electorate. So this new-found interest in fuel security is nothing more than to cover up during the week to give them something to talk about because they have no policies.

Now, we know 22 different energy policies were done during the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison mess. Not one of them landed. They sit there and they talk about the $275 and say, 'Oh, Labor should apologise,' but when have any of them ever got up and said that what they did was deliberate, deceitful action against the Australian people by changing the law to hide the power price increases from before the May 2022 election? You'll never hear that, but they're always quick to have a cheap shot and a carry-on.

From talking about cheap shots and carrying on, let's talk about what's happening with fuel. Panic buying is the No. 1 issue. When service stations are telling you they are selling the equivalent of five days supply each day because people roll up with trailers and put 10 or 12 200-litre drums on the back or they're getting the big plastic fire buckets and filling them up with diesel to take away, it's almost as bad as the toilet paper crisis during COVID. This is the real reason we've got these issues happening. We've got to sit back and take a good, calm look at this, working in a methodical way as an adult and mature government, and that's what we've been doing. While those opposite are squabbling amongst themselves, we're actually sitting down and working out what's the best way forward.

We heard today time and time again—because, for those opposite, you've got to say it quite a few times, and eventually it will sink in. The minister made it very clear that he's been working with all the peak groups on what they need and what the government can do straight away to help, and their responses—the industry's responses, the National Farmers' Federation, everyone that's been involved in this—have been to say: 'Stop panic buying. There is no need for that to happen.' And this is the most important bit about this. We shouldn't be seeing this happen, but we know how this has an impact. We also know, when it comes to energy security, that those opposite went to an election just recently promising $600 billion on a nuclear scheme that was a failure.

Now, you'd think the member for Page would know more than anyone about the impacts of climate change and why we need to go to a cleaner, greener electricity and gas situation, because of the devastating impacts that his community faced with floods. In a more severe climate that is changing, the floods are more severe, harder and more frequent, resulting in bigger issues.

So what we've done is continue to work on making sure that we do get cleaner, greener energy. In fact, some of us have taken up the opportunity to get batteries to use less power. This includes those that attack the battery program and attack solar. We'll talk about the leader of One Nation. Senator Hanson herself has bought a battery on the government's program because, whenever there's a tax dollar available, you can guarantee she's on it like a seagull on a chip. It is unbelievable, the hypocrisy of those opposite, in coming in here and talking about energy and fuel supply, when, for nine years, they kept fuel overseas and did nothing. They had 22 different energy policies that delivered nothing, but they sit there and say: 'Oh, we've got a mess. Why haven't you fixed it?'

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to rise to speak on the government's failure to manage fuel supply, amongst a great many other things. During question time today, we saw the minister asked multiple times if he could identify the regions in Australia, the areas in Australia, the cities in Australia, where we were experiencing fuel supply shortages, and he couldn't answer the question. He wasn't across his brief. He couldn't tell us where those were. He turned around briefly, to his backbench, looking for a bit of help. Someone shouted out, 'Mildura.' He said, 'Mildura.' So we got one answer out of him. As it turned out, under questioning from the member for Lindsay, there were fuel supply shortages in Western Sydney, right near the minister's own seat. But he wasn't aware; he's not across the brief.

This is a minister who wants to be president of COP. He wants to focus on those big, fantastic things that a role like that brings. He can focus on international commitments. He can play on the grand stage, but he's not on the ground in Australia, seeing the problems that we're seeing, and this matters. What we heard today was a minister who's taking a completely hands-off approach to dealing with this issue. In fact, he was playing the role of Johnny Fontane in The Godfather: 'Tell me what to do. What do I do, Godfather?' He wants to know how to do the job.

The great thing is we had a wonderful contribution from the member for Wright, a transport professional, who actually spoke to the details of the issue. They've been very helpful.

The minister could look back just a short way in history to see what to do, back to 2021 when we had an AdBlue shortage around Australia. A very similar thing happened. It wasn't available anywhere. People were hoarding. Prices went up. What did we do? Did we stand back and say, 'We're going to take a hands-off approach to this, and Australians are the problem?'

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're going to have a roundtable? No, we didn't. What we did was we reached out to the ACCC, and we identified that, in the Competition and Consumer Act, there was the ability for the ACCC to relax some of the rules, to allow those fuel suppliers to work together to make sure that we had AdBlue in the regions where we needed them. That's what we did.

I hear interjections, and it's so cool because back then do you know who supported it?

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enough of the interjections, Member for McEwen, or you will leave the chamber.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know who did support the actions that the coalition government took in that period? Labor supported them. They said they were very sensible. That's what you should do in a situation like this. That's exactly what you should do. But now we hear, no, they're not going to do it. And it gets worse than that. Since that time, we now have the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act in full effect, and that gives the minister up-to-date data on exactly the fuel stock levels right across the country. He can look into each city; he can look into each street and see where the fuel is and where the constraints are.

He could work with the ACCC—as we did in 2021, during his time—to work with the distributors to get that done and to smooth it out so that we don't see what we're seeing right now, which is fuel bowsers with little signs saying: 'No fuel. Closed.' Whole petrol stations are closed off and whole distributors. We saw United Petroleum saying they're going to have to shut down for a while, and that's playing out because we have an uneven distribution, which the minister has the ability to do something about. Instead, we heard today, through multiple questions, that the minister has a very different approach to what the coalition took when we had a similar problem. The minister's approach is hands off: 'I'm not going to do anything. This is Australia's fault.' Quite frankly, some of the minister's responses that we heard today beggar belief. He was trying to tell us that there is no fuel supply issue in Australia. To Australians out there who are driving past a closed petrol station, to Australians who can't get their fuel supply: the minister is telling you that's not real, that you're not seeing it.

We shouldn't be surprised: this is the minister who told us we were going to get a $275 reduction in our energy bills. That didn't happen either. His connection with reality is tenuous at best, and we're seeing it play out to the detriment of Australians right across the country.

This matters in a role like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The numbers matter. You have to be across the numbers. You have to know what's going on in your portfolio. Today, it was very clear. There are fuel supply issues right across Australia, with a number of major regional cities experiencing them. The minister is not aware of it, he's not across it, and he intends to do absolutely nothing about it. That is an absolute shame for every Australian who's struggling with higher fuel costs right now.

Kara Cook (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to fuel security, Australia is more prepared today because this government has acted decisively, responsibly and in the national interest. I say that not only as a member of this government but as the proud federal member for Bonner, home to one of Australia's two remaining oil refineries, the Ampol Lytton Refinery. This facility is a cornerstone of our national fuel supply. It supports almost 1,000 jobs, strengthens local industry and plays a critical role in ensuring Australians have the fuel they need to keep our economy moving.

Australians are understandably concerned about global instability, particularly the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. Conflict in that region affects global fuel markets, global inflation and global growth. Australia is not immune to these pressures. But Australians should know this: we entered this period of uncertainty well prepared. Today, Australia holds 1.5 billion litres of petrol and three billion litres of diesel in our national stockpile. These strategic reserves are held right here in Australia, including at the refinery in my electorate. That was not the case before. When Labor left office in 2013, Australia had six operating refineries. By the time we returned to government in 2022, only two remained. The closure of refineries like Altona and Kwinana didn't strengthen Australia's fuel security; it weakened it. That is the legacy we inherited, and that is why the Albanese Labor government has acted. Our reforms mean that our fuel supply chains continue to operate, and petrol companies have confirmed their fuel shipments are arriving in Australia on time and in expected quantities. Put simply, our nation is fuel secure, and it's fuel secure because of this government.

This global crisis should not be a commercial opportunity, and it should not be a political opportunity either. That is exactly why the Treasurer wrote directly to the ACCC asking them to ensure fuel retailers do not use international events to price gouge Australians. Fuel retailers have been put on notice. The ACCC has said that it will not hesitate to act if companies break the law. Importantly, this government strengthened those laws, increasing the maximum penalty fivefold, up to $50 million, and also extending petrol price monitoring for five years and enabling on-the-spot fines for misleading fuel price statements.

Fuel security is not only about today; it is also about the future, and this government is investing $1.1 billion to help build Australia's low-carbon liquid-fuel industry, supporting the production of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuels right here on Australian soil. I joined the Treasurer and the energy minister at the Ampol Lytton Refinery last year for that announcement, and we made clear that Australia has the ingredients to lead this industry—world-class agriculture, access to renewable energy and feedstocks, such as canola, sugar and waste products. By 2050, this sector could be worth $36 billion to the Australian economy, creating jobs from farms to refineries and strengthening our supply chains for the fuels that power our trucks, ships and planes. It's about energy security, it's about economic opportunity, and it's about making sure Australia benefits from the global transition to cleaner energy. Back home in Bonner, we're already seeing how smart energy policy supports households. More than 1,941 cheaper home batteries have been installed right across my electorate. That's families cutting energy bills. That's households becoming more resilient. And that's what practical energy policy looks like.

The global economy is facing uncertainty. The conflict in the Middle East is adding pressure. But Australia is well positioned to weather this disruption. Our economy remains strong and resilient, and this government is focused on providing real cost-of-living relief through tax cuts, cheaper medicines, reduced student debt and more affordable child care. Fuel security, energy affordability and economic stability are too important for political pointscoring. The antics that we've seen today in question time and this MPI and the shameful and inflammatory comments from the Queensland LNP Deputy Premier today cause panic, and they misrepresent the actual facts. We are committed to telling Australians the facts and being honest with them about their future.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has now concluded.