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

This is in continuation from earlier. Regional communities are feeling it first and worse. This is not an abstract policy debate. This is about whether people can afford to live their lives.

The coalition's position is clear. We will support this bill because securing supply matters, but we will also continue to call on the government to do more—to act with urgency, to back Australian production and to deliver immediate cost-of-living relief, because restoring fuel security is not just about imports and financing; it's about protecting living standards, it's about supporting small businesses and it is about making sure Australian families can get ahead, not fall behind. Australians deserve a government that is prepared, responsive and focused on their needs. Right now they are looking for leadership, and they need action.

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

I want to congratulate the government and the Prime Minister for today doing precisely what the coalition recommended, on Friday, that he do. It only took four days, after four weeks of not a lot happening—a lot of meetings, but not a lot happening. We called for the halving of the fuel excise and the reduction of the heavy-vehicle road user charge. In fact, this last week I've spoken with the Trucking Association and I've also spoken with the bus industry; both were very concerned about the costs that they were incurring. In my electorate, nine earth-moving employees have found themselves without a job this week because the employer cannot pay what he's being required to pay for fuel. Twenty-six cents a litre—yes, we suggested it; we think it makes a difference. Removing the road user charge for heavy vehicles impacts the trucks on the road. Earth moving, basically, as far as I understand, is on land; therefore, it won't incur that cost. I'm happy to be corrected on that.

But these are still very difficult times for businesses and companies. We have citrus growers who are really thinking twice about whether they will harvest their citrus, because it uses so much fuel to do so, and then to get it to market—the agents down there are saying, 'We can't afford to buy it at that price because we can't sell it afterward.' So we have fruit, we have vegetables and we have crops at risk.

And this is a time of great difficulty for Australia. Not only are we going through a cost-of-living crisis but inflation continues to rise and we expect another couple of rises, potentially, in this next month. Australians are doing it tough. Mortgages continue to increase—$28,000 on an average mortgage. How do people get through this? This is not about politics. This is about how Australians are finding life right now, without a clear message of hope in front of them.

The Albanese government, by contrast, have accused Australians of panic buying—and they were still doing it today—while they have been panic legislating. We can only say that this Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 is another piece of 'quick, let's get it out the door by tonight'. The Prime Minister said, 'Let's just get it moving.' Hardly any Labor members are speaking on it because of the urgency. This is the pattern that we are seeing time and time again from this government—lost in the waves in the ocean of despair because it really doesn't know what it's doing. We will see a shortened debate today, for sure, and the bill sent to the Senate so that we have laws passed by Good Friday.

Today's measures, we hear, will come at a $2.55 billion cost for three months. Let's not forget that the Commonwealth and, in turn, the states have gained $300 million in GST receipts since the crisis began, and it's pleasing that the states are considering what they're going to do about that. But we have meeting after meeting—

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Roundtables.

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

roundtables, summits. 'Anyone for a forum? Anyone for another meeting? How about we have a phone hook-up? Let's see if we can make a decision to improve the lives of Australians!'

The Albanese Labor government is asleep at the wheel and out of gas—unnecessarily so. As we have seen all too well this week, the Albanese Labor government has been gaslighting Australians and blaming the Australian public, particularly farmers, for buying fuel—fuel they need because unseasonably wet conditions mean that crops need to go in or weeds need to be sprayed. Once again, we see the government blaming the victims of this crisis when they should be taking responsibility, gaslighting Australians that there was no such supply crisis—even at the beginning of last week there was no supply crisis, apparently—and then being dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledging, actually, there is a crisis.

Australia has immense reserves of oil and gas—and, I might say, coal and uranium. Geoscience Australia estimates that we have over 100,000 petajoules in proven and probable resources. That's around 17 billion barrels. The US Energy Information Administration estimated 13 years ago that we have a further 403 billion barrels of shale oil, with around 17½ billion barrels deemed recoverable at that stage. Theoretically, based on a daily oil consumption of over one million barrels a day, we could use our recoverable shale oil for around 42 years. That's just a starting point.

Australia also has an incredible capacity to produce biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, but stocks on hand at present are not being brought into the mix. Take, for example, biodiesel. Australia produced 2.14 million tonnes of canola in 2019 and more in recent years, and we could have used that to produce 5.5 million barrels of biodiesel. Instead, 70 per cent of that canola, or carinata, went to the European Union for them to make into biodiesel.

This is a crisis that was entirely foreseeable. The late former senator Jim Molan was saying as much—that our fuel security was at risk and we needed domestic, sovereign capacity.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good man.

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

He was a very good man. I've been saying similar for some time now as well, as has most of the coalition. The world has changed. The international security context has changed, perhaps for a generation. We hope not, but we must take the world as we find it, not as we hope it would be. Australia is blessed with every energy resource under the sun, including not only the sun but also oil and gas and coal and uranium. It's time to stop the self-inflicted harm of anti-Australian political ideologies and tap into our enormous energy reserves.

These bills are about reconfiguring Export Finance Australia to become a body that invests in imports for fuel security, not just our export capacity. Let's look at the numbers. Over 50 per cent of Australia's total energy demand is from liquid fuels. Cars and passenger vehicles make up just 30 per cent of our liquid fuel demand; the other 70 per cent is freight, aviation, mining, agriculture, manufacturing and construction. Liquid fuels make up 60 per cent of our total imports by volume. It is actually insane in a country blessed with the resources that we have.

The USA, Brazil, Norway, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China and India—most of them large countries—considering their onshore and offshore reserves, have been pursuing energy independence. Australia's refinery capacity meets just 20 per cent of our demands. Over 95 per cent of our liquid fuel supply depends on ships arriving at our ports, which in this time, with the war in Iran occurring, is incredibly risky business.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All foreign owned, all foreign owned.

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

All foreign owned. In government, the coalition spent over $260 million, adding 40 per cent to our diesel storages. We created the minimum stockholding obligation—not Labor, as the minister likes to claim. Labor was mugged by reality on the role of gas in the energy transition. High costs of doing business and the cost of living due to Labor's renewables-or-bust approach drove Labor to accept reality. So too, the Iran war has forced Labor to accept the reality that we need fuel security.

Labor had all their eggs in the renewables basket. They proposed that everyone own electric vehicles, despite the geographic realities in regional Australia, and that all our electricity would be from intermittent solar and wind. As I said, 50 per cent of Australia's total energy demand is liquid fuels. Labor have been dragged kicking and screaming by the realities of global geopolitics to do what the rest of the world was already doing: build up energy capacity on fossil fuels and renewables.

Labor was pursuing Greens votes in inner cities and throwing families and our economy under the bus. Part-time Energy Minister Bowen has been preening and posing on the international stage as COP31 president in charge of the COP31 negotiations. This is a government more focused on looking good on the international stage than on Australian national security. Minister Bowen spoke today about being ahead of the curve. That word 'curve' might be triggering for some—tired old Labor dusting off the old playbooks. This is a government that has been behind the curve since it took office four years ago. The dog didn't eat their homework; there was no homework to eat. The dog is innocent.

Here are some potential solutions to this fuel security crisis from a party of government: prioritising and investing in Australian exploration and drilling for oil, gas and unconventional petroleum; exploring options to produce more liquid fuels from our coal reserves; further building up the in-country fuel reserves the coalition bolstered in government; investing in our refining capacity; supporting complementary fuel streams; and establishing a dedicated fuel security budget. I look forward to seeing what the Labor government does with that.

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | 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:

(a) the Government spent three weeks denying the existence of a fuel crisis—first dismissing concerns, then blaming consumers, and only acting once the problem became unavoidable;

(b) that after four years in office, the Government has failed to strengthen Australia's sovereign fuel capability, and now proposes to fund imports of the same resources it has banned funding for domestic production; and

(c) that Australia enters this crisis weaker, with higher debt, higher taxes, persistently high inflation, and falling real wages as a direct consequence of the Government's economic mismanagement; and

(2) recognises that the former Coalition Government took decisive action to strengthen fuel security, including establishing the Minimum Stockholding Obligation, legislating the Fuel Security Act, and securing Australia's last two refineries".

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is facing a fuel crisis at the worst possible time. After four years of economic mismanagement under the Albanese government, Australian households are already under immense pressure, working harder, paying more and getting less. Now a fuel supply shock is compounding that pressure across every corner of our economy. Fuel is not just another expense; fuel is the cost of everything.

While I welcome the government's move to finally listen to the Australian people and the coalition to halve the fuel excise for six months, this is a short-term measure when we undoubtedly require both immediate relief and long-term vision and action. When fuel prices rise, it flows through to groceries, freight, farming, tourism and small business. Right now Australians are seeing the consequence in real time. We're seeing petrol prices nearing $2.60 a litre and diesel climbing above $3.30 a litre. We're seeing service stations running dry, both in regional communities and in our cities. Independent service stations in my electorate are on the verge of collapse and indeed some people have stopped filling their tanks because they simply can no longer afford it.

Businesses in Lyne that rely heavily on diesel for their operations, such as the Dorney family in Bulahdelah, are having to sell off their own assets to keep the business afloat to pay their fuel bill in the face of surging fuel prices. Their fuel bill was typically around $200,000 a month. It's now at $400,000 a month. This is a business, a sawmill, that has also been smashed by the decision of the New South Wales government to create the Great Koala National Park and to put a moratorium on native harvesting. So, at the same time that they are having to deal with these rising fuel prices, they're not getting the throughput in timber to be able to offset the costs.

We're seeing families rethink everyday decisions—whether they can afford to drive their kids to sport, visit loved ones or take a planned holiday. I spoke to one junior rugby league club only recently. This was a club that I worked with during the May floods last year. They've got young players who can't afford their registration. I've offered to help because I want these kids not to miss out. These are the sorts of decisions that families are taking. I respect—and I'm sure—that these are the conversations that all members, regardless of where they sit in this chamber, are having with their local communities. As we're seeing, these are not theoretical problems. These are issues that are happening right now.

What's been the government's response? From our perspective, there's been delay. I felt, in that sitting week when these issues first arose, that there was certainly denial about the impacts on regional Australia. I think out in the community there's certainly confusion. For weeks, Australians were told that there was no problem—until, suddenly, we're told it is a national crisis; we have a fuel supply crisis. I know the Prime Minister's view is very much that he's shown leadership. I have to question that, because what many people have said to me is that they've seen a government asleep at the wheel.

Now we have before us this legislation. Let me be clear; the coalition will always support practical measures that improve supply in a crisis. This bill will enable Export Finance Australia to step in during extraordinary disruptions and to finance and ensure the import of essential goods like fuel and fertiliser. This is a sensible and necessary step, but we must also be honest about what this bill actually does—because this bill does not get fuel to empty stations today, it does not bring down prices tomorrow and it does not fix the structural weaknesses that have left Australia exposed.

But there's an even deeper problem here. The bill exposes a fundamental inequity in the government's approach. Who is this support really for? This legislation effectively underwrites the purchase of fuel by major corporate importers—large, well-capitalised players who already dominate the supply chain. But what about the rest of the supply chain? What about the wholesale distributors? What about the independent operators? What about the small, family-run service stations in regional Australia? They are the ones on the front line of this crisis. They are the ones struggling to secure supply. They are the ones facing skyrocketing wholesale prices and tightening credit, and they are the ones who are least capable of carrying—but are expected to carry—the risk.

The government is stepping in to support the top end of the market but is leaving the little guys to fend for themselves. It's forgetting the small-business service station owners who are trying to find the capital to fill their tanks. It's forgetting the independent distributor who's being squeezed between rising global prices and limited access to supply. I believe, and I've said in this chamber, that there has been hoarding happening during this crisis. It's a matter that I have written to the Treasurer about—to request that the ACCC have an antihoarding power that it currently does not have. The government is forgetting the small operators who are quite literally trying to keep fuel flowing to their communities. Here is the reality: you cannot have fuel at the bowser if small operators can't afford to put fuel in the tank, and, right now, many of them are struggling to do exactly that.

This is a government who talks about resilience but is ignoring the very part of the supply chain that delivers fuel to Australians. It's underwriting imports but not supporting distribution. It's backing the majors but forgetting the small businesses that keep regional Australia moving. That is a fundamental flaw, and it's compounded by the government's broader policy settings. While they're now stepping in to underwrite imported fuel, they've actively restricted investment in Australian energy production. Through changes to the statement of expectations last year, the government removed Export Finance Australia's ability to support coal, oil and gas projects. They told the agency to prioritise a narrow ideological agenda and, in so doing, they weakened Australia's economic and energy security. So we now have a situation where the government is funding imports of fuel while restricting support for producing it here. If these fuels are important enough to stockpile, they're clearly important enough to produce. If energy security matters, domestic capability must come first.

Under the coalition, Export Finance Australia supported Australia's national interest. It backed exporters, it backed jobs and it backed the industries that underpin our economy. Coal, oil and gas are not abstract industries. They are the backbone of regional economies and a key source of national wealth. But, under this government, Export Finance Australia has been repurposed to fit an ideological agenda, one that excludes the very industries we now depend upon in this crisis. So I'm calling on the government to remove the restrictions that prevent Export Finance Australia from supporting coal, gas and crude oil. I'm calling on the government to back Australian production, not block it. Importantly, I'm calling on the government to recognise the full supply chain, not just the major importers at the top, because if the government is serious about fuel security, it must support production, importation, distribution and retail, not just one part of the system.

We must also address the immediate cost pressures Australians are facing because this bill does nothing to reduce prices at the bowser today. That's why the coalition called for immediate, targeted relief through a temporary halving of the fuel excise, which would deliver around 26c per litre in savings, providing immediate relief to families and small businesses who are struggling right now. I thank the government for the announcement today, which I'm sure will be welcomed by Australians.

This crisis is exposing the consequences of four years of poor decisions. There has been a failure to build domestic capability, a failure to support key industries and now a failure to support the small businesses that keep fuel flowing across this country. The government is underwriting the majors while leaving small operators to carry the risk. It's backing big corporate importers while forgetting the independent service stations and distributors who are the backbone of regional fuel supply. If this war does come to an end and we have a situation where we see prices for fuel drop substantially, what we will have is a situation where the government will cover the difference in cost for the major players but leave small service station operators with fuel in their tanks for which they've paid substantially more than market price. It's going to be a significant issue for many small service station operators around the country.

While I support the decision and the bill that's before us today, my concern remains that there is still a matter of the availability of fuel right now, because if small operators cannot afford to buy fuel, then there'll be no fuel at the bowser. It's that simple. Yes, we will support this bill as a necessary step. But I want to say to the government: please do not stop here. Fix the underlying policy settings. Restore support for Australian energy production. Support the entire fuel supply chain, not just those at the top end, and deliver real immediate relief to Australians doing it tough. Restoring fuel security is not just about imports, it's about ensuring that every part of the supply chain, from producer to distributor to small service station, can keep Australia moving. My constituents, and all Australians, deserve nothing less.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning, the government introduced this emergency legislation aimed at ensuring Australia's continued fuel supply during the ongoing war in the Middle East. I support emergency measures around fuel supply, especially where Australia's reserves sit well below the International Energy Agency's 90-day mandate and are, in fact, amongst the lowest in the OECD.

But reactive emergency legislation can only go so far. This is the second piece of legislation in just the last week that we've seen for the first time on the day that it has been brought forward for debate. The war in Iran is more than a month old. While we're all glad that the government has finally realised that we are—as we were in the pandemic—in a race to secure sovereign access to fuel and other substances, we have to ask why it's taken the government so long to act and why it is acting in such a piecemeal fashion. We know how that ended in COVID.

The Australian people can't afford for our government to lose the race again. We need to know that the government is going to hold a hose and not just line up for a photo at a bowser in a service station. What the Australian people need is not another emergency measure rushed through in a day. They need assurances that we have a long-term plan to ensure Australia's energy sovereignty. It's only through a genuine commitment to the renewable transition that we will become less vulnerable to the next crisis—knowing that there will inevitably be another crisis.

As to this legislation, Export Finance Australia is an agency of government which has a clear mandate. The agency's powers are currently limited to financing eligible export transactions, overseas infrastructure development and supporting the Future Made in Australia agenda by delivering finance under its national economy and net zero functions. This legislation will give the EFA the additional powers to provide loans, guarantees, equity, insurance, derivatives and price support arrangements. Beyond that, it will have powers to buy, sell and stockpile fuels and other goods and to hedge the exposures that follow. That is a significant expansion of its scope at very short notice and with minimal opportunity for this House to scrutinise the legislation.

The government is claiming that this legislation is about derisking the acquisition and delivery of fuel from international markets—in particular, for regional communities—and avoiding the need for more disruptive emergency interventions down the track. But the mechanism for ensuring this additional supply, which was introduced via this legislation just this morning, raises real concerns. Price support arrangements and government backed supply interventions can distort the very prices that they are designed to stabilise. If the EFA is buying, stockpiling or underwriting fuel supply, it signals to the market that the Commonwealth is willing to absorb risk. This will inevitably change supplier behaviour. The outcome at the bowser might paradoxically be even higher prices.

We have received no assurances from the government that this intervention, which is meant to protect consumers against supply shortages, won't end up working against them on price. The government also says that these measures are temporary, but they can create dependency amongst suppliers, within regions and amongst consumers, which could render their future withdrawal politically difficult. Regions that come to expect stable, supported supply will likely push back hard if that supply is wound back during what could prove to be a long, protracted and difficult war. We've seen that before with the withdrawal of household energy rebates during an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. I'm worried, again, that this government, through its potential short sighted implementation of reactive measures, can only provide a temporary prop-up to Australia's energy markets.

It's also a concern that fuel markets are volatile. Prices move quickly, sharply and often without warning. Giving the EFA authority to enter derivatives and hedging arrangements means that the Commonwealth will now be exposed to those movements. If markets turn, those losses won't disappear; they'll land on the Commonwealth's balance sheet. They'll land on the taxpayer. In effect, the government could be stepping in on national interest grounds to take on projects that private markets have looked at and chosen to walk away from. We should ask ourselves: if the private sector won't touch cost- or risk-prohibitive projects, why should the Commonwealth?

This brings me to the questions that this bill has not answered: what savings or offsets have been identified by the Treasurer, and what fiscal guardrails are in place around this measure? We know that the government is appropriating $2 billion to respond to fuel security during the remaining three months of the 2025-26 financial year. But what happens beyond that? The government has not answered these questions. Until it does, Australians are being asked to approve a permanent and significant expansion of Commonwealth risk with no clear account of the ongoing cost.

There's also the question of oversight. The instruments that this bill authorises—derivatives, hedging, guarantees and price support mechanisms—are complex. They carry real tail risk and require active expert governance, but the government does not anticipate a review of these measures before 2029. At a time where the EFA could be actively hedging, stockpiling and extending guarantees across international supply chains, the parliament's primary safeguard is a report that may well not land for three years or more. If something goes significantly wrong in year 1, there will be no circuit breaker, no sunset clause. By the time the review arrives, the damage may already be done.

The concerns I have around this bill bring me back to my main point: the need for structural reforms and for some difficult conversations. We can't debate this legislation without saying the quiet part out loud. The real answer to Australia's energy security crisis is not stockpiles. It's not hedging arrangements. It's not a government agency buying and selling fuel for us on international markets. The real answer is reducing our dependence on international energy markets and improving our sovereign capacity to produce energy. Every dollar that we spend securing fossil fuel reserves is a dollar that we do not spend accelerating the renewable transition that would make these conversations and this legislation unnecessary. A country that's able to generate its own clean energy at home will not be and cannot be held hostage by wars in the Middle East, by volatile and unsafe shipping routes or by the pricing decisions of international fuel corporations. That is what Australia's genuine energy security future looks like, and this bill must not become a distraction from that goal or an excuse to delay it.

For every dollar put forward into securing additional fuel supply under this legislation, the government should reduce the fossil fuel subsidies received by major industries through the fuel tax credits scheme. While everyday motorists and small businesses are struggling with the cost of diesel, the government's fuel tax credit scheme is costing us $10.8 billion per year. That's $300 million a day or over $200,000 by the time I finish this speech. Fuel tax credits make diesel fuel use artificially cheap for offroad users, such as in mining. Fossil fuel companies themselves—coal miners like Glencore, Peabody, Yancoal, Mitsubishi, Whitehaven and Anglo American—are significant, large and ongoing beneficiaries from fuel tax credits. We have the wicked paradox in which Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospective is receiving a 52.6 cents per litre subsidy for its offroad use of diesel while truckies today are struggling to deliver groceries to our supermarkets and are still, until the bill passes the House, paying the heavy vehicle road user charge of 32.4 cents per litre. The full picture of this legislation is that the government is proposing to use taxpayer money to secure more fuel supply, supply that will then flow to the same fossil fuel giants who are already receiving billions of Australian dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Ordinary Australians are underwriting both ends of the supply chain, and when those same Australians ask why prices remain high, I'm sure the government will point to the ACCC. Last week the government rushed legislation which increased the maximum penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. The problem with that is that the former head of the ACCC Allan Fels has said that the commission actually has no real power to do anything. Price gouging is not illegal in relation to fuel. It is only illegal in relation to supermarkets, and even that ban hasn't yet come into force. Under our current laws, successful prosecutions of price collusion are rare because evidential barriers appear too difficult to overcome, especially when retailers don't have to provide reasons for raising their prices. It's simply not good enough. While the government has moved to halve the fuel excise and is lauding their national fuel security plan, we have no real security right now that this will translate into lower prices at the bowser because fuel price gouging remains completely legal and the government and the ACCC have no control over it.

So I call on the government to act quickly and with authority to give the ACCC real powers to prosecute price gouging across our whole economy, to legislate a whole-of-economy price gouging offence, to cut the mining and coal industry's fossil fuel subsidies dollar for dollar with what this legislation will cost taxpayers and to move to incentivise industry to decarbonise, not continue its dependence on diesel, oil and gas. I ask the government to accelerate the energy transition, to end our dependence on imported fuels and to increase our ability to capitalise on renewable energy from our sun and wind.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When markets seize in moments of heightened risk, there is a clear and legitimate role for government to step in and stabilise outcomes in the national interest. That is why I support the use of Export Finance Australia's deal-making powers to secure fuel supplies from international markets. Australia imports around 90 per cent of its liquid fuels, so, amidst global uncertainty, risk mitigation is essential to maintain supply continuity.

The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 provides Export Finance Australia with new powers to enter into contracts for the purchase and sale of fuel and critical minerals for domestic availability. In doing so, EFA can underwrite fuel purchases during periods of volatility. It also provides a mechanism to establish the $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve. This is a broadening of the EFA'S remit, but one that leverages existing capability.

Although EFA will participate in commercial transactions, this bill does not ensure a public return or guarantee sovereign capability. It does not control fuel prices or prioritise who gets fuel. It does not define what is critical, enabling this to change with circumstances. It does not specify a cost. Exposure to losses will be assessed on a deal-by-deal basis, with the Minister for Trade and Tourism able to direct EFA to act through the National Interest Account. This is a broad bill with some broad powers, so I support a review. It's currently scheduled for 2029. I would see value in bringing that in earlier.

This bill sits alongside a number of sensible steps already taken by the government. Right now, locally, there is a significant demand shock alongside the supply shock the world is facing. Fuel is continuing to arrive, with cargoes at or higher than levels originally contracted and with around 30 days of forward visibility in the system. But, as people worry about availability and respond to a price shock which they cannot necessarily afford, many have filled up early and stored additional fuel. That means more fuel is sitting in car tanks and jerry cans and less is available at service stations. While we do have aggregate supply holding, this is why there are shortages in petrol stations across the country, including in my electorate in the middle of Sydney. That is why public confidence matters so much.

So I welcome the public and up-to-date National Fuel Security Plan announced today. Other announcements following National Cabinet, like the temporary halving of the fuel excise and the elimination of the heavy vehicle road user charge, are popular but will add a $2.55 billion expense to a budget that is already under significant strain. I was particularly supportive of the elimination of the heavy vehicle user charge. I think that is important. But we do need to consider how we manage this. That is why I believe we should implement an urgent windfall tax on war-driven profits in the gas industry. War should not be a windfall. The $40 billion in additional LNG export revenue during the 2022 price spike was not the result of innovation or productivity. It was a consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Other jurisdictions acted. The European Union raised 26 billion euros through a temporary levy on extraordinary profits. A targeted, temporary tax relief on supernormal war-driven revenues would strengthen the government's fiscal position without undermining long-term investment. It would provide the fiscal space to enable targeted support for households.

I think this is really important because I take the concerns about sovereign risk and investment certainty really, really seriously. I think about this in relation to how we create an environment where we can attract investment into this country and we can give investors certainty that their investments will pay off in the way that they expect them to. But there should be an exception for war. I don't think this is unreasonable. When there is a war, when it changes the game, it is appropriate to reflect that in our laws. I think it is up to the government to act, this time, in a way that it didn't in 2022 and put in an appropriate series of changes; for instance, adding a sliding scale based on how high the price of gas gets, related just to the war. You could actually bring in significant revenue but also do it in a way that doesn't hamper investment, which I think is critical.

I also think that right now we need to move beyond short-term responses and towards preparation for the next time we have a similar kind of attack on global supply chains. If we look at fuel, and energy in particular, Australia is in a stronger position than many countries. While we import most of our liquid fuels, we are a net energy exporter, with net exports equivalent to 67 per cent of production in 2023-24. Countries we import liquid fuels from, such as Japan and South Korea, depend on our gas and coal exports. That gives Australia strategic leverage in securing supply, but we cannot insulate ourselves from global prices. Those costs will flow through supply chains and into the cost of living. We are better positioned than we were in 2022, particularly because of progress on electrification, but we are not as prepared as we should be.

First, we need to build a detailed assessment of energy system supply chain risks aligned with stockpiles and sovereign capability. That capability should be disciplined; guided by a resource endowment; and used only where fuel switching, stockpiling and friendshoring are insufficient. Fertiliser meets those tests; refined fuels likely do not. We do need to make sure that we do have longer-term positions in place to give us greater resilience. We know that stockpiling is expensive. Returning to our IEA compliance, holding 90 days of fuel reserves could cost around $20 billion, but fuel security is a form of national insurance and that cost should be shared.

That brings me to my second point. We must reform fuel tax credits. Large diesel users currently receive around $10 billion annually in credits. If the government cannot afford its stockholding obligations—if it's already investing billions of dollars in holding these stockholdings in Australia—it makes little sense to return this sum each year to fuel-dependent users. It dampens the incentive to switch to cleaner domestic energy sources and prolongs our reliance on imported fuels.

Third, over time, we do need to reduce our dependence on liquid fuels altogether. Electrification is not just climate policy; it is also energy security policy. Those Australians who feel most secure right now are those with rooftop solar, batteries and electric vehicles. Renewable energy does not depend on global shipping lanes or geopolitical chokepoints. The economics are clear: renewables get cheaper each year, while remaining fossil fuel resources are deeper, more complicated to extract, more expensive and more vulnerable to global shocks. And those fossil fuels are finite.

Geoscience Australia estimates that our crude oil reserves will last around seven years at current production rates. Seven years. For those people saying that the answer is, 'Drill, baby, drill,' just be aware that it's seven years of resilience that this has. The answer to our future fuel resilience or our sovereign capabilities is not just more liquid fuel extraction here. Even if subcommercial resources were developed, it could sustain less than a decade of consumption. Renewables, by contrast, are effectively inexhaustible, so calls of, 'Drill, baby, drill,' are not a serious response to an immediate crisis. Even known reserves take around five years to bring online.

These are the challenges here. This is where the government has, I think, exhibited a lack of real drive in trying to support electrification. I'm going to use the example of electric trucks and freight. This is an area where we are still extremely dependent, particularly on diesel. Other countries around the world move much more freight than we do. We as a country, because of our size, move a lot of freight on roads, but the truth is that we haven't got the systems in place to electrify our trucks as fast as other countries have. We don't have the coordination between the states. We haven't agreed on how we're going to work across the trucking industry and the energy sector in terms of the appropriate rollout of recharging stations. This does require a degree of coordination and does require a degree of focus, and I don't believe that the government has shown this, particularly in the sense of electric trucking. I believe that one of the lessons from this particular crisis should be to not leave this another 10-odd years.

Fourth, I think we need to address the structural deficit because, in difficult times, you need to be able to pull on your reserves. When you've got 10 years of deficit, as we currently do, your ability to be flexible and support people as needed is reduced. With high inflation, persistent deficits projected for the next decade and debt approaching $1 trillion, there is limited fiscal space to respond to this crisis, let alone the next. We must make room for disciplined decisions, review spending and ensure programs deliver real value for Australians.

Finally, let me turn briefly to critical minerals, which this bill also contemplates. I recognise the opportunity in this sector, but I do not see the urgency of attaching it to an emergency bill. The government has committed significant funding to critical minerals, including the $5 billion Critical Minerals Facility and a production tax incentive expected to cost around $7 billion over 10 years. But important questions remain. First, on its impact, a strategic reserve will only strengthen resilience if we build downstream capability in Australia and can process minerals in high-value products, not just extract them. Second, there's the public return. Critical minerals are finite resources owned by the Australian people. If public funds are supporting industry development, then the public must receive a fair share of the benefits. Otherwise, we risk repeating the experience of gas, where significant profits are generated but the public return is limited and reform is politically difficult. We need to get the balance right from the start. That means stable, durable and predictable tax settings and structural reform to ensure Australians share in the upside from their natural resources and the risk they take in industry development.

This is work I will continue to develop, including through a forthcoming white paper, because, ultimately, energy security, economic resilience and fiscal responsibility are not separate challenges. They are deeply interconnected, and it is our responsibility to address them with seriousness, discipline and fairness. This work is urgent now, but better preparation for the next crisis should be as urgent, for a forward-looking government.

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

The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 is not the solution to Australia's energy security. It is a necessary short-term circuit breaker during a fuel shock, but it's a loud admission that our national resilience remains dangerously dependent on legacy fossil fuel markets. I support the intent of this legislation to keep Australia moving, prevent regional communities from running out of fuel and prevent a short-term supply squeeze turning into a broader economic hit. But I will say the quiet part out loud: underwriting extra fuel cargoes does not address the structural problem. If we only do more imported fuel faster, we'll be right back here at the next geopolitical flashpoint.

Climate resilience is national resilience and economic resilience; we've been saying this for years in this place. When climate hazards worsen, supply chains and essential services get hit. When fossil fuel markets spike, households and businesses get hit. The lesson is that genuine resilience means reducing long-term exposure to these kinds of disruptions. If we're serious about fuel and energy security, we must accelerate electrification—and fast. Electric transport is not an extra; it's a strategic shield against imported oil volatility.

What is driving this bill is not a theoretical risk. It's an active disruption in global oil markets, with sharp price volatility and supply uncertainty tied to the conflict involving the US and Israel's actions in Iran and the resulting disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. Many experts predict that the disruptions will continue to expand, and the conflict may well last for a lot longer than hoped. Australia is structurally exposed because we import most of our fuel and rely on international shipping arriving on schedule. When ships cancel or prices jump, we feel it at the bowser and then in freight, groceries and inflation.

The government's immediate crisis settings have already included temporarily releasing up to 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, freeing up to 762 million litres targeted to relieve regional pressures; and actively monitoring stocks and arrivals while warning against panic buying and unsafe stockpiling.

Australia also has international obligations. Under the international energy program treaty settings, member countries are expected to hold oil stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of oil reserves and be ready for collective action during major disruptions. Australia has not met this goal, and I don't understand that it's one of the government's intentions. Australia briefly leased space in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2020 and then sold that oil in 2022. Angus Taylor, Leader of the Opposition, was the minister responsible for that decision to lease space and then subsequently sell it off on the international market. Even when that arrangement existed, it was a small volume and slow to access and it was crude, not ready-to-use fuel.

Fuel security policy in recent years has focused heavily on stockholding obligations and supporting our remaining domestic refineries, but this treats supply as the only lever while underinvesting in the long-term demand solution, which is electrifying transport. It was the Morrison coalition government that helped lead us into this mess. Its scaremongering campaign that electric vehicles would ruin the weekend was not just silly politics; it was short sighted and really reckless. It was a symptom of a deeper failure to plan for the economic and energy transitions already underway. If the major parties had got with the program earlier and engaged seriously with the needs of a 21st century economy, Australia could have built far greater economic resilience by now.

The central idea in this legislation is sound, and I will support it to address a temporary emergency situation. It gives Export Finance Australia a flexible set of tools—insurance, derivatives, loans and other arrangements—to derisk additional cargoes to encourage suppliers to bid for discretionary shipments. But these laws need guardrails to ensure these powers are temporary and not used to finance fossil fuels for any longer than would address the immediate fuel security crisis. To that end, I would urge the government to consider a much earlier period of review for this legislation.

Food security and regional resilience are directly affected in the current crisis. When the diesel price spikes or supply tightens, there is no doubt that farmers and freight feel it first and then everyone pays at the check-out. That is exactly why fuel security is not just an energy policy; it's a cost-of-living and national resilience policy. Underwriting fuel cargoes must be paired with an explicit funded electrification plan where possible. Otherwise we'll just keep paying to delay our own economic and national resilience.

If we are to achieve genuine resilience, our transport sector must be electrified. That means buses, fleets, charging infrastructure and heavy vehicles. In fact, for the naysayers who don't think it's possible, just today the Parliamentary Friends of Electric Vehicles and Future Fuels are hosting the Freight Forward summit, with incredible advances and amazing technology and options when it comes to electric heavy vehicle freight options. The impacts of climate change will multiply these risks. Geopolitical instability and wars get magnified by further events. Australia's own National Climate Risk Assessment identifies climate risks across essential goods and services, the economy, infrastructure and national security systems. Resilience that ignores climate change is short lived.

Countries that electrify faster are less exposed to oil price shocks in their day-to-day economies. China's transformation is the obvious example for all the naysayers who, again, always want to point to the negatives. China has pushed electrification hard. Electric cars were almost half of all car sales there in 2024, with over 11 million cars sold, and electrification across the broader economy is proceeding faster than in the US or the EU by the International Energy Agency's measures. That is a structural buffer against oil price shocks because a bigger share of mobility and industry runs on domestically generated electricity instead of imported oil. China has been investing in renewable energy independence at scale since the early 2000s. Whilst it's not immune to this fuel shock, China is actually less exposed than many nations on the transport side because it has electrified more of its economy. That's allowing the Chinese government to introduce fuel price caps, cushioning consumers from price shocks. So it's really important that we look around to see how Australia can do better.

We have to treat EV uptake as a fuel security program, not just a culture war as many in this place like to do. Keeping Australians off imported petrol is a strategic objective. It also reduces household exposure to global price spikes permanently, not temporarily. This includes keeping the fringe benefit tax exemption for EVs. Treasury forecasting shows that EV uptake has exceeded early expectation. EVs rose from under two per cent of new sales when the policy began to around 10 per cent of new sales now, with Treasury estimating almost 100,000 vehicles benefiting from the exemption—faster than expected. By all accounts, sales of EVs are now booming as people realise the only way they can in fact inoculate themselves from fuel price shocks is by choosing that, not hybrid and not something that continues to rely on imported fuel.

On public transport, again China demonstrates the scale question too. It has the world's highest stock share of electric buses. The international energy agency puts it at around 30 per cent of bus stocks, built over years of industrial policy and procurement. Meanwhile, Australia is still overwhelmingly running diesel fleets, and even recent reporting puts our electric bus share at about one per cent. So, the fuel crisis demonstrates exactly what we need to urgently electrify our economy and end our dependence on legacy fossil fuels.

The other component of this legislation lays the groundwork for a critical mineral strategy reserve by giving Export Finance Australia new powers to enter offtake arrangements, facilitate contracts and stockpile key minerals. These are mechanisms that can give emerging projects commercial certainty, attract investment and increase Australia's involvement in clean energy supply chains. For too long we've been comfortable digging up strategic materials while allowing refining, processing and high-value manufacturing to happen elsewhere. That needs to stop. So I can support emergency underwriting to keep Australia moving through this short-term shock, but we can't remain complacent while dependent on legacy fossil fuel energies. Those in this place who want to continue the culture wars about this are simply reckless and negligent to what Australians are going to face in the future. The strategic reserve that matters most is the one that reduces oil dependence. Keep the EV FBT exemption, accelerate charging and public transport electrification, and treat climate resilience as a foundation of national and economic resilience.

I welcome the announcements today from the government in relation to the assistance to Australians when it comes to the fuel excise, the halving of the excise, and in relation to freight. But, again, these are going to come as massive hits to the budget. There is no doubt that budget repair is needed. That's why I urge the government to look at the fuel excise rebate. Over $10 billion going to mining has to stop. It simply cannot continue that we have the budget in the state that it's in with the consequences and the crisis we have now.

Finally, there is no doubt that it's just unconscionable that we can continue to have excess wartime export profits by the gas industry. The government just needs to admit that it got the settings of the PRRT wrong. Either change those settings or introduce a 25 per cent export tax. We have to balance the budget. We have to build resilience and domestic energy security and, to do that, it will cost. We need to ensure that is done in a balanced and measurable way. So to all those in this place who want to continue culture wars about the risks and the very serious consequences for the future, I would say get with the times.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

"not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to initiate a review of this Bill for any potential areas of conflict with other legislation, including but not limited to the Safeguard Mechanism".

I'd like to acknowledge that what we have got to understand is that—I heard the previous speaker, the member for Warringah. With all due respect, electric trucks are absolutely ridiculous. A Toyota Land Cruiser weighs a little less than three tonnes. One of those trucks has more than four tonnes of batteries. Of course that means its capacity, its range is not comparable to being able to deal with Australia. And you haven't got the roads, if you're fully loaded, to be able to take it on the number of axles they provide. It's just this mythical thing.

What I have put forward here is this: we've got to move away from the climate change department. One of the big issues, after all the work of bringing fuel into Australia, is it runs into a thing called the Safeguard Mechanism. The Safeguard Mechanism is precisely there to push the fuel back offshore again. So we're on both the clutch and the brake and also the accelerator all at the same time and wondering why the engine's not going well and why we're not going anywhere. What we have to do as we move this legislation is clearly look at other things that impede us from the greatest efficacy possible. The safeguard mechanism for the emissions of carbon dioxide over 100,000 tonnes is precisely that. If we go to electrification, then we will have a huge problem, because our electricity grid has been destroyed by our desire to somehow change the temperature.

There's this idea that Australia will change the climate. We actually, insanely, have a climate change department—a department with thousands of employees to change the climate. I don't know when you get to sack them if the climate hasn't changed appropriately. El Nino is coming. If we had efficacy, then I would want it stopped. That's the thing we should be doing. Stop it now so that it starts raining. People say, 'Well, that's an absurdity;' well, the whole department's an absurdity. If we go to electrification, we will go from the highest fuel prices to the highest electricity prices in the OECD. And the area with the greatest amounts of intermittent power is not renewable. That's just the nomenclature of those who want to rip you off. If you go to the place with the highest amount of intermittent power, it's South Australia. And guess what? It's got the highest price. It's the highest price in the country with highest price. And you want to strap your nation to that? If we talk about culture wars, there seems to be a culture war against the internal combustion engine. If you really don't believe them, go to the next election and say you want to ban internal combustion engines, and I'll see you in opposition. It will be quite simple.

We have to have an epiphany here. We have to start thinking about Australia and how to strengthen it. What is happening now in the Middle East is merely a minor play for the big one, which is the Taiwan crisis. When the Taiwan crisis happens, it won't just be fuel that shuts down; it'll be everything. President Xi says he's going to take Taiwan back by 2027. We live in 2026. We should have every minister on their pegs, saying what their plan is, saying how we're going to get alternate supplies and saying what the contingency plans are. What's happened with this is something that we should have been planning for at the start of the year. I mentioned at the start of the year in interviews what the biggest issue is for us: the potential of a Taiwan crisis. Why? Because of the restriction on supply lines and the calamitous effect that it could have on Australia. Well, I didn't get the predicament wrong; I just got the war wrong. The war ended up being in the Middle East. But that's just part 1.

This amendment talks to how we should look at what we're about to do, which I commend—in fact, I work with the government to do it, which I commend—but we've got to make sure that it doesn't start running into further obstacles the moment the fuel starts arriving in Australia. If we don't have fuel, then we don't have food. It's a pretty simple equation. If we don't have the reliability of fuel, then the first question people will ask in the country is: can I plant? And is the cost of planting so excessive that it's not worth planting, so should I reduce how much and reduce the risk? The next question will be: do we have fertiliser so that we get a fair return from planting? The next question will be: do I have security of fuel throughout the term of the crop? The last question will be: do I have the fuel to take the crop off, and do people have the fuel to take the crop away? That's whether it's carrots, barley, wheat or cattle. It doesn't matter. I don't think this nation has properly addressed that issue.

I heard from the minister for agriculture, Minister Collins, in the last sitting, and I did not get an answer that left me with any confidence whatsoever that the government had a plan or the foresight to see what is happening with regard to food security. Today, when you turn on the television, the issue they're talking about is food security. It's a ripple-through effect of the fuel crisis. The reality rather than the fantasy is that we're still using, and will continue to use in the long term, internal combustion engines. The reality is that you cannot move to electric vehicles, and to suggest that in the middle of a crisis is just oblivious to the circumstances that Australia is currently in. We've had electric vehicles for a very long time; they're called golf buggies. They've been around for a very, very long time. If there had been a buck in them, they would have expanded them. It's a wonderful thing called the marketplace. What we're trying to do is to legislate ourselves into alternative forms of energy—to just put aside all sense of physics and economics and believe we're going to arrive at this energy nirvana.

Today is the wake-up call. So what we should be doing, in this parliament, is this. We're on the way. We've got half of us that don't believe in net zero—great! The next step is to get out of the Paris accord, because that's just net zero with a French accent. And the next step after that is to just get to rid of the climate change department completely—remove it; get rid of it.

I'll tell you right now: if you want to get a cheer when you're out talking to a room, tell them you're going to get rid of the climate change department—that's the one they react to the best. They're way ahead of us. They're vastly more enlightened and vastly more perceptive about trying to get this place back to a sense of reality and away from the fantasy that we currently live in because certain people, who have very loud voices and very small constituencies, take you out to dinner on the weekend. If you just forget about them and start thinking about the people you meet at the bowling club, you're probably going to go a lot better electorally.

What we have to do is: be honest, and understand, first and foremost, that we need fuel. Where are you going to get it from? And the legislation talks to that. In very simple terms, there is a spot market out there. It's just that it's the price you want to pay. And people aren't really concerned, to be quite frank, about the price going up. Say you're bringing in a tanker—and the biggest tanker is about 250 million litres, so let's say you're bringing in that. So, if you're making a play for a hundred million litres at—I don't know—$2.20, it's 220 million litres that you're out there for. And you're terrified of downside risk. So the best thing is, if you can, to get yourself a cap-and-collar arrangement and offload your risk to someone else. But no-one's going to take that risk at the moment, so there's a role for the government to come in and take that risk. Now, if you want to have a discussion later on about a cap arrangement, I think that's a viable thing to have a discussion about.

With that, when they say, 'Oh, well, this is going to help the miners,' that just shows no understanding. Miners are on contract; they go on contract for megalitre buys. It's not that there's an option out there with magical fuel. There's a financial instrument and that offloads their risk. So they don't care about the spot market.

This is talking about securing up the spot market, which is vitally important. If we don't do that, it's going to exacerbate the problem.

I might say that, from talking to independent distributors before coming into this chamber, they still don't have access to product; there are legal issues, where it can't be delivered. But their frustration is that they hear us, with this, saying, 'Oh, well, this will fix it.' I might say, in a sobering form, 'No, it won't.' This assists. It doesn't fix it. The problem is still there, and it's there in an incredibly substantive way. We have to be able to acknowledge that. Tomorrow I'll have some of those independents in the building. They're having a meeting with the energy minister. The Labor Party is the government, so that's where they've got to go; that's who they've got to meet. And then, later on, they'll be meeting in the Treasurer's office. I think it's incredibly important that the government understands how this is working on the ground in regional areas, because that informs the decision process. If we have an informed decision process, we cannot get ourselves out of the crisis but we can mitigate it.

The longer-term plan, though, has to be for Australia to have a wake-up call and clearly understand that you are not going to change the weather. Forget it. That's fantasy. I might be an apostate as to the whims of this chamber, but it is absolute fantasy. You are not going to change the weather. You're not going to make it hotter. You're not going to make it cooler. You're not going to make it windier. You're not going to make it drier. You're not going to make it wetter. But you will make Australians poorer; you will do that. And you will put our country at risk; you will do that. And you will spend, absolutely, over 10 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, trying to achieve the impossible; you will do that. The only way we can stop doing that is to get rid of the department. That's its whole purpose. Its whole modus operandi is to change the climate, as absurd as that idea is—that a department on the continent of Australia can change the weather.

So I put forward this amendment. It just asks for you to consider. If you don't consider, well, I suppose then you're ignorant to the facts. And if you don't consider, it means generally that you know what needs what is going to be said and you don't want it to be heard. I move:

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

"not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to initiate a review of this Bill for any potential areas of conflict with other legislation, including but not limited to the Safeguard Mechanism".

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Lyne moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for New England has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for New England to the amendment moved by the member for Lyne be agreed to.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026. Australia is facing a serious fuel supply shock at the worst possible time, and we have spent the last two weeks trying to explain to the government, particularly the minister for Energy and Climate Change, how serious this problem is. We've been called scaremongers. We've been accused of causing people to panic buy. But the reality is that our constituents, many of them in regional Australia—for whom diesel is not a nice to have; it is an absolute necessity for their business—have been telling us about price shocks and supply issues.

What you do when your constituents tell you there is a serious problem with the way they go about their business, which keeps Australia running and keeps Australia paid for, is you bring it up in the chamber; you bring it up in question time. So we make no apology for trying to get the Minister for Energy and Climate Change to understand the severity of the problem by bringing these examples in. Even last week I said that I had just spoken to a group of grade 6s. One young girl told me, 'Dad ordered a load of diesel three weeks ago and it hasn't arrived yet, and we need diesel to start putting our crops in.' I made the comment that the grade 6 student understood the severity of the issue better than the Minister for Energy and Climate Change.

Diesel is absolutely essential to the operations that we have, particularly in regional Australia, particularly around the industries that pay for Australia, and those industries are mining and agriculture. Now, there's a lot of other very important, great industries going on in Australia but they're underpinned by our resources and our agricultural industries, and they rely on diesel. When the fuel prices rise or there's a supply disruption, that flows on to the price of groceries—I think we're about to see that, unfortunately—freight and logistics, household budgets. This crisis risks the homegrown cost-of-living crisis that we already had because of the mismanagement of the Labor Party and because of the government not taking seriously the concept of increased government spending without productivity dividends leading to inflation. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. But the fact that we already had that uptick means that this comes at a terrible time.

The government's response has been, I think it would be kind to say, chaotic and complacent. For weeks, there's been the denial of a problem, the dismissal of legitimate concerns, with Australians being blamed and us on this side being told we were not serious people. We were seriously laying bare the problems in our electorates. It's nice to see the government actually take it seriously and not only move on a couple of issues, including the fuel excise cut that we suggested last week but also this Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill that we will be supporting.

My portfolio is agriculture, so I would like to talk a bit about how critical diesel is for agriculture and how time sensitive that is. We are about to go into the winter cropping period, which means that farmers will be sowing seed. In the old days, you had to wait for a rain—the autumn break, whenever it arrived—and then you'd put your seat in. But, now, with new technologies which have seed protection, we can put seed in dry soil, and it will stay there without being attacked by pests and diseases so that, when the rain does come, the seed will come up. That cropping window pretty much starts now. It'll go through, probably, till the end of April and maybe into May, depending on the hectares that people decide to sow.

The supply of diesel right now to the farming areas is absolutely critical. A group of Western Australian wheat and barley farmers told me that they'll probably need 35 litres of diesel a hectare for the entire crop cycle. That's the sowing, the spraying of the weeds, the top dress of urea and then the harvest, so it's significant. They're wanting to know that there is going to be security of supply and that cost is going to be under control, because the cost of that 35 litres and whether you can get it in the first place is part of the decision-making process for how much crop you put in and whether you'll have the margins to make it a viable exercise. It's absolutely critical for agriculture. The coalition's position on this bill is that it will support it. We think this is a sensible measure. In a crisis, the government should act to keep supply chains moving and ensure essential imports like fuel and fertiliser can reach Australia.

This bill allows Export Finance Australia to step in during extraordinary disruptions. It's a sensible objective, and we support practical, targeted action in a crisis. What it does show—and many people before me who have come into this place have been saying this for a number of years—is that Australia is an island continent in a world that has become, over the last four years in particular, more sensitive to geopolitical shocks. The old world order doesn't seem to be holding as much as it used to. Australia has become incredibly reliant on inputs from overseas that come to us via ship. Those shipping lanes could close down because of conflict, and we're already seeing that as a result of the disruption to freight out of the Strait of Hormuz. That freight, critically, for us, has crude oil going to refineries, in particular, in Asia, so that's what is contributing to our current crisis. But the lack of sovereign capacity in relation to those issues should give us all cause for concern.

Let's be clear about what this bill does not do and what it is not. It will not get fuel to empty service stations today. That requires a distribution plan led by the minister, and we've been harping on about wanting to see that over the last two weeks. Whilst there is more fuel moving, and I acknowledge that, there are still issues with fuel getting to regional service stations and regional businesses, including farms and mines. This bill does not reduce prices at the bowser tomorrow. It does not fix the underlying problem that Australia is less prepared than it should be. So this is not a silver bullet. The deeper problem is one of economic management and national capability. After four years in office, Labor has failed to build sovereign fuel capability and has left Australia more exposed and more reliant on overseas supply, and now they want to fund imports of the very fuels it restricts at home. So I think what this whole crisis lays bare to us—if I could paraphrase and call it an inconvenient truth—is that we do rely on fossil fuel liquid fuels a lot more than we, as a nation, and in particular the government, have wanted to make out.

There have been comments that we can just electrify everything. There's been discussion of biodiesel, and I'm not against biodiesel, but it can't ramp up to deliver what is required in the industry at this point. I think, in combination with the general wishful thinking that renewable energy and electrification can get us where we need to go, this type of utopia—it's not in anyone's interest to pretend that things are something when they're not. Many of us are very concerned about the impacts of climate change, but pretending there are solutions out there, when they simply won't work in the real world, could, as I said in my maiden speech, move the problem of emissions offshore, make us poorer and reduce the standard of living of our people. That's not leadership. Wishful thinking is not leadership. Leadership is about saying, 'This is a really wicked problem,' and not pretending that there is some sort of solution out there, one that we would like to work. I would love it if wind turbines and solar panels could solve the problem, but the reality is that they can't.

There's the problem with, as I've said before in this place, base-load power. I was having a debate on Sky News with one of the crossbenchers, and she was saying that base-load power is an antiquated notion and a thing of the past. I was standing in an apple orchard, and I said, 'How are we going to refrigerate these apples when they're harvested if we don't have base-load power—that is, power that's going to be reliably on for 24 hours a day, seven days a week?'

This conflict in the Middle East and this global supply shock are a wake-up call that we're a lot more reliant on liquid fossil fuel, particularly on diesel, than we have been prepared to make out. What is diesel? I think a lot of us know it. I put it into my tractor and I put it into my vehicle. It's a critically important fuel for the world because most heavy machinery relies on diesel, whether it's on a farm, in a mine site or to get the goods that go from those mine sites or farms to the consumers. Whether it's taking iron ore to the port, taking bananas from North Queensland to the people who enjoy those and need healthy fresh fruit in supermarkets across Sydney and Melbourne or taking apples from my electorate to the markets, it's all done with diesel. Diesel is a refined product and the most effective and efficient and the cheapest way to make it is out of crude oil, but a lot of the crude oil comes out of the Middle East, so we are reliant on the Middle East.

We are going to have to look at whether there are other products—feedstocks, if you like—that have a calorific content that enables us to create diesel from not just crude oil. We need to look at those potentials. I acknowledge that across the parliament we're starting to look at some of those, such as biodiesel from canola, and it's been talked about with ethanol. There have been a lot of contributions on what we can do, but we need to go back and say: 'We need diesel. What would happen if there were some supply shocks even worse than the ones we're having now that meant we couldn't get the crude oil to the refinery to make the diesel?' Whether the refinery is in Singapore or Australia, it doesn't matter. If the crude oil doesn't get there, diesel can't be manufactured. Are there other calorific products in Australia, as part of our resources, that we could use to manufacture diesel? I think we need to really look into that.

The irony of this legislation is that it amends the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 and the Export Finance Australia mandate. Export Finance Australia's own statement of expectations said, when it was first put in, that it restricts Export Finance Australia from supporting oil, gas or coal and prioritises a renewable-only agenda. I think that goes to the heart of the contradiction that is this whole piece of legislation. As I said, we're supportive of it, but the fact that it's necessary is because, as I said before, I think we wished that things were, when they were not. Under the coalition, Export Finance Australia backed Australia's national interest—whatever that was. But under Labor it's been repurposed to enforce a type of ideology.

We are going to move amendments to this. I support the government in its intent to underwrite companies that want to bring necessary fuels, including petrol and diesel, into Australia. The object of it is good. The coalition will work constructively on this legislation, and we are proposing amendments. We want to remove restrictions on domestic oil, gas and crude production because that just makes sense. If we're getting crude, and it's out of the Middle East, and it's being refined in Singapore, those are global emissions; why not have them here? We will ensure that Export Finance Australia can support the industries that underpin energy security, because resilience cannot be built by blocking investment at home and funding imports offshore.

In closing, it's important, and Australians need immediate relief. I do congratulate the government on moving on the fuel excise; I think that was important. It came as a result of a call from the opposition last week. I think it's good that the government responded to that call in a positive way. We are supporting this bill. I think this is another good initiative by the government. Again, it will be made stronger if the government could look at this amendment and, in the same way they said that fuel excise from the coalition is a good idea, say that these amendments are a good idea too. Let's agree to them and make this legislation stronger.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the government follows the coalition in policy, you know you're on a good thing. Certainly with the halving of the fuel excise, that's what was called for last week, and that's what's been done. And the road user charges—there's some relief there. To be fair, let's applaud the government for that, but it took them to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table, albeit the National Cabinet table, to do this. But credit where credit is due; there will be some relief at the bowser. Again, as has been said, will it solve the issues of accessibility and availability of supply to regional petrol stations? That remains to be seen. Is there a credible, workable plan going forward? That remains to be seen.

I do worry about the workload that the government has put on Anthea Harris. Already she has been given the task of reviewing the Water Act—no mean feat; it's a big job. Now she's been tasked with the role of doing the job of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. She has been given his job, and being the Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator is going to require a lot of her time. She's going to have to balance her water responsibilities with her fuel responsibilities, and, as the member for Nicholls knows, fuel and water doesn't always mix. I'm sure she's very qualified, but the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has, in so many ways, abrogated his responsibility.

Here is a minister who just keeps getting it wrong. He got it wrong when he allowed 800 boats and 55,000 illegal arrivals on these shores. He got it wrong when he, some might cruelly say, cost the now government the opportunity to get in earlier when he brought in those franking credits, which was going to be a tax on ordinary everyday Australians. They rejected what the opposition had to say at the time, and of course, he famously said, 'Well, if you don't like it, don't vote for us,' and they didn't. That was the 2019 election.

We're at a crisis at the moment, and that has finally been acknowledged by the government. I will say that it's not just a national crisis; it is an international crisis. I listened closely to the Prime Minister in question time when he said, 'We do have a war in Iran, and we acknowledge that.' But we've also got, as the member for Nicholls quite correctly pointed out in his excellent contribution, farmers who are in the sowing season. It is the start of an important part of their yearly cycle; that time of year where they either direct drill seeds straight into the ground—dry ground in many parts—or start scarifying their paddocks in order to sow. Unless they can get diesel in their big heavy farm machinery, they don't sow.

Our farmers are not only the best stewards of the environment; they are the biggest risk-takers in this nation, and we cannot do without them. If they don't get to sow now, if they don't get their crops in by the end of April or early May, then we are going to be in a world of trouble come harvest time—traditionally around October, November and December for those dryland crops—and it is going to cause an issue of food security. We have a fuel security crisis now. We will then, in six or so months time, be in a food security crisis. And what a food security crisis leads to is a national security crisis. I'm not being melodramatic. I am just being absolutely truthful.

I heard the member for Nicholls talking about biofuels and biodiesel and the difficulty of getting that online straight up, and I realised that this is something that does take years. It does take long-term planning, but we have to, as he would acknowledge, start now. I know that Tim Rose, in my hometown of Wagga Wagga, has Southern Oil Refining. It's been there for some time. It now produces 20 million litres of very fine oil and, along with his plant at Gladstone, the Northern Oil Refinery, which produces 50 million litres of oil, it converts sump into 70 million litres of oil a year.

Now, in the scheme of things on the national fuel front, they are small numbers, but that can be upscaled. He has had a plan on the desk of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for at least two years, if not a lot longer, to see what can be done to upscale the southern and northern oil refineries. We could call them re-refineries because what they're doing is converting sump into usable oil. More than that, his plant at Gladstone has the potential, with a bit of engineering and some political will, to convert old tyres into usable oil and prickly pear, acacia into oil. This must be considered. We have to get sovereignty in our fuel reserves, in our oil stocks. We must. That particular proposal that Mr Rose has had on the table, in the inbox of the minister, must be retrieved, dusted off and examined thoroughly.

As part of the oil product stewardship program and the role of the minister, we have to have some political will in this space. Eromanga, since 1986, has produced mining-grade oil. Let's see what we can do there. You only have to recall COVID—it wasn't that many years ago. We were apparently going to be out of sanitiser. Well, we looked at what we could do. We got our manufacturing online, and within days, not weeks, we were able to produce the hand sanitiser that the nation needed at an affordable rate, and accessible and available. We can do the same. We have the know-how, we have the skills, we have the expertise. This government must be pulling every lever to make sure that we've got available fuel, available oil, available diesel. We need it. As I say, National Cabinet will work with the Prime Minister of the day.

I know, when we had COVID and we had issues around transport, some of the finest ministers, would you believe, came on board when trucks were taking hours upon hours to get over the border. Having had that meeting of the ministers that night—and I specifically refer to Rita Saffioti and to Jacinta Allan, Labor ministers in Western Australia and Victoria—they were able to work with me to ensure that we were able to get trucks across the border in next to no time. That relationship worked well, and I have to say that it provided the difference between trucks being able to deliver groceries and medical supplies in a matter of minutes and what we were encountering, which was a matter of hours. It wasn't going to work, and we knew that. So I know it can be done. I know it can be achieved. It just takes the political will, the courage, the know-how and the bipartisanship to make it happen.

The situation with our liquid fuels is that 50 per cent of the nation's imports by weight are liquid fuels. You can add another 10 per cent on top of that with petrochemicals. We need to do everything we can to ensure that those ships continue, that those contracts are met. We also need to make sure, as the member for Nicholls said, that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 takes into account the absolute need to ensure that oil, gas and coal are part of this government's deliberations and regulations and legislation. Export Finance had this mandate not that long ago, under this government, to reject and rebuff those fossil fuels. Haven't we been caught with our pants down. Haven't we been caught short when it comes to ensuring that we have ready-made Australian supplies on hand and available.

I know the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has been going on and on about the fact that supplies are okay—nothing to see here. Well, I'm sorry, but there is a big issue, and it's not just about affordability of prices. I saw the other day, in the Northern Territory, a report of diesel prices of $4.25 a litre. Certainly, across my electorate, diesel is now selling at $3.30 a litre. That's if you can get it. So it's not just about affordability; it's about accessibility and availability. The supplies just aren't getting out to regional stations. Then you've got farmers putting their tanks down under lock and key, and there are reports of farmers being charged. This is not just now; this is just a week or a fortnight ago, when the crisis first started. They were only able to get their tanks half filled. Then they were paying $3 a litre and then they were having to pay cash. I've got to tell you those sorts of reports are alarming. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission needs to investigate all of those allegations, because, obviously, if it's only a cash system, then somebody is pocketing that money, and I dare say that that money wouldn't be going through the ATO.

But, anyway, I digress—

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would think.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would think it might be, member for Nicholls, but I suspect not. The difficulty there is the fact that farmers are only able to half fill their tanks. They need full tanks. Then, of course, they're having to put their tanks under lock and key—that situation is alarming too—because there have been widespread reports of theft. The member for Sydney is coming in to listen to my contribution, giving me a little wave there! She would know too how important regional Australia is. She would know how important it is to make sure that we absolutely get the fuel and, particularly, the diesel to our farmers. As I said before, they are the greatest risk takers in this nation, and, if they don't get their fuel stocks in time for planting season, then we are going to be in a world of hurt—not only for our exports but for our food security.

The government has finally decided that urgent action is necessary. After days and days of procrastination and delay and saying that there was no issue here, they finally realised that there was an issue and they have done something about the fuel excise and done something about road user charges. I would say it's not too little, too late, but there are other measures that this government is going to have to urgently adopt, and it's going to be a continuous thing to ensure that our regional people get access to fuel, particularly before Easter, which is largely a time when people like to travel from the city to the country. When it comes to the cities, there was all this talk about using public transport. We saw the reports only this morning of how infrastructure broke down and Sydney trains ground to a halt. We can't always rely on that, particularly with the Labor government in Macquarie Street.

This is an urgent issue. It needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed better by this government, which has been asleep at the wheel.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill introduced today. This bill reflects the seriousness of the moment that we're in. Escalating conflict in the Middle East is once again placing strain on supply chains and driving sharp price spikes in materials vital to Australia's economy—most immediately, fuel.

As I understand it, this bill was originally conceived to establish a strategic reserve for critical minerals. But, in response to the unfolding international crisis, the government has hastily redrafted it, expanding the scope of Export Finance Australia's powers so that it can enter into and support transactions to shore up fuel and other strategic supplies. When supply chains are under stress and prices are spiking, Australians expect the government to act. For that reason, I will support this bill to enable the government to respond quickly to the current crisis. But this bill also asks parliament to place a great deal of trust in the executive, trust in the breadth of the powers being granted, trust in a new and expanded role for EFA and trust that taxpayers will be adequately protected when public money is used to underwrite private risk, and it's those issues that I want to focus on today. But, first, let's look at what the bill actually does.

The bill gives EFA new tools to address supply chain disruption affecting strategic materials. That includes fuel, critical minerals and any other materials, goods or things determined to be vulnerable to supply disruptions. Under these amendments, EFA may insure or indemnify importers, provide guarantees, make loans or enter into other arrangements designed to encourage additional supplies of strategic materials into Australia. In the case of fuel, while the government has been clear that it does not intend to pay upfront for fuel purchases, public funds will underwrite the risk faced by importers when buying at today's or tomorrow's extraordinary prices. The rationale is straightforward. Importers are concerned that, if they purchase fuel now at very high prices and the conflict driving those prices ends suddenly, they may be left with significant losses when shipments arrive, potentially eight weeks later. Given the uncertainties surrounding geopolitical developments in the Middle East, fuel importers are understandably reluctant to carry that risk. The concern is that this could reduce willingness to purchase additional supply when Australia needs it most. This bill seeks to remove that disincentive so that fuel continues to flow.

Fuel security matters to Australians. Our freight and agricultural sectors run on diesel, and households rely on petrol to get to work, to school and to essential services. But our reliance on these fuels also makes us vulnerable. Every global shock, every geopolitical flare-up, every supply chain disruption hits us hard, and that vulnerability is in itself a compelling argument for accelerating decarbonisation. The faster we transition to cleaner, more resilient energy systems, the less exposed we'll be to the volatility of global oil markets.

The appropriation bills introduced concurrently today underline the scale of the challenge. The government is setting aside $2 billion over the next three months to respond to fuel security pressures—an extraordinary sum of money. The way this will work is that this taxpayer money will only need to be spent if prices drop and fuel importers are making a loss. Then taxpayers will foot the bill for the gap between what fuel importers thought they could sell the fuel for and what they can actually sell it for.

I have some concerns about how broad the powers in this bill are. This bill does more than respond to the immediate crisis. It grants EFA expansive and ongoing powers to contract on behalf of the Australian government and commit public funds not just for fuel but for critical minerals and any other materials, goods or things that are vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. These powers can be activated whenever a minister determines it's in the national interest to do so. That's a very broad test. The strategic material definition is effectively unlimited in scope. It means the strategic reserve powers could be extended to almost any traded good at ministerial discretion, including in circumstances where the assessment of a supply disruption may be highly subjective. I understand why broad powers are required at this time of uncertainty. We're hearing alarming forecasts of all the industries that could be affected by the conflict in the Middle East. There is a level of trust involved in times of crisis, and I'm prepared to extend that trust. But I urge the government to make good on it by using these powers carefully, proportionately and transparently.

This bill also makes significant changes to EFA's mandate. EFA's core mandate has traditionally been export focused. Underwriting import transactions across a broad range of goods marks a substantial departure from that mandate. Yet we have limited clarity about how these new functions will be integrated into EFA's existing governance structures or what additional expertise and oversight arrangements will be required to manage this risk appropriately.

The appropriation bills introduced today impose a $2 billion ceiling on actions that government can take over the next three months to respond to fuel security challenges, but we don't have certainty as to the proposed scale of the Commonwealth's total exposure under this bill in relation to fuel imports. I acknowledge that these are extraordinary times, and I welcome the fact that further legislation will be needed if the government seeks to go beyond this $2 billion ceiling.

One major concern I have about these new powers is that we may end up with one-sided contracts. For example, if an importer pays $3 a litre for a fuel shipment expecting to sell it for $3.10, I understand that the government could be on the hook if the importer can only sell it for $2.90 because the worst of the price pressure is over by the time it gets here. But, if the importer actually sells it for $3.20, above the expected price, because the war goes on, will the importer reap the full benefit of the upside, or will that benefit be shared with the taxpayer? Today I asked the government about this. The government said the powers would be structured in a way that would allow sharing in the upside, and it would be up to the EFA to determine contractual terms. I strongly encourage the EFA to treat upside sharing as a core negotiating objective to ensure that we're not giving out free insurance. If the worst happens and prices keep going up, some of that increase should be returned to the taxpayer. Of course, fuel importers won't want to sign contracts covering this possibility if they can help it, but urgency should not be used as an excuse to agree to one-sided contracts that are bad for taxpayers. How protected taxpayers are will depend on the contract negotiating skills of EFA staff. In order to maintain public trust in this power, it will be important to ensure that there is transparency about the contracts that are being signed on behalf of taxpayers and whether they address potential upsides as well as potential downsides.

In the time available, I've not been able to investigate how this sits with our international trade obligations. The strategic reserve may raise a WTO direct subsidy question, but I suspect we will not be the only country putting in place these types of measures in the current context.

These are broad and effectively permanent powers. They span fuel security, critical minerals, supply chain resilience, national security and the broader Future Made in Australia agenda. Yet the next statutory review of the act will not be tabled until after 31 December 2029. That's a very long time to wait for a comprehensive assessment of how these powers are being used and whether they remain appropriate.

So my support today comes with clear expectations. We need robust safeguards to ensure public money is used responsibly and to ensure that, in exchange for providing this insurance, taxpayers benefit from any upside should the worst happen and prices continue to rise. We need transparency around the criteria relied on in activating these powers and how taxpayers are protected in contracts. We need confidence that parliamentary oversight will be meaningful, not symbolic, and we need assurance that any ongoing use of the strategic reserve will not distort markets in ways that undermine our international obligations or disadvantage Australian businesses. Australians deserve fuel security. They also deserve accountability when government assumes financial risks on their behalf. This bill moves us towards the first goal; it's our job to ensure it does not compromise the second.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 provides new powers to do, I think, two very important things—(1) finance the import of fuel and other necessary goods and (2) provide financial derivatives and price point support to purchase, sell and stockpile fuel and other necessary goods to ensure domestic availability only on government direction and to manage exposures as appropriate, providing flexibility to deal with the current fuel crisis now and to stabilise supply and avoid escalation and destabilisation in the future. It will help the government to manage Australia's exposure to risk around acquisition and delivery of fuel in the unpredictable and destabilised global environment that we're currently in. I would like to thank Mr Farrell for the very early morning detailed briefing on this legislation.

I'd like to talk about a couple of issues that surround this issue and really look at how we've got to this place. I do, of course, welcome the government's announcement today on halving the fuel excise to 26.3c per litre for three months and also the cut to the heavy vehicle user charge. This will be very important for the trucking industry. Australia will also adopt a national fuel security plan that has been finalised with the support of the states and territories, which have been collaborating with government over the past couple of weeks to ensure the delivery of a consistent plan. This is absolutely good news. However, to get to this point, there has been enormous pain for motorists and families for weeks, and that damage can't just be undone. Even with the halving of the fuel excise, we're still going to be looking at around $3 a litre for diesel, which is prohibitively expensive.

Talking with many small businesses in my electorate that are in the tourism industry, they've already seen a lot of cancellations over Easter, where people just can't stretch the budget to book and stay and do that travel in their car. Filling up the car is becoming a luxury. There are also hundreds of petrol stations across the country that have run out of different types of fuel or diesel. If I look at my electorate today, unleaded petrol is on average $2.59 a litre, diesel on average is $3.25 a litre and many, many service stations are out of stock.

Let's look at oil prices. Oil prices have risen sharply since the start of the Iran war. Australia uses Singapore refined product benchmark prices. Oil prices had been around US$72 a barrel before the US strikes on Iran. They're now sitting at around US$112 or US$113 a barrel, and the Commonwealth Bank says there is a strong likelihood of the oil price lifting to between US$120 and US$150 a barrel if this conflict continues. Tied very closely to Australia's sovereignty and, I think, Australians' confidence in fuel security is our fuel reserves. Australia is not compliant and, in fact, hasn't been compliant since 2012 with its obligation to hold 90 days worth of fuel reserves under the International Energy Agency treaty. If I say nothing else in this place, surely we can learn from this current crisis that we must be keeping a minimum of 90 days worth of strategic reserves on shore? The government has said just today that we have 39 days of petrol reserves, 30 days of diesel reserves and just 30 days of jet fuel reserves. That's a third of what our obligations are under that treaty.

In contrast, it's been widely reported that the reserves of some other member countries are far higher than ours. Let's look at New Zealand, our close neighbours. They have 49 days worth on land. Japan has 254 days; South Korea, 208 days; France, 108 days; and Spain, 113 days. Due to, I think, a complacency from extended peacetime, we have made our risk and exposure so great. It was just over 20 years ago that Australia had eight oil refineries, and most of our demand for our fuel was managed domestically. Now we just have two that remain, in Geelong and Brisbane, and neither of them is really fit for purpose. Neither of them, to my understanding, is able to process and refine diesel, which is the bulk of the fuel consumed in Australia. So now Australia imports around 90 per cent of its refined fuel. How crazy is that?

If we learn nothing else from this crisis, we as a nation must truly take sovereignty as a serious issue. As the Canadian prime minister said, 'A country that can't fuel itself, feed itself or defend itself has very few options.' I urge the government not only to have a minimum of 90 days of fuel on Australian shores—I must say, this is a problem that was created by both governments. I remember that the previous government had tickets in Texas, which was just a ridiculous idea. We didn't have fuel onshore. We also must look to re-establish our refineries. The fact that we just have two refineries on the east coast of Australia is deeply concerning. It's actually farcical. It's unbelievable that a nation as large as Australia would have that. Anyone with an interest in geopolitics can see the vulnerability. If China decides that they're going to go into conflict with Taiwan and somehow Australia is involved in that, the shipping lanes will stop. This will be nothing compared to that as an issue.

We need to be drilling more of our own domestic product, we need to be refining this product and we need to take Australian sovereignty seriously because we need to fuel ourselves and we need to be able to feed ourselves; otherwise, we as a nation can't defend ourselves.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I'd like to say that this bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill, is welcome. But, as with just about everything this government does, it had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to ultimately get around to doing it. The concept of liquid fuel security is so incredibly important in this country. You didn't have to be a brain surgeon to work out that a war in the Middle East, or a war just about anywhere in the world right now, was going to place significant pressure on our supply chains—but particularly a war in the Middle East.

This didn't just happen. Donald Trump didn't just wake up one morning and say, 'We're going to join forces with Israel and attack Iran.' These things were signalled for weeks, if not months. The US president moved a carrier battle group to the Middle East. He moved significant naval and air force assets into the Middle East. Yet this government continued to sit on its hands. This prime minister continued to sit on his hands in the same way that he refused to do anything in relation to social media, for example.

Now, to give this prime minister his dues, he is unbelievably excellent at taking credit for someone else's idea. The social media ban was Peter Dutton and David Coleman's suggestion. Yet you listen now to the Prime Minister, and it was all Labor's idea. There's nothing about the inquiry that the member for Flinders and I did going back several years, nothing about Peter Dutton's idea and nothing about David Coleman's idea. It was all his idea! The old phrase, 'Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan,' is personified by this Prime Minister.

Then, of course, there was antisemitism. The Prime Minister sat on his hands for several years. There was the calling for a royal commission after Bondi. For 25 days the Prime Minister pushed back against the Australian community—it didn't matter whether it was the coalition, the business community, former attorneys-general, former governors-general or former chiefs of the Defence Force. It was Dawn Fraser, at the end of the day, who stood up and said, 'The government must call a royal commission into the Bondi attacks,' and, the very next day, the Prime Minister stood up and said: 'Australian people, I've got a great idea. I'm going to call a royal commission into Bondi.' That's the unbelievable guile of this Prime Minister. He has no shame.

He stood up in parliament today—in fact, before parliament—and said he's going to halve the excise and remove the heavy vehicle road user tax. What a brain surgeon! What a great idea! It is unbelievable that this prime minister continues to be dragged, kicking and screaming, on every important issue that faces this country. Deputy Speaker Young, the Prime Minister and those opposite must live in a different country to you and me in South-East Queensland. You and I both know our constituents, whether they be mums and dads who want to get their kids to school, people who want to get to work, tradies or farmers—you and I share a boundary, Mr Deputy Speaker. You've got plenty of strawberry growers, as do I. Our country's agriculture runs on diesel. My primary producers were telling me three weeks ago, four weeks ago, that we were heading into serious issues, and I've spoken about this nearly every day in parliament since then.

I talked about our fishermen in Mooloolaba and how they couldn't get diesel. I went and saw the energy minister and I spoke to him about this, and, to his credit, he assisted my fishermen to get some diesel. So thank you, Chris Bowen. But they're out of diesel again. They're out of diesel again, and there's no sign of it coming back any time soon. When they do get it, they are paying north of $3.15 a litre. My fishermen are telling me that it's got to a point where there's actually no point in going to sea because the catch that they get will be so expensive that people won't be able to afford their seafood. I want to send a shout-out to all my fishermen. They want to make it very, very clear—and for me to express—that, for those people who want Mooloolaba prawns at Easter, those Mooloolaba prawns are already in their freezers. They've got the seafood for Easter. Make sure you line up for it. Don't think that there's no seafood. There's going to be seafood for this Easter time. Please support your local fishermen. But the problem will be, Member for Goldstein: what happens after that? What will happen in April and May to my fishermen—and not just to my fishermen in Mooloolaba but to the fishermen up and down the eastern seaboard of Australia and, no doubt, on the western seaboard as well?

My farmers are also telling me that they are having immense trouble securing diesel. I spoke with a concreter the other day. He was telling me that, as a result of the inflationary crisis this government has brought on—the member for Goldstein is not required in relation to that, but thank you very much—the price of steel has gone up some 25 per cent and will potentially go up to around 45 per cent. There's the price of plastic pipes. Poly piping, sewer piping, and stormwater piping are all constructed and manufactured with petrochemicals. So, when the price of fuel goes up, the price of plumbing fittings and pipes will go up. That means the price of housing will go up.

I gave the minister a shout-out just a moment ago, thanking him for his efforts, but they're out of fuel again. I appreciate the efforts that you've made, but this is a real problem for the construction sector now. The construction sector is the largest employer in the country. Where steel and concrete and those costs rise exponentially, there will be significant problems for the construction sector. We could potentially see lay-offs of apprentices and tradies.

I prefaced my speech by saying that I thought this was a useful contribution on the part of the government, albeit too little, too late. The cost of energy in this country has absolutely skyrocketed under this government over the last four years, and that is not just as a result of the war. The inflation rate that is now 3.7 per cent in this country is not just because of the war. This government was mismanaging inflation long before the war. This government promised us $275 price reductions. We have seen increases in energy costs of around 30 per cent under this government.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of liquid fuel security for our military. The defence minister stood up in question time and answered a question on this. He basically said, 'Nothing to see here; there are no problems about liquid fuel security for our military.' Well, I'm having a little bit of déjà vu here, because that's what they told civilians about our liquid fuel security. The minister, the Prime Minister and all those on the opposite benches stood up here and said, 'Nothing to see; there are no problems'—they're still saying it—despite the fact that some 600 service stations in this country now either have no fuel or have at least a fuel or type of fuel that they've run out of. Excuse me for my cynicism when I say to the defence minister: I don't believe you; I don't believe you that this government has sufficient fuel stock for our ADF if the worst situation were to arise.

I did an inquiry in relation to fuel security for our ADF. That demonstrated to the defence committee and me that we have significant problems with our liquid fuel security for our ADF. If Australians think they're doing it tough now on fuel—if there were a war involving Taiwan directly and involving Australia, this country would not know itself in relation to the problems that we would experience with our fuel security.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Lyne moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for New England has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words.

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

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for New England be agreed to.

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

The question now is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lyne be agreed to.