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

Fuel security is economic security and fuel security is national security. Recent events have exposed how vulnerable Australia remains. We are one of the world's great energy producing nations, yet we remain heavily dependent on imported liquid fuels. We've allowed refining capacity to decline, and we've failed to build sufficient storage capacity. We continue to rely on international supply chains for a resource that underpins almost every aspect of modern life. No fuel means no freight and no food, and no food means empty shelves. Regional Australia sits at the front line of that vulnerability.

The lesson from this crisis is clear. Australia needs more than temporary tax relief. Australia needs a long-term fuel security strategy. We need stronger fuel reserves. We need greater storage capacity. We need stronger sovereign capability, and we need more resilient supply chains. We need governments willing to think beyond the next headline and beyond the next election cycle.

What Australians want is not another temporary fix. They want a government that understands what is happening to their country, and, increasingly, Australians are concluding that this government does not, because, after four years of the Albanese Labor government, Australians are paying more for almost everything and getting less in return. There are higher power bills, higher grocery bills, higher fuel bills, higher insurance costs, higher housing costs and higher taxes.

This government likes to blame global events for Australia's problems. It blames wars. It blames supply chains. It blames international markets. But Australians know better. The cost-of-living crisis did not begin in the Middle East. The housing crisis did not begin in the Middle East. The energy crisis did not begin in the Middle East. Australia's fuel security vulnerabilities did not begin in the Middle East. These problems were foreseeable. They were identifiable, and they required leadership. Instead, Australians have received a government obsessed with managing politics rather than managing the country, a government that governs according to focus groups, a government that follows opinion polls instead of leading public opinion and a government more interested in announcements than outcomes. Again and again, this government has demonstrated that its priority is the next news cycle rather than the next generation. That is why inflation became embedded in the economy. That's why housing affordability continues to deteriorate. That is why Australia's fuel security remains vulnerable, and that is why Australians are increasingly losing confidence in Labor's ability to manage the economy.

The clearest example is energy. This government has become ideologically committed to a renewables dominated energy system, while dismissing the important role that coal, gas and nuclear can play in delivering affordable and reliable power. Australia is blessed with some of the world's largest reserves of coal, gas and uranium. We should have some of the cheapest and most reliable energy in the developed world. Instead, households and businesses are paying more, while reliability concerns continue to grow. Any serious government would pursue an energy mix focused on affordability, reliability and security. Any serious government would recognise that manufacturers, farmers and regional communities cannot run on ideology. Yet Labor continues to pursue policies that are driving costs higher across the economy.

Labor's problem is not that it lacks ambition. Its problem is that it lacks realism. It has become so committed to its ideological agenda that it increasingly ignores evidence that contradicts it. The result is that Australia is becoming less competitive, less productive, less affordable and less resilient. At a time when the world is becoming more dangerous and more uncertain, Australia should be strengthening its economic foundations. Instead, this government is weakening them. Instead, this government is weakening them. It should be building fuel security and it should be strengthening energy security. It should be encouraging investment and it should be driving productivity. And it should be preparing Australia for the challenges of the next 20 years. Instead, it is governing from one opinion poll to the next. That is not leadership; that is just political management, and Australians are paying the price.

This is where the Nationals bring a different perspective to this parliament. We remain the only political party whose sole purpose is to represent regional, rural and remote Australians. That has always been our mission and it remains our mission today. The Nationals are not grounded in anger. We are grounded in the values of the communities we represent: responsibility; self-reliance; family; community; reward for effort; respect for those who build, produce, create and contribute; and the belief that, if you work hard, take risks and play by the rules, you should be able to build a better future for yourself and your family. Political movements built around anger can be effective at identifying problems. They can even win seats. But anger is a poor foundation for governing. Good government requires patience, long-term thinking, practical problem solving and a willingness to make decisions that strengthen the nation over decades, not just days. That is what regional Australians expect and that is what the Nationals continue to stand for.

The people I represent are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for common sense. They are asking for honesty. They are asking for governments that understand the pressures they face every day. They are asking for governments that plan for the future. They are asking for governments that reward aspiration. And they are asking for governments that remember regional Australia matters. This bill provides some temporary relief, and the coalition supports that, but Australians deserve more. They deserve lower inflation. They deserve stronger fuel security. They deserve affordable energy. They deserve a stronger economy. And they deserve governments willing to make the long-term decisions necessary to secure Australia's future.

The people I represent have not given up on Australia. Many are worried and frustrated and many feel they are losing the country they grew up in. As the member for Lyne and as a proud member of the Nationals, I'm listening and I'll continue fighting to ensure they get their country back—a country where hard work is rewarded, aspiration is encouraged and, most importantly, governments keep their promises.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | 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 that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

We speak in thousands, millions and billions and percentages in this House. But at home it looks like something much smaller and much more human. It looks like a mum in Cabramatta at six in the morning filling up her car before the school run, the drive to her own mother's medical appointment and then work. It looks like a young apprentice in Canley Vale watching the fuel light come on, working out whether he can make it to payday. It looks like a small-business owner in Wetherill Park with two vans on the road watching the bowser and deciding whether this is a good month or a hard one. That is who I'm speaking for today.

When the government announced in March that it would halve the fuel excise for three months, I welcomed it and so did my community. The cut from 1 April to 30 June made a real and immediate difference at the bowser. I was glad that the government finally listened to what I and the people of Fowler had been calling for. Prices dropped almost straightaway, and workers, families, truck drivers and tradies right across western and south-western Sydney got some breathing room on a cost they simply cannot avoid.

I do not take the relief for granted and won't play politics with something that helps my community pay their bills, but I want this House to understand why it matters so much more in an electorate like mine. In Fowler, the car is not a luxury; it is survival. People in my community drive because there's no real alternative. They drive to work, often to jobs that start before the sun comes up or finish long after it goes down. They drive to university and to TAFE, and they drive to care for the people they love. That is something we do not talk about enough in this place—the amount of unpaid care that happens in households across Fowler is absolutely dependent on those carers being able to continue to fill up their car. It is the daughter driving her elderly parents to the doctor. It is the family getting a relative with disability to their services. It is one household holding up three generations. And almost all of that care happens behind the wheel of a car.

For these families, public transport is not a real choice. In my community a reliable public transport system is close to non-existent. Whether we are talking about buses, trains or metro, the services are too far apart. The routes do not go where people actually need to go, and a shift worker cannot build their life around a bus that might not come. So my community drives, and then it pays again. They pay tolls, they pay registration and they pay insurance. Put it all together, and families in electorates like mine are spending thousands of dollars a year just to get to work, to study and to look after their own families, not because they're doing anything wrong but because, in practice, there is no option.

Mine is also a community where the majority of us speak a language other than English at home. It is a community built by migrants and refugees who arrived with very little, built businesses, raised families and asked for nothing more than a fair go. They work hard, and they simply want a country and a government that works as hard for them.

Let me turn to what this bill actually does, in plain terms. The three-month halving of the fuel excise is coming to an end. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026 manages what happens next. Instead of letting the fuel excise snap back overnight, it reduces the excise and the equivalent customs duty on most fuels by 30.4 per cent below the normal rate. That relief runs from 1 July 2026 until the day before the next indexation date, which is currently expected to be 2 August 2026. For petrol and diesel, that works out to about 16c a litre off the excise during that period. Now, 16c a litre might sound modest in this building, but, for a family filling up once or twice a week, it adds up quickly. And for a small business running vans, trucks or utes, it can be the difference between holding their prices steady or passing the cost on to customers who are already doing it tough. I know that many businesses are trying so hard to hold back on passing on those costs to a lot of families who are their customers.

I support this bill. It continues some of the relief that started with the halving. It softens the next step, instead of letting families fall off a cliff edge. I will be glad to support it. But this bill is a bandaid. It is a bandaid my community needs right now, and I recognise that. But it sits on top of a problem we have ignored for far too long. My community is asking me a simple question: is there a plan, or are we going to be right back here in a year's time doing all of this again?

Let me explain why we keep ending up here. People deserve to understand that. We cannot control everything. We cannot stop a conflict on the other side of the world or control what happens to the ships that carry our fuel across the ocean. That is true. Here is what we can control. We can decide how exposed our country and economy are when those shocks hit. Right now, we are far more exposed than we should be. We are the only country in the International Energy Agency that has never held the 90 days of fuel reserves we are supposed to. So, when something goes wrong far away, the price at the bowser in Cabramatta moves almost straightaway, with very little standing between my community and that shock. The government has put aside $3.2 billion for an emergency fuel reserve. That is sensible, and I welcome it. But it has put just $10 million into even studying whether we could rebuild our ability to make more of our own fuel—$10 million to study a weakness that has been growing for 20 years. That tells me we are still managing the symptom. We are not yet curing the cause.

I'll try and be constructive. I don't think it's enough to always point to a problem. My hope is that my solutions are considered and taken on board by the government. There are two that I'm asking this government to take seriously. First, give us regular local buses—not a promise for 10 years from now but buses people can actually rely on soon. Give us a service that runs often enough so that a mum can, hopefully, leave the car at home or a student can get to TAFE without begging for a lift. The Commonwealth already helps fund transport across Western Sydney through the Western Sydney City Deal and the projects around the new airport. I'm asking this government to sit down with the New South Wales government and fund frequent local bus services for the suburbs that people already live in. Buses can be running in months, not decades. Every family that can leave their car at home is a family that can stop being held hostage by the price of petrol and, hopefully, can contribute to a cleaner environment.

Second, give us an east-west rail connection. The Commonwealth is helping to fund an $11 billion metro to the new Western Sydney airport. It runs from St Marys to the airport and to the new city of Bradfield, and that is welcome. But that line serves the new growth areas. It does not run through the suburbs my community already lives in—places like Liverpool, Warwick Farm, Cabramatta, Canley Vale, Wetherill Park or Fairfield. Our rail network was built to run one way—into the city and back out again. It was never built to connect our suburbs to each other or to the new jobs out west. The case for an east-west rail link is not new. It was identified years ago in the very studies that built the case for the city deal as one of the connections our region would need, linking the new airport through to Parramatta. But it has never been funded. It has been left as a line on a map and a 'some day' project while my community waits.

I will keep pushing for the New South Wales government and this government to stop treating an east-west connection as something for some day and to commit to it, because connecting people to jobs, to study and to each other is not a luxury. It is how a community gets ahead, grows and thrives. So I will press this government to make fairness for Western Sydney and south-western Sydney part of the deal every single time it puts money on the table.

Let me finish where I started, with my community. For too long, my community was treated as a seat that could be taken for granted. We were promised the buses, the trains and the investment. It went somewhere else. So let me be clear about what the people of Fowler want. They want the same fair go that the rest of New South Wales already enjoys, to get to work without going broke, to care for their families without counting every kilometre and to know that the country they helped build is planning for their future, not just patching over their present. I will vote for this bill and support it because my community needs the relief and I will never stand in its way, but I will keep asking the question it sent me here to ask: where is the long-term plan? The people of Fowler have fought hard for every cent of help they have ever received. They have earned more than another bandaid. They need a government that will build them something lasting, a future that is more secure, more affordable and more connected. So I will not stop pushing until my community gets it, and I will keep fighting for that longer term plan.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

We are supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026 mainly because the idea of giving fuel excise relief was the coalition's. We went out, we announced it and we made sure that we put pressure on the government, and the government followed. It goes to show that, when the government follows the opposition, when the government follows the coalition, the government actually gets it right. They should do it more often because, whenever they follow their own noses on things, they get it so terribly wrong.

The budget is the latest case in point. When they listen to the coalition, they get things right. This is the clearest case in point that you will see. How did we get here? We got here because the government was asleep at the wheel when it came to what was happening with the fuel crisis. It's always highly, highly amusing when the Minister for Climate Change and Energy gets up and he quotes that I and other members here kept calling on him to get serious about this national fuel crisis because he was asleep at the wheel and that we were going to have trouble by the end of March, by the end of April, by the end of May or by the end of June. You name it, there were problems. It was because he was doing absolutely nothing about it, and he wasn't interested in doing anything about price either. What happened in the end—and we all remember this—is that the minister for climate change was left behind. The Prime Minister went overseas with his begging bowl because the Prime Minister all of a sudden understood that there was a real problem here. So he headed off overseas with his begging bowl to make sure that we had diesel, jet fuel, unleaded petrol, urea, and fertiliser—all critically important.

I don't think we'll ever forget that, just as the Prime Minister was heading off to Asia to make sure we had all those things, we had the minister for climate change saying, 'None of my counterparts is talking to me about fossil fuels.' So here's the Prime Minister out begging for fossil fuels in our region, and the minister for climate change is there saying, 'Oh, no-one wants to talk to me about fossil fuels.' Of all the bizarre things that he's done and said, that was the best of them all. His own prime minister, his own leader, is out there begging for fossil fuels, and he's saying, 'None of them wants to talk to me about it.' It's just bizarre. Anyway, the whole way he does everything, sadly, would be funny if it wasn't so serious what he's doing to the cost of energy in this country and what that's doing to households and industry.

But I turn back to this point here. The other lesson from this is: have we learnt a lesson? Because we are going to continue to need fossil fuels into the future, and we are seeing a lack of interest in actually making sure that we can produce those fossil fuels ourselves. We have to make sure that we can produce the oil that we need. We have to make sure that we can produce the gas that we need. We've got to make sure that we can refine that oil to make sure that we can become much more self-sufficient again when it comes to the key drivers of our economy.

I think that many Australians but, in particular, the government failed to understand very early on how important diesel, in particular, is to our economy. It still drives our mining sector, our agriculture sector and our land transport sector. It absolutely drives them. Without diesel, we're in a world of pain. I say this to the government that not only do we have to make sure that we can refine and that we've got enough supply of diesel, fertiliser, jet fuel and other fuels; we've also got to understand that you've got to make sure they're affordable. That's what the excise relief does. It makes sure they are affordable.

I say this as a word of warning, because it never goes away that the government with the Greens are always looking to do things together—we've seen them do a very dangerous deal with the Greens on the budget—and the diesel fuel rebate, sadly, is always in their sights. What we should be doing—

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on! It's not even spoken about.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a bit of an interjection from those opposite, but I must say that, in the lead-up to the budget, there was a lot of serious concern. Those serious concerns were judged and made on serious leaks from the government that they were considering doing this. It was there for all to see. So we do have to be very, very careful and watch this prodigiously, because those inner city Labor MPs especially have their desires and their designs on the diesel fuel rebate. They do.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

They have different desires.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

They have their desires on it, don't worry. There might be members who represent the Hunter Valley and the coal-producing areas in the Hunter Valley who hopefully will stand up in the party room on the Labor side and make sure that never happens. It would be good if they could stand up even in the parliament and say, 'Over my dead body will this happen.' We'll wait and see whether they're prepared to do it. It might actually be seat saving if they were prepared to do it. I think it might be seat saving if they were prepared to do it.

Making sure that we've got the fuel that we need to drive our economy forward is absolutely essential. Making sure that that fuel is affordable is absolutely essential, and that's why we support this fuel excise relief. We must say, the coalition led on this, and we want to make sure that the government continues the job. What they're proposing here is actually a sensible dismount. We've just got to continue to watch what happens in the Strait of Hormuz. When the Labor Party follows the coalition, it's amazing how they can get their policy right. When they go off on their own, it's amazing how they get it wrong. I say to this to the Labor Party with the best intentions: if you listen to us and follow our lead more, then you will get yourself in a much better place rather than following the Greens like you have done on the budget.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an absolute pleasure to follow the member for Wannon on this conversation, and I've got a few things I'll get to there on what he had to say. Every Aussie knows the feeling. You pull into the servo. You look at the numbers on the bowser and hope the tank doesn't need quite as much as you thought. For a lot of families, a lot of tradies, a lot of truckies and a lot of small businesses, fuel prices aren't some economic statistic; they're a weekly bill. They're part of the household budget, they're part of the cost of running a business and they're part of the reason people are still feeling pressure, even though we've made real progress on inflation. That's why I'm pleased to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026.

When people in places like Wyee, West Wallsend, Kurri Kurri, Cessnock, Broke and Singleton pull into a servo, they are not talking about excise rates or international oil markets. They're thinking about whether they can afford to fill the tank before dropping the kids off at school; whether they can go to work and back before payday; whether they can take the kids to the footy, the netball or the basketball that weekend; and whether they can keep the family budget afloat for just another week. In communities like those in the Hunter—where many people travel significant distances for work, where shift workers are on the road before dawn and home long after dark, and where public transport doesn't always get people to where they need to go when they need to get there—the car is often not a luxury but a necessity. It's how people earn a living. It's how families function. That's why fuel costs hit so hard.

This bill tells those beautiful Aussies, 'We understand the pressure, and we're taking practical action to help.' This bill extends fuel excise relief from 1 July to 2 August 2026. It means petrol and diesel excise will remain at 16c per litre, lower than it otherwise would have been during that period. Without this legislation, the original temporary fuel excise reduction would expire on 30 June and motorists would have to face the full increase immediately. Instead, this bill provides a much smoother transition into that. It tapers the support rather than ending it overnight.

For a family filling a standard 65-litre fuel tank, it means a saving of around $11 every trip. Every time they fill up, every time they go to that servo and fill that tank, that's $11. Now, $11 might not sound like much to a lot of people. But, for plenty of Aussies, $11 does matter. That's milk and bread. That's school lunches. That's helping cover the electricity bill. That's money staying in the household budget rather than disappearing at the bowser. When you're filling up every week, those savings certainly add up.

I think it's important to be clear about what this bill actually is. This isn't a permanent change. It's not a blank cheque, and it's not pretending that global events do not have consequences. It is a targeted and temporary measure designed to help Australians while fuel markets continue to stabilise. It's practical support at a practical time. Aussies have been dealing with the consequences of events far beyond our shores. The conflict in the Middle East created significant disruption to global fuel markets. Oil prices rose sharply, supply chains came under pressure, and motorists, families and businesses felt those impacts right here at home. Australians didn't create these problems, but they've had to pay for them, unfortunately.

The Albanese Labor government recognised that reality and acted. Earlier this year we introduced a temporary 32c per litre reduction in fuel excise for three months. That provided immediate relief when global fuel prices were at their absolute highest. Since then, conditions have improved. Petrol prices have come down significantly from their peak. Diesel prices have also eased, and that's extremely welcome news for the area of the Hunter. But, while conditions have improved, the pressure hasn't disappeared. People are still doing it tough. Families are still carefully managing their household budgets. Businesses are still watching every dollar, and truckies are still facing substantial operating costs.

That's why this bill matters. It recognises that recovery takes time. It avoids a cliff edge, and it provides a gradual return to normal settings rather than an abrupt change. That is simply better policy. It is better for households, it is better for businesses and it is better for economic stability. For communities right across the Hunter and this country, the smoother transition will make a real difference. Think about the disability support worker driving between clients across Teralba and Cooranbong. Think about the aged-care worker travelling between shifts. Think about the apprentice who's been driving from Edgeworth to the job site on the other side of Singleton. Think about the cleaner finishing a night shift and heading home before sunrise. These are all people that depend on their vehicles every single day, and fuel isn't an option for them. That's why we're doing this. That's why we're working on this cost-of-living relief and helping with fuel.

I also want to touch on a couple of points that the member for Wannon and those opposite brought up through the whole time we were going through this. I'm in the Hunter, and it is an absolutely beautiful area that people visit every day of the week. We're the second-largest tourism destination outside of Sydney in New South Wales. Unfortunately, because of some of those tactics used by those opposite—the scaremongering, the fear campaigning—they destroyed tourism in our area over Easter. We had businesses that were crying out to us, telling us, 'We're not getting the people through.' People were too scared to drive from Sydney to the Hunter because they were scared about getting fuel. There's more fuel in Australia now than there was before this conflict even started. This was a scare campaign; you guys were scaring motorists and travellers from coming up to the Hunter. That's what you guys opposite were doing.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Because you tried to take their roof racks off.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Maranoa, I'll take this interjection and I'll take it well. There are so many people that don't understand. They don't live in the areas that we live in. They live in cities and don't understand that the roof racks make a difference to your fuel. They don't understand that checking the pressure in the tyres of your car genuinely makes a difference to how much fuel you use. So actually putting out sensible information—which some people laughed at, and that's okay. Some people know that, but so many people don't know it.

They don't know that, Member for Maranoa, so we've got to have these conversations.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Maranoa will cease interjecting.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll continue to take the interjection, because this is what caused people to not come to the Hunter. This is why us bringing down this excise now, with the 16c that we're cutting, is a good move and a move that will genuinely make a difference for the people in the Hunter.

We need to make sure that we continue to look after not only the people of the Hunter but also those all around this beautiful country. We can argue till we're blue in the face, but you know what? The people in the Hunter don't care about that, nor do the people in the Hunter care about what you're saying here. But do you know what they do care about? They care about being able to get fuel at a price that they can actually pay for. They care about getting their kids to the sport that they've got on the weekend. That's what they do care about.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time allotted for this debate has expired. I will put the question immediately. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.