Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you say of a government that constantly gets wagged by the tail of others? We have a situation where, in the Senate, this government is being wagged by the tail of the Greens, and, when it comes to providing fuel excise, this government has wagged been by the tail of the coalition. Before this government put forward excise relief, the coalition had been calling for it for many weeks. We understood that Australians were doing it tough, that prices were rising at the bowser and, of course, because of global conflicts and conflicts in the Middle East, that there were going to be supply constraints. So what did the coalition do? It rationally looked at the challenges and said to the Australian people, 'We need to make sure that these price rises aren't being needlessly passed on to you when we're already living through the greatest cost-of-living crisis in recent years.'

The response from the government was to dismiss and say it wasn't necessary and for the Treasurer, in his usual dismissive and mocking way, to attack anybody who put a proposition forward. But eventually they buckled. As another example of this government buckling and being humiliated again, eventually they accepted that perhaps Australians needed excise relief. The difference was, when we put forward a proposal to relieve Australian households of the pressures of excise when the prices of petrol and diesel were going up, we offered inflation offsets. We understood that, if you just increase access and reduce excise, it has is an inflationary effect on Australian households where the government seemingly gives with one hand but, later down the track, takes with the other.

This is the entire economic model of the Albanese government. They offer an incentive on one hand, and, through the political process, argue that they're somehow giving this great relief to Australians, but they're using it by enabling a pathway to spend, which stokes inflation. They then come along and tax inflation, and then, of course, they spend the inflation again in a vicious cycle of slowly taking the wealth and standards of living of Australians. We offered inflation offsets to say: 'There is a limit. We have to make sure that Australian households are protected from the consequences of these international events.' But the Albanese government in their usual—I don't know what you'd say—arrogant, dismissive, uneconomic and ignorant way decided they would continue on with the fuel excise relief without paying any heed or attention to standard economics or understanding the consequences of what they're doing.

Of course, we've seen this now in many different ways. It's not just in the fuel excise relief. We've seen it in their federal budget, where they have directly assaulted the livelihoods of Australians. They've directly assaulted the investment strategies that young Australians and older Australians—that every Australian seeks to employ. They've attacked and assaulted those employee share ownership schemes, directly assaulted those who build businesses, directly assaulted those who have startups and directly assaulted those who own investment property. The list keeps going and going about the number of people they've directly assaulted. They don't understand economics, but they also don't understand the consequences of their policy and how it flows through to the Australian people.

So here we are now, and we're a few months into the crisis in Iran. In light of that, the government—in addition to the first three months of fuel excise relief—is now offering a further month, but they still have not offered a single inflation offset as a trade-off to make sure that they protect the financial best interests of Australians from the decisions that they've made. We made recommendations, around $2.9 billion, and now they're offering further fuel excise relief in the vicinity of $400 million. We know the trade off from this downstream is going to be more stoking of the inflation pressure and more debt petrol on the inflation fire.

We don't even understand why it's necessary. When you come into this parliament, we hear so often from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that there's more fuel in Australia now than there was at the start of the crisis. Remember that, Member for Gippsland? So many times he has come into this chamber and said, 'There's more fuel in Australia now than at the start of the crisis.' There's so much fuel that he could reenact that scene in Zoolander where they pull out the petrol bowser and spray it upon themselves. That's how much fuel there is in this country. And yet that's not what Australians are living. Despite there being more fuel in Australia right now and despite there being cheaper prices at distribution in Singapore, it's not flowing through to the bowser in Australia. Despite the fact there's more fuel in Australia right now, we're still having to offer tax relief to address the consequences of a shortage of fuel. I don't know about you, but that doesn't make any sense to me. But this is the consequence of how the Albanese government has approached this crisis and the consequences of its decision-making.

We absolutely believe that Australians should be able to go about their lives and be able to afford fuel to engage in the normal activities of life—such as drop families off at Saturday sport. But it's not just impacting families; it's also impacting small businesses. Let's not forget, Speaker, that we currently have record small-business insolvencies in Australia under this government, and I see you nodding your head. It's very disappointing.

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

I invite the member to not make me a part of the debate.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I'm not seeking to make you a part of the debate. I just acknowledged the facial expression—

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

Well, you did.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies.

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

Leave me out of the debate, and the House can continue.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I note then that Labor members are not shaking their heads at the idea that we have record small-business insolvencies. Apparently it does not concern Labor members that they have overseen the greatest collapse of small business in this country. The cost of the small-business crisis that is occurring right now is an absolute tragedy. Every time a small business closes, what goes with it are standards of living. What goes with it are livelihoods. What goes with it is aspiration. What goes with it is the contribution it makes to the community, including providing the first employment opportunity for somebody to get their foot on the ladder of economic opportunity. But, clearly, this is not a cause of distress for the Labor members in this chamber.

When you increase the price of fuel, it goes through and flows into the consequences of small-business costs. When you increase small-business costs, it has an impact on the household. What a surprise that we have record low small-business confidence! We have record low consumer confidence, and that might be part of the reason why we have record small-business insolvencies, directly off the back of the ruinous economic policies of the Albanese government, only exacerbated by, or compounded by, international events.

There's a point when we need change, and I can tell you we need change right now. Small businesses in this country have never done it so tough as under the Albanese government. They are living the consequences of record low consumer confidence. Small businesses in Australia have never done it so tough in this country as they are right now. They are living with record low small-business confidence and record low consumer confidence, which is at an all-time low. And, of course, there are record small-business insolvencies.

If we want to give Australians hope in communities and those who are backing themselves and applying effort to back themselves, we need to be backing small business. Instead, we've got the complete opposite. We've got an economic model from the Albanese government that is constantly focused on how it undercuts and undermines small business. We've got an economic model from the Albanese government that has one mad proposition: to constantly stoke inflation, then tax the inflation and then spend the inflation in a vicious cycle. It continues go round and round as the government takes more control over Australians' incomes.

We know the direct consequence. As inflation continues to go up, it's being stripped out from wages. Every time wages go up to adjust, what's happening is people are paying more tax and are moving higher up the tax bracket. That's why the coalition have our tax back guarantee—because our tax back guarantee is focused on how we return that overtaxation back into the hip pockets of Australians so they can control their own lives and make decisions about their own destiny. That's important because it directly contributes to consumer confidence.

We've got an economic environment where small businesses are living with the worst economic environment and the highest record level of insolvencies. We have record low small-business confidence, we have record low consumer confidence and, of course, we have record small-business insolvencies. This is sapping the aspiration and the economic opportunity that exists at the heart of communities.

We want small business to have confidence, to be able to build, to grow, to invest and to employ so they have a pathway to realise their dreams and their success. We should want a society that's built off the aspiration of Australians who apply their energy to back themselves. What we don't want is an economy that's built on the idea of dependence or control from Canberra. It should start with community, and we should want small business to succeed in a way that they never have before—not do as the current government wants, which is to put a limitation or a cap on their ambition or their success. We also want to make sure that Australians have a pathway to keep more of their own hard earned money in their own hip pocket. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, which focuses on fuel excise, is about how there's short-term relief to address one limiting factor on the amount of money that goes into people's household bills.

We want an Australia where Australians have control of their own financial future. We want an Australia where Australians pay their fair share of tax but it's also assumed that the first place that their money should be is in their own pocket. We believe in an Australia where we defer to individuals, families and communities being better deciders of how they spend their money than the government. We believe in an Australia where small business succeeds and is in control of their own destiny to grow, contribute and employ. That's why we believe in making sure we limit the amount the government spends. But, more importantly, we believe in how much people can keep in their own hip pocket to decide their own destiny, to invest in their communities, to back small businesses and to grow the state of the overall economy.

That's what's so tragic about what the Albanese government is currently doing in its approach in the economy and in this budget. At every point, this government has turned around to young Australians; to those who are aspiring to get ahead; to those who are working hard, saving and sacrificing; or to those that are seeking to retire with security and directly assaulting their financial sustainability and their fiscal confidence to be able to control their own lives. This government is trying to kneecap Australians from getting ahead, because it has the arrogance to think that it understands better how to control people's lives and to decide their destiny. This government has the arrogance of believing that, if it controls people's money and more money is hoovered out of the back pockets of Australians up into the Treasury in Canberra, better decisions will be made for all of us.

The government has no confidence and no belief in Australians and what they seek to achieve. The Albanese government doesn't believe in Australians or them being able to realise their ambitions or their dreams. The Albanese government doesn't believe that the best interests of Australians are realised by them being able to determine their own destiny. The Albanese government believes in one thing: themselves, their sense of control and dictating the terms about how Australians can get ahead, because they believe they better understand how to live people's lives than Australians do on their own.

The Albanese government believes that control is central to their political objectives. At every stage of their lives, they want to control what people learn so they can understand how they think. The Albanese government wants to dictate how people work and be able to do it under the terms in which they set and under the unions that control them. They want people to only be able to save on the terms or invest on the terms that suit them. Whether or not they've done any work to achieve it, the Albanese government wants to take half of it. They want to make sure that, when Australians have a choice, they want to compel as much money as possible into the industry super funds to be able to dictate how their money is invested on their behalf and control them so that they can lever control over the financial system and Australia's economy, even when they're thrown out of government by the Australian people.

The Albanese government is the most immoral government in Australian history. It is the one that has sown the most social division and fed the worst cost-of-living crisis in our country. The Albanese government has done the most to kneecap Australians, their ambition, their dreams and their sense of aspiration. The Albanese government continues to corrode the very foundations of our country and its strength. There's a time when immoral governments need to be removed. Keir Starmer is experiencing this in the United Kingdom right now. The Albanese government should not be far behind—because it is led by a man, by ministers and by a backbench who simply have lost their moral compass and understanding of how Australians can live out their best lives. They believe deep down that they can decide how Australians can live their lives only on the Albanese government's terms.

While we're passing this legislation through the parliament to enable Australians to be able to get some relief at the petrol bowser—and, if they're involved in shipping or freight, to be able to remove some of the cost pressures—this bill doesn't relieve the much bigger problem that sits at the heart of the Albanese government. At the heart of this Albanese government is a direct assault on the aspiration and dreams of Australians, particularly those who want to back themselves to get ahead, to build a small business and to be part of building their Australian dream.

My hope, of course, is that one day the Albanese government wake up. They wake up and realise the consequences of what they're doing in their budget are directly assaulting the foundations and the economic foundations of this country. My hope is that one day the Albanese government stops taking the terms being dictated by the Greens and now their assault on retirees. My hope is that one day the Albanese government wakes up and realises that there's a serious consequence to continuing to drive the country downward, where we seem to have a Treasurer whose primary objective in policy is to run the economy down, to crash the economy because it gives the Labor government the best pathway to build the case to take control of Australians' lives. My hope is that the Australian people understand and are watching and witnessing exactly how bad this Albanese government is operating and that they're thrown out at the next federal election. And I will point out that increasingly that looks like precisely what's going to happen.

My hope is that one day we have a government that's built on building out and backing Australians to get ahead, where, for those who apply themselves and put in their effort and hard work, we have their government cheering them on, not what they currently have in a government that's focused on how to kneecap them from their success. My hope is that we'll have an Australia that's filled with aspiration and ambition not just for who we can be individually but for who families can be and, more importantly, for where communities and small business can be. My hope is that we're able to build out a better nation for every Australian—one where we have a government that cheers Australians on to their full success. That isn't going to happen under this government, but change is on the way. Hope is on the way, and, believe me, Australia can be a better country, but it's only going to come with the end of the immoral Albanese government and its direct assault on Australians and their capacity to live out their ambition and their dreams.

And so, while we pass this bill today on the important issue of excise, let us never forget what the objective of this bill should actually be about. It should be about providing a pathway for Australians of all stripes to be able to get ahead. Instead, this is the consequence of living with the impact of the active inflationary agenda of the Albanese government, which they're now trying to provide short-term relief for. They're going to give with one hand and then take with another, whether it's families, small businesses or communities, because we are living with the ruinous consequences of a terrible Albanese government.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) | Link to this | Hansard source

That was quite the ideological rant from the shadow treasurer. To remind people in the gallery what bill is actually before the House, in case you were wondering after that: this is about whether or not we lower the fuel excise. Given the war in the Middle East and the constraints in global supply and despite the fact that Australia has done incredibly well in being able to secure fuel supply, we're not immune to the fact that there is a global supply shortage that is, unfortunately, increasing prices. We're really conscious that that is having an impact. We had hoped the war in the Middle East would be all over. We all had hoped that that would be the case, but this would provide quite a shock for many people who rely on the cut that we have made to the fuel excise.

The other thing is that, in my portfolio of transport, there is a co-linking—a road user charge—that the trucking industry pays for. It pays for the money that goes into our roads. But, because the trucking industry is so directly impacted by the price of fuel at the moment, we want to keep some relief going for the trucking industry as well. That's actually what this bill is about, if you were wondering about the debate here.

Since the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East, Australians have been faced, as we know, with rising fuel costs. I want to take this opportunity, frankly, to commend and thank the Australian driving public for their response to the domestic impacts of this global conflict. You have been absolutely magnificent. It hasn't been easy. We know that, at the start of the crisis, people were pretty worried about there being a shortage, and we saw that as people tried to stockpile, but they have responded incredibly well. They have really thought about what's happening with fuel usage. They have really thought about the trips that they're taking. They really wanted to make sure that the fuel supply was going to where it was absolutely needed, that our farmers could continue to have diesel and that essential services workers could continue to have access.

I want to thank the Australian public for the great work that they've done. This is really about all of us, as a country, being in something together. It is not a crisis of the making of any of us, but we've had to deal with it, and deal with it as best we can, so I really want to thank the Australian public for that. Many of you have taken the voluntary actions this government has suggested to free up more fuel supply so that we can get it to the people who need it the most, like our farmers, our truck drivers and our emergency services workers.

In parallel, our government's been working hard to shore up the fuel supply and provide cost-of-living relief to drivers and transport operators who are feeling the pressure of high fuel prices. As at 16 June, our emergency reserves include 44 days worth of petrol, 32 days worth of jet fuel and 39 days worth of diesel, and that's been a combined effort by industry, the international community and the government, working together. We're also continuing to work with our international partners to secure those additional supplies through agreements with countries like Japan, Brunei, Malaysia and Korea. Because of that work, there's more fuel in the country now than there was when this crisis started in February. Keeping that is important work that the government has done, but we're not immune to what is happening globally. We have seen fuel prices come down from their peaks in April. In most capital cities, the petrol price is around 90c per litre lower and the diesel price is around $1 per litre lower, but we know, particularly those of us who live in regional communities, that it is still creating some difficulty for people.

We welcome the agreement between the United States and Iran to de-escalate the conflict. We are desperate for that to hold—I know the whole world is desperate for that to hold. While we're hopeful, obviously we know that it is going to take quite a while for this to bear down and for global fuel movements to recover. That's why it is critical that this legislation pass urgently. It will provide that continued certainty and support for those who need it. Extending the fuel excise by another month will make petrol and diesel around 16c per litre cheaper than normal July prices and will save Australians around $11 per tank.

In addition to this support, as I said, we're also reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge by 16c for the same period, providing continued relief to our transport operators. This is more temporary help, following the three-month reduction of the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero and the deferment of the next scheduled increase by six months.

We know that we are, hopefully, on the road to a pathway out of this, but time is still needed to allow that to occur. That's why the government's taking a measured and staged approach to returning the fuel excise and the heavy vehicle road user charge to their regular settings. Our approach has been welcomed by industry, including the Australian Trucking Association, and I again acknowledge their real advocacy and their capacity to work with the government on this issue; the Australian Automobile Association, representing, of course, all of the motoring groups and the travelling public; and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Andrew McKellar has said:

Extending this support provides some welcome short-term certainty for freight operators and the many small and medium businesses that depend on them.

It's important that we as a government remain responsive to the ongoing impact of this crisis. The legislation is the next step in doing so, and I very much commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its passage here.

Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister who's walking out now was absolutely right: this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, is about the extended reduction of the fuel excise. But it also goes to a few other points as well, and I hope to clarify my view in relation to those points.

It goes to responsible government. The bill supports a 16c reduction per litre, and this follows, obviously, the situation that we've had with conflict in the Middle East. When that conflict began, the coalition called out quite loudly for some time, asking for the government to reduce, to halve, the fuel excise. Eventually, the government came to the table on that, and we supported that measure. What we're seeing now and being asked to vote on is for a continuation of that extension. However, instead of it being halved, it will be further halved to 16c. So it's a 16c reduction, as opposed to the 32c reduction it was before.

That's going to provide a little bit of relief to Australians, and Australians are doing it tough at the moment. On the Gold Coast, which is the area that I represent, we saw fuel rise quite significantly at the beginning of the Middle East conflict. While this will result in a slight increase, based on what we've seen over the last couple of weeks, it is no doubt a form of cost-of-living relief that Australians truly need at this time.

The coalition is going to support this bill. We are going to vote in favour of the bill. But let's be clear, the coalition voting in favour of the legislation is neither an endorsement of Labor's economic management nor an endorsement of Labor's broader economic plan, or lack thereof, because what we've seen from the Middle East conflict is that it's actually exposed Labor's incompetence. While the government may try to hide behind the conflict in the Middle East as a shield for its own poor economic management, when we actually unpack the facts, what do we see? We see a situation where 13 out of the 15 interest rate rises that have occurred were before the conflict. So it's disingenuous for the Treasurer to come into this place and make comments insinuating that the reason Australia is in a difficult economic situation and that Australians are hurting and suffering under a cost-of-living crisis is solely to do with what is happening in the Middle East.

We also see a situation where government expenditure has been totally out of control. In fact, we've seen government expenditure outpacing economic growth in Australia at a rate of four to one. It is the highest level of government spending in around 40 years, outside a recession. Australians are happy to pay taxes if they can see their tax money being well spent. At the moment, most Australians that I speak to and I think most Australians listening would agree with me when I say that they have very little confidence in the way this government is using their taxpayer dollars.

It goes to leadership. The government can come in here and say, 'We're going to provide cost-of-living relief to the Australian people in the form of a continued cut to the fuel excise,' but the coalition has asked for the government's plan to pay for that. We've asked for inflationary offsets, and that's really important, because it's not a small cost. The previous legislation for a cut to the fuel excise cost us $2.9 billion, and this one's going to cost the taxpayers around $400 million. So it's a substantial cost, but not $1 of that cost has been offset. No member of the government has come in here and said how they're going to pay for it. No-one's come and given us an alternative plan. I say that as a member of the coalition but one who happens to be the youngest member of the coalition. Because, at the end of the day, it is our future generations who are going to have to pay for every measure that this government implements. Whilst we do support the legislation and the intention of the legislation, all we're doing is putting a bandaid on a wound that we're not focused on healing, because Australians down the track are going to have to deal with this in addition to all the other forms of expenditure that this government has overseen.

I do remind the chamber that when the coalition was in government, we offset spending against savings, and the consequence of not doing that means, as I said, that the next generation is going to be worse off. There's nothing in this that is going to meaningfully attack and address inflation. We've seen this government be in power for the last 4½ years, and there is still no credible plan for how they're going to address inflation in a way that is meaningful and that is effective.

The other part of this legislation goes to the heavy vehicle road user charge, which ultimately goes to transport in this country—our ability to get things around—and to small businesses. The coalition has always stood with small businesses, but they need more support than what we're seeing now. Despite the rhetoric that has come through over the last couple of weeks, especially following the budget, small businesses are really struggling. They're not feeling that government is helping them or even understanding what their issues are.

I think that goes to the ideological difference between those on this side of the chamber and those in government—those on this side of the chamber have experiences directly and firsthand with small business—and it goes to our values. I joined the Liberal Party because I believed in the value of personal responsibility—if you drop something you pick it up, and if you want something you work for it. But it also means you live within your means. I think those opposite and those in government would do well from adopting a similar approach—from adopting an approach of living within our means as a country and taking some responsibility for our actions, because that's ultimately where this is going.

We're here supporting the bill. We're not going to block cheaper fuel for working Australians, but we do have to ask why Australians are in this position in the first place. It's followed a government that has spent three years adding fuel to the inflation fire through their reckless spending, through record deficits and through no structural reform that's going to actually reduce cost pressures.

I do note that, when the Treasurer presented this bill, in his second reading speech on the legislation, he said:

This comes after a budget that is all about making it easier for people to buy their own home. It's got more income tax cuts and is better aligning the treatment of income from labour and assets.

Then he went on to say this:

… extra fuel excise relief is just the latest …

So we've got a treasurer who's linking this bill, this cut to the fuel excise, to the CGT and negative gearing changes that were put through in the recent budget. He refers to a better alignment of the treatment of income from labour and assets. I don't know which world he's in, but you can't use emergency fuel relief as cover for a permanent tax increase that will push up rents and hurt aspirational homeowners. We all know in this place—or we should know—that cheaper petrol for five weeks doesn't offset a permanent tax on housing investment. They're completely different things. One's a temporary response to an external shock, and the other is a deliberate choice to tax the aspiration of Australians who want to get ahead.

The other component to this legislation is making sure that Australians actually benefit from the cost-of-living relief that is intended. The coalition, those on this side of the chamber, have asked the government to report to the parliament on what proportion of the relief has reached Australians, not just what was legislated. I'd say that that should be the case going forward in relation to the next month of extension as well, because, at the end of the day, if the savings are not passed on to Australians when they're filling up their tanks, the beneficiaries are not the Australians who are doing it tough right now. They're fuel retailers and not Australian families.

The coalition is going to support this bill, but we do so considering the broader context in which it is being presented, and that is an Australian economy that is being mismanaged and that is resulting in Australians doing it tough. The people that I speak to on the southern Gold Coast—and I have had a number of chats, especially at some listening posts at the markets at Burleigh Heads straight after the initial conflict broke out in the Middle East and the government announced, or followed our lead in announcing, the cut to the fuel excise. I had a lot of conversations and people said, 'Yes, this is great; it's going to help.' But it's not enough. It's a small part of addressing what is a very large problem.

Make no mistake. It's a problem that is created here at home. When you compare Australia's inflation rates—and we're seeing 4.2 per cent now, well above our target band as a country—with those of like-minded countries around the world, ours is far above them. So it is home-grown inflation. It's a situation that is created by this government. The scary part is that we're not seeing any meaningful discussion about solutions.

So while we do support this bill and we won't stand in the way of cheaper fuel for Australians, we support it knowing well and truly that this is only one small part of a very large problem. The government must come to the table if we are going to have meaningful cost-of-living relief for Australians at a time when they actually need it more than perhaps they have ever needed it in their lifetimes.

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

On 1 April this year the government halved the fuel excise and suspended road use charges for heavy-vehicle operators. That was a direct response to disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East. As we know, that initial relief is due to expire next week, on 30 June. The government has now introduced this legislation to taper that relief, rather than abruptly withdrawing it. Under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, the initial 50 per cent cut in the fuel excise of 30c per litre will drop to 16c per litre from 1 July and then phased out from 2 August.

It's my view that tapering this relief is the right approach. Since fuel prices peaked at the end of March, petrol prices in most capital cities have dropped by about 90c a litre. They're now below the levels they were at the time the conflict first began. But although petrol prices have eased considerably, diesel prices remain elevated. They're still averaging about 20c a litre more than when the conflict broke out. We also have ongoing uncertainty about the resolution of that conflict.

So an abrupt removal of excise relief would potentially impose a very significant shock on small businesses, transport operators, truck drivers, freight companies and the wider logistics industry, which is reliant on diesel to operate. A phased withdrawal provides businesses with greater certainty, and it will allow time to adjust to prevailing market conditions, acknowledging the ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and the failure to secure a clear end to hostilities in the Middle East.

But, having said that, I think we need to be sure that these measures have genuinely translated into lower prices for consumers and for businesses. The measures in this bill will cost about $400 million, on top of the $2.9 billion in forgone revenue from the first three-month reduction in the excise. Australians deserve to know that the benefit will be reflected at the bowser and not absorbed elsewhere in the supply chain. Given that taxpayers themselves are funding this relief, parliament should be able to assess whether it has delivered the outcomes promised.

I would welcome greater transparency from the government on how much the excise cut actually translated into price reductions at the bowser. The crossbench sought that data yesterday, when we were first briefed on this legislation, but it has yet to be provided. Before we commit hundreds of millions of dollars in additional support, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we should have a clear understanding of how much relief actually reached houses, businesses and freight operators.

While the reduction in the fuel excise undoubtedly provided some relief, Australia has also been lucky in the last few months, particularly on the supply side. In the wake of the conflict, Australia was able to dramatically increase imports of crude oil from South Korea, jet fuel from Malaysia, and diesel and petrol from the US. Australian importers even bought 50 million litres of jet fuel from the US, which is a rare supply route. Our supply chains held together remarkably well, with 92 fuel shipments arriving in Australia over this period. As a result, our reserves have been built up to 44 days worth of petrol, 39 days worth of diesel and 32 days worth of jet fuel.

But the truth is that Australia has been protected from what could have been a much more severe supply shock. Major fuel-consuming nations, including Japan and China, drew heavily on their strategic reserves. China significantly reduced its imports, easing pressure on global markets. The International Energy Agency coordinated releases of 400 million barrels of oil from emergency stockpiles, helping to stabilise supply and moderate price volatility. Those measures were effective, but they were also quite extraordinary. I congratulate the Australian government—the Albanese government—on securing our energy security through this crisis.

Emergency measures always carry with them a degree of uncertainty and a degree of anxiety. Strategic reserves exist to cushion temporary disruptions, not to provide a permanent solution. Many of the stockpiles accumulated over decades have now been drawn down. Rebuilding them is going to take time, and that reality should serve as a reminder of the fragility of the global energy markets. The combination of geopolitical conflict, constrained shipping routes and tightening supply can quickly expose vulnerabilities in countries that rely heavily on imported fuel.

Unfortunately, at this point, Australia remains one of those countries. Despite recent measures from the government, the reality is that our domestic refining capacity is modest. We remain highly dependent on imported refined fuels. We cannot assume that the same combination of favourable circumstances, strategic stockpile releases and alternative supply routes will be available the next time we have a major disruption of this sort. Energy security should not simply be a crisis response; it must be a long-term national security priority.

Record fuel prices have accelerated local interest in electric vehicles, with the Tesla Model Y becoming the first electric vehicle to top Australia's monthly vehicle sales charts when it became the country's bestselling car in May. That's not just a consumer trend; it's a reflection of Australians who are seeking protection from volatile global fuel markets. For many households, EVs are no longer just an environmental choice. They are increasingly an energy security choice and a cost-of-living choice.

But, at the same time, at the very moment that consumers and businesses are considering alternatives to imported fuel, some of the government's policy settings, which have actively supported the energy transition, are being wound back. The fringe benefits tax exemption for electric vehicles is being narrowed from 1 April this year. I appreciate the government's desire to better target tax concessions, but we have to be very careful not to undermine one of the very few policies which has demonstrably accelerated the EV market and uptake in Australia. Some versions of the Tesla Model Y cost close to $90,000. If we limit the FBT tax exemption to cars under $75,000 from 1 April 2027, as is planned, we risk discouraging uptake of some of the most popular EV brands in Australia.

What's most frustrating is the clear and apparent cognitive dissonance in the government's policy settings. While this government has long been emphasising the need for energy security, it has kept in place longstanding fuel tax concessions for some of Australia's largest fossil fuel users. I don't know how many times the crossbench has raised this issue in the House, but the Albanese government continues to provide over $10 billion every year in fuel tax credits which disproportionately benefit large, fossil-fuel-intensive industries.

The diesel fuel tax credit is not a neutral tax concession; it is a $10 billion-plus annual incentive to industry to keep burning fossil fuels. BHP alone reportedly received $622 million in fuel tax credits in 2024 and at the same time posted around $10 billion in profit. What has that subsidy brought? Did it bring decarbonisation? No. Despite committing in its own climate strategy to trialling electric trucks from 2024 and rolling them out across its fleet in 2027-28, BHP has now spent more than $500 million on new diesel trucks and has put the brakes on its shift away from diesel trucking. It's not a coincidence; it is cause and effect. According to analysis by Fortescue, the 51.6c-per-litre fuel tax credit halves the return on investment on electrification. BHP's own leaked documents confirm as much with its internal modelling flagging changes to diesel pricing or credit availability as a potential decarbonisation risk factor and its internal projections suggesting that BHP expects to cut it's emissions by only one per cent by 2030.

Australians taxpayers are subsidising very profitable companies to continue to burn imported fossil fuels. They are sending taxpayer money up in smoke. If we are serious about strengthening Australia's energy resilience, about reducing our exposure to global fuel shocks and about accelerating the transition to cleaner transport then we cannot continue to subsidise fossil fuel consumption, on one hand, while scaling back support for lower emissions alternatives on the other.

The lesson from recent months is clear. Temporary fuel excise relief may help households, and it might help businesses weather an energy crisis, and for this reason I do support the measured tapering the government has proposed in this bill. But long-term energy resilience will not come from emergency excise cuts. It will come from building a transport system that is less dependent on imported fuels, that is electrified, that is energy efficient and that is insulated from global geopolitical shocks. That is the broader challenge before us: not simply how we choose to respond to the current fuel price crisis but how we prepare Australia for the next one.

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

Resources rich, politically poor—that is Australia in 2026. We are arguing the merits of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026. The opposition is not going to stand in the way of consumers getting a cheaper tank of fuel, even if it is only $11. We are not going to stand in the way of people, particularly in regional Australia, being able to fill up and get about their daily business.

During the early stages of the fuel crisis, when Iran was first being bombed, there were regional people who were choosing whether or not to stay at home, whether to take the children to their weekend sport or dancing or whatever the case might have been. We heard from the government, over and over, that supply was not an issue. Well, I can tell you it was.

In Batlow, in my electorate, there was no fuel available. There were many farmers—it was the start of sowing season—who could not access diesel to sow their crops, to plant their winter crops so that they would have a harvest at the end of the year. And there were farmers who could get some access to diesel but they could only half-fill their tanks and, inexplicably, they had to pay cash for it. That goes against every measure of fair play. It's probably an issue that should have been raised with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This was the reality of life in regional Australia when the Strait of Hormuz was initially blocked. This was the lived experience.

I suspect this government doesn't care all that much about farmers. They do care about polls and polling and pollsters. They do care about making out as if they're doing the right thing by Australians, hence an extension to the fuel excise rebate, but at a smaller discount. The federal government is winding back its discount to the fuel excise over the next month—the 32c per litre fuel discount is dropping to 16c per litre—and the heavy-vehicle road user charge will go up from free to 16c per litre. Motorists have had three months of relief, as they should have. The coalition called for this and brought the Labor government kicking and screaming to the table to do what we'd asked and to do what our constituents said was important so that our farmers could plant their crops and so that our regional families in particular could take their children to sport and other activities they enjoy.

I don't think city people always get the fact that we drive far greater distances. In the fortnight away from parliament, I was averaging about 400 kilometres a day just travelling around my huge electorate. I could throw my handkerchief over the electorates of some of these city MPs and still have room to spare. They just don't understand the hardships faced by their country cousins. If they did, they'd do more to protect the transport sector and the trucking industry, just as one example. ASIC figures show that of trucking companies in 2021-22—remember, Labor took over in May 2022—196 went to the wall in that period. In 2022-23, 347 went broke, with 495 the following year, and, as of 6 April this year—so the figures are a little bit dated, but the argument remains the same—535 insolvencies had already been recorded. That's Australia's transport, postal and warehousing sector. That's our truckies.

Without our truckies, nothing gets anywhere in this country. When the trucking sector grinds to a halt, so does the nation. We should be ever so thankful that our truckies do a mighty fine job for and on behalf of this nation, because no food gets on the table of anyone in Australia without a truck. It doesn't. They're under the pump. XL Express, with a fleet of 193 vehicles, stood down its 200 employees, and, a couple of months later, creditors vowed to wind up the 17 companies associated under the XL group. It was burdened by debt. It shows a worrying, alarming and growing trend in Australia. We had the Don Watson Transport and Coldstores group, after 77 years of delivering in Australia, in trouble such that it announced it was finishing up. This company's collapse meant another 300 employees were out of work—140 trucks and 170 trailer trucks annually covering 22,000,000 kilometres.

They're not isolated examples. Ron Crouch Transport in Wagga Wagga has been going for a long, long time. It's a generational family trucking business. This is due in no small part to the issues around fuel supply, the issues of the cost-of-living crisis and the issues of getting business done. The issues of false and sham contracting is playing a big part as well. The government will say it's doing some work in this space, and I commend it for that, but there's much more that can be done, that should be done, that must be done. Discounting petrol, helping out some small degree, will go a little bit of the way, but this government has the levers by which to pull, to manage, to control and to do a lot more in the economic space to help particularly regional Australia.

I think it gets forgotten in this place that regional Australia keeps the lights on. It gets neglected in this place that regional Australia ensures that food gets delivered and put on the table. When every Labor member tucks their knees under the table three times a day, every day, they should be mindful of that. They should be well aware of where their food comes from. But I don't think they are, because, if they were, last week they wouldn't have been spending, as our debt spirals towards $1 trillion, another $430 million buying productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. That might well be another story altogether, but that equated to 86 gigalitres, the equivalent of 34,400 Olympic-size swimming pools, taken out of the productive consumptive pool and flushed down the mouth of the Murray. And for what? For the environment.

We heard the member for Kooyong just a minute ago praising the Labor government, as though we should all get down on our knees and say: 'Oh, thank you so very much for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026! Thank you, oh great ones, for providing this relief!' I have a different view. I have a very different view to the teals. They're arguing at the moment about whether they should become a party or not. They've been a party ever since they got in here. When you get funded by Simon Holmes à Court and you take money from that billionaire, when you have the same policies, when you have the same talking points, when you meet in your caucus together and you've got the same colours, you're a party. Don't ever think that you're not, because you are. They come in here and give almighty praise to Labor as though they're doing something in this space.

Then the member for Kooyong started to talk about the need for more EVs. That's all well and good, but I'll tell you what—out in regional Australia, they don't cut the mustard, because they don't go far enough. I've had example after example of companies that went into the electric vehicle space and then their employees were stranded and couldn't get home in time because either somebody hadn't put sufficient storage in the battery or, for whatever reason, they came to a town where they didn't have the charging points. It's all well and good for these city MPs. They've got blinkers on and always have had. They don't know about the hardships of regional Australia.

There were none of them around the table yesterday when I had a group from the southern basin of the Murray-Darling here talking about how tough they're doing it. There were no city Labor MPs looking into the tear-filled eyes of those people who grow our food, listening to their stories of how they're paying more and more for water. And, yes, those farmers will see that there's a little bit of relief here. But I'll tell you what—they should be getting it, too. They deserve it. They deserve every bit of help we can give them. I'll tell you what the government shouldn't be doing, and that's continuing to go into the Murray-Darling Basin and buying water out of the productive consumptive pool. They should not be doing that, but they won't stop, even though we've got a nation in crisis, heading towards a trillion dollars of debt.

What really galls me in this place is when the Treasurer goes to that dispatch box and talks about the trillion dollars of debt that Labor inherited. It is a fallacy. ABC Fact Check says so. It says it is a fallacy. It says it's not true. And yet he continues to spout this misconception that Labor inherited a trillion dollars worth of debt. It was nowhere near that amount. I'll tell you what we did during COVID—we saved lives and we saved livelihoods. What did Labor do at the time? They wanted us to spend more and more money. JobKeeper was put in place by the member for Kooyong before this one. He wasn't a teal. He was a coalition member and a good one. That JobKeeper saved businesses. It kept the doors of business open when businesses across the world were going bankrupt, were going out backwards. The Johns Hopkins centre rated Australia second in the world for COVID preparedness for the number of lives we saved—tens of thousands of people who would, but for our assistance, not be alive today. We kept them alive and we kept their businesses going. But the debt that we're now faced with, grappling with and struggling against? That's on Labor's watch. It doesn't help matters when they want to go and spend $430 million buying productive water and doing what with it? Flushing it out of the mouth of the Murray. How is that good economics? It is not.

We're not going to oppose this, because we want to see relief at the bowser. We do. But the other things that Labor are doing are only going to push the price of groceries up. We want to see our trucks being able to go up and down the busy byways and freeways and little country roads, that last mile to the farm gate. We want to see people paying less at the cash register in the grocery store. That just makes for good economics. It also makes quality of life much better. At the moment, there's way too much homelessness. There are way too many people suffering because of the cost-of-living crisis brought about because of the poor economics of this Labor government.

I started by saying we are resources rich, and we are, but we're politically poor, and we are. We've got resources underneath our feet. We wouldn't have to go down this path if we bothered to dig them up, if we bothered to drill, if we bothered to have a policy whereby we not only extracted our own energy and fuel but refined it and used it for our own sake instead of importing all of our energy. We should be smarter than that. We are smarter than that. We have to be smarter than that for the sake of ourselves, our children and our children's children.

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

I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026 and will not stand in the way of Australians receiving relief at the bowser. Families, farmers, truck drivers, tradies, commuters and small businesses across Australia need the assistance. But support for this bill should not be mistaken for support for the circumstances that made it necessary, because the question before us today is not simply on why fuel prices have risen. The real question is about why Australians are finding it so difficult to absorb yet another increase in the cost of living. Why are families living week to week? Why are small businesses struggling to stay afloat? Why are farmers, transport operators, businesses and community organisations being forced to make increasingly difficult decisions? Why do so many Australians feel that, despite working harder than ever, they are somehow falling behind? Across Lyne, I hear the same message repeatedly. People are hurting and they are hurting badly. I've never seen Australians under this level of sustained economic pressure.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us headline inflation remains at 4.2 per cent. Underlying inflation remains at 3.4 per cent, still above the Reserve Bank's target range. Housing costs have risen by 6.3 per cent, transport costs have risen by 6.6 per cent and electricity prices have risen by more than 22 per cent. These are not just statistics; they are the reality facing Australian households every day. Families are paying more for groceries, more for electricity, more for insurance, more for rent, more for mortgages, more for housing and more for almost every essential part of daily life.

Now, they're paying more for fuel. The conflict in the Middle East did not create Australia's cost-of-living crisis; it exposed it. Australians were already struggling before oil prices moved. Mortgage holders had already endured years of elevated interest rates. Businesses were already battling rising costs. Households were already making sacrifices. Fuel has simply become the latest pressure point in an economy already under strain. Fuel is not just another expense. Fuel is the cost of everything. When fuel prices rise, freight costs rise. When freight costs rise, food prices rise. When food prices rise, household budgets come under further pressure. The impact flows through every corner of the economy.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in regional Australia. Over recent months, I've heard directly from constituents who've been living with this reality. Gregory from Foster asked me, 'How does the government allow fuel companies to gouge the price of fuel so quickly?' He was not asking as an economist; he was asking as somebody watching costs rise faster than he could understand or explain. Veronica from Mitchells Island, questioned why families already struggling with the cost of living were expected to absorb even higher fuel costs. Mark from Foster raised concerns about fuel prices rising before higher-cost fuel had even entered the supply chain. Karen from Taree South told me she watched fuel prices rise from 165.9 cents per litre to 219.9 cents per litre in a matter of days. For many Australians, that sort of increase is not an inconvenience—it is the difference between making ends meet and falling behind. Bill from Tallwoods Village told me he felt nobody was listening when concerns were raised about rapidly escalating fuel prices.

Whether people agree with every concern or not, the message is consistent: Australians feel powerless as costs rise around them. But this goes beyond motorists. I've heard from timber operators, transport operators and farmers across my electorate facing soaring diesel costs. I've heard concerns from community transport providers questioning whether they can continue operating if costs continue to rise. These are not theoretical concerns. These are real Australians trying to run businesses, support families and contribute to their communities—certainly, a community that's the oldest in the country.

It's not only households carrying these pressures. Small businesses are carrying them as well—the local cafe, the local workshop, the trucking operator, the family owned business, the farmer employing local people. The consequences are increasingly visible. ASIC reports that 14,722 Australian companies entered external administration during the last financial year. That is an increase of more than 33 per cent on the previous year. Behind every one of those insolvencies is somebody's life's work, somebody's savings, somebody's employees, somebody's family. That is why inflation matters and that is why fuel prices matter. That is why governments cannot continue treating cost-of-living pressures as though they are merely temporary inconveniences. I said, previously in this House, that we stand in here expecting Australians to flex with the crisis, but so many do not have that flexibility. Every ask we make of them is heard as another sacrifice they have to make—another bill, another cost, another burden, another promise that somehow never quite gets delivered. And, after years of inflation and rising costs, many Australians have reached the limit of what they can absorb.

The bill before us extends temporary fuel excise relief from 1 July until early August, and Australians will welcome that relief. The coalition supports that relief, but relief should not be confused with a solution. The government calls this a taper. Australians will experience it as a price increase. A family filling a 65 litre tank received around $21 in fuel relief during June. From 1 July that relief falls to around $11. That is, effectively, a $10 increase every time they fill up their car from the first day of the new financial year. For transport operators and trucking businesses, the impact is even greater. That is why Australians are entitled to ask a simple question: if inflation is supposedly under control, why are they still paying more? If the economy is supposedly improving, why do they still feel poorer? The answer is that the underlying problems remain. The original fuel excise reduction cost approximately $2.9 billion. This extension costs another $400 million, yet the government has refused to identify genuine inflationary offsets.

The coalition repeatedly argued that any cost-of-living relief should be accompanied by spending restraint elsewhere, because relief that is borrowed today becomes inflationary pressure tomorrow. A government credit card is not an economic strategy. Borrowing more money to treat the symptoms while ignoring the causes is not economic management; it is political management. The same lack of long-term thinking that has contributed to inflation has also left Australia vulnerable on fuel security.

Over recent months I have repeatedly raised concerns in this parliament about Australia's fuel vulnerability. I've spoken about diesel fuel disruptions. I've spoken about pressure on regional fuel distributors. I've spoken about my concerns that the ACCC does not appear to have a grip on the fuel supply chain at all. I've spoken about the resilience of Australia's fuel supply chain because fuel security is not simply about what motorists pay at the bowser. Fuel security is about whether food reaches supermarket shelves. Fuel security is about whether freight continues to move. Fuel security is about whether farmers can harvest crops. Fuel security is about whether emergency services can respond during natural disasters.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour. The member will be given leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.