My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. When fuel prices spiked this year, Australians were told it was because of the war. But Australia's two refineries are making super profits. Ampol's profits from the Lytton refinery increased tenfold, and Viva Energy's earnings are up 150 per cent, despite selling only one per cent more fuel. Australians pay for those margins at the bowser and in the price of everything transported. Taxpayers subsidise these refineries in lean years. Why shouldn't they get a share of the windfall when refineries profit from a crisis?

I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, the fuel prices are a result of the war in the Middle East. There's no question about that. But, of course, the government has been focused very much on fuel security over the last seven months, ensuring our immediate fuel security, and, despite the fact that others called for rationing and others predicted rationing, we have ensured by working with those refineries and our trading partners that our fuel security has been very solid over that time. But we've also been working on our longer term fuel security, building the Australian strategic fuel reserve announced in the budget, as well as increasing the minimum stock obligation.

The honourable member refers to the Fuel Security Services Payment, which was a payment introduced by the previous government after four refineries shut between 2013 and 2022. We lost 25 billion litres a year worth of production. The member for Hume, when he had my job, introduced the Fuel Security Services Payment, which does support the operation of those two refineries and does provide payments when prices are low. I have recently announced that I would begin consultation on a new fuel security services payment for the post 2030 arrangements, because we will not see those two refineries shut.

But the honourable member is essentially correct. One of the things in the consultation paper that I released on the new regime said:

Consideration will be given to risk-sharing between government and industry, including whether mechanisms for government to capture a share of excess profits during favourable market conditions are appropriate, and how any shared value could be reinvested to support fuel security outcomes.

So we do think it's appropriate to ensure that, while government will ensure the refineries remain open, when there are increased profits the taxpayer can share in that, and that is a conversation that we will have with the industry between now and the end of the year, and I will make further announcements when those arrangements are finalised. But building our fuel security has been absolutely essential, and ensuring that Australians can benefit when profits are high from those arrangements with refineries is perfectly appropriate. That's why we've flagged that. It's also appropriate that we continue our four point plan for fuel security, which involves working with states on feasibility studies for more refining capacity, increasing the minimum stock obligation and the Australian fuel security reserve, developing a low carbon fuels industry for Australia which is great for farmers, as well as improving fuel security and supporting the choices of Australians in electrification because every 100,000 new electric vehicles adds three days' worth of fuel supply for Australia.