Senate debates

Tuesday, 31 March 2026

Bills

Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026; Second Reading

8:12 pm

Photo of Claire ChandlerClaire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

():  I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026, a bill that comes before the Senate only because Australians have been pushed to the brink of a fuel crisis and the government has acted too late. The opposition supports this legislation because fuel prices sit at the centre of the cost-of-living pressure. In these circumstances, temporary relief through fuel excise is necessary, and that is why the opposition will not stand in the way of a measure that provides direct, immediate assistance to Australians who are already doing it tough.

Let us also be clear about how we arrived at this point. It was the coalition that led on this policy. Last week, the opposition publicly proposed temporarily halving the fuel excise and cutting the heavy vehicle road user charge. The Leader of the Opposition formally wrote to the Prime Minister, outlining these measures, recognising the urgency of this situation and the pressure facing households and transport operators across the country. The government's initial response on Friday was not to act but to dismiss. The Prime Minister said he would not rush into fuel tax cuts. The Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy echoed that position, insisting the focus should be on supply chains rather than excise relief despite price volatility and distribution pressures. This government says that ships are arriving. If so, why are service stations running dry? Why were Australians being told that there was no problem while businesses on the ground were already feeling the impact of fuel shortages and rising prices?

Yet, after a National Cabinet meeting with the states and territories on Monday, the government reversed course. Suddenly, the pressure was too great to ignore, and the Albanese Labor government agreed to temporarily halve the fuel excise and cut the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months. This happened because of the mounting pressure from households and businesses; the consequences of doing nothing had become too obvious. It happened because the coalition applied pressure, showed leadership and forced the government to act.

However, while the government has now adopted the coalition's policy, it has failed to adopt the coalition's fiscal discipline. When the coalition proposed this relief, we identified offsets to pay for it. We think that that is important. That is responsible budget management. This government offered no such plan at the time of adopting our policy and still has offered no plan to offset this expenditure. When asked how it would be funded, the Treasurer offered no offsets at all, instead saying that the cost would be absorbed. Well, if that is the government's idea of responsible economic management, then the bar has been set alarmingly low.

The confusion didn't stop there. Fuel excise interacts directly with GST, yet, when the government announced the cut, it hadn't settled the GST consequences with the states. Within 24 hours, we saw conflicting statements about who would bear the cost, what agreements were required and whether the arrangements were even resolved. Australians were left watching a government announce a major tax change first and work out the details later. This is unfortunately becoming a pattern from this government. One day they are saying there is not a fuel supply problem in; the next we are told that we are in a national fuel crisis. One day the government dismisses excise relief, then the next day, or a few days later in this case, it adopts it without a funding plan and without clarity for the states. This lack of consistency and coordination undermines confidence, and Australians cannot afford that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, let alone in the middle of the fuel crisis that we are currently experiencing.

The opposition supports this bill because Australians need relief now. We have been very clear and consistent and responsible in articulating that position, but, because of that, we feel the need to make the facts abundantly clear through a second reading amendment to this bill that we are debating this evening, which I will move. This amendment makes clear that this policy originated with the coalition, that the government delayed in acting, that it failed to provide offset and that uncertainty remains around GST arrangements and fuel security. This amendment is about transparency and accountability. It's about ensuring that the record reflects what actually occurred.

Australians deserve leadership now that anticipates problems, not a government that stumbles into action once the damage is already done. While we support the bill, we do so critically and with an amendment that sets the record straight on the delay, the fiscal failure and the lack of serious planning behind this measure.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) the reduction in fuel excise and corresponding reduction in heavy vehicle road user charge reflects a policy first proposed by the Opposition;

(b) the Government initially denied there was a fuel supply problem in Australia and by delaying taking action to ensure distribution of fuel to where it was needed, exacerbated price pressures and supply shortages;

(c) the Government delayed acting on cost-of-living relief despite mounting pressure on Australian households, small businesses and transporters;

(d) the Government has failed to provide any budget offsets or outline how this measure will be funded, increasing the risk of additional inflationary pressure—where the only fuel guaranteed is for inflation, not for farmers or families;

(e) within 24 hours of the announcement, the Government's proposed GST arrangements have already fallen into disarray, raising further concerns about fiscal credibility and coordination;

(f) uncertainty remains regarding fuel supply security and the risk of heavy-handed market interventions; and

(g) Australians deserve timely leadership and responsible economic management during this national fuel crisis".

Comments

No comments