Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the finance minister, representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher, about the upcoming budget and the effects of the war. Fuel prices went up at the pump almost immediately after the US and Israel invaded Iran. Prices went up straightaway, and they've risen by, on average, 80c already this month, even though that was all on the sale of fuel that was already bought and held before the war began. Yet, when it comes to passing on the relief, the Treasurer says we have to wait for the full 26c of fuel excise cuts to flow through to customers. Why is it that the government hasn't insisted that suppliers immediately lower prices and pass on the fuel excise cut or, better yet, passed stronger anti-price-gouging laws already?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for the question. I think the government has been very clear that the effects of the conflict in the Middle East on the Australian economy, on the global economy—whilst they continue to be highly uncertain, the longer this conflict goes on, the more significant those consequences will be. Senator Waters is right that this has been immediately felt at the household level and the business level through those increases at the petrol pump, whether it be for petrol or diesel. We're seeing ministers work in a whole range of industries with industry leaders about some of the effects they're seeing, in particular industries based on that. The government has responded with our National Fuel Security Plan. We've taken decisive action. We've done a range of measures, which I've updated the Senate on this week.

In relation to the fuel excise, the Treasurer has been very clear that the decision to halve the fuel excise and to have that come into effect from 1 April, today—we will see prices come down. It depends on the purchase of that fuel and purchasing fuel that has the excise taken off it, and so, in some places, it will take a little bit longer. We're trying to be upfront with people about that. It's based on contracted supplies, and, as that works through the system, you will see those prices come off. But we've also given the ACCC—for the work they're doing both themselves and through direction from government—the expectation we have for monitoring and ensuring that, where these decisions have been taken, the flow-on effects and the impact and the reduction in the price of petrol are realised at the bowsers by motorists when they fill their cars up, and we expect that to happen as soon as possible. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today's big-business tax liability delay is another concession which has no requirement to be passed on to workers or consumers. So far, only businesses are getting direct relief, and people again have to wait and hope that those businesses pass it on. Why isn't the government doing immediate and direct cost-of-living relief, putting money in people's pockets to spend wherever they're hurting, whether it's on groceries or bills or petrol or transport?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has made a number of announcements, including the partnership and working with business, and we make no apology for that. Ensuring that the economy keeps moving and functioning is an important part of our responsibility, as is looking after households, and that's why the measures the government has implemented over the last few weeks have been targeted at different areas. I would remind Senator Waters that there is an inflation challenge in the economy at the same time, so how we target assistance matters, and the budget that we're putting together will reflect the economic circumstances of the time—as we always do. We always look at what cost-of-living support we can responsibly provide to people as we work through this time, and we will continue to do that.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given Trump has now told us to go and get our own oil, will the Treasury be recommending to the Prime Minister that we withdraw from AUKUS and redirect those funds towards programs that are more clearly and directly in our own economic interest?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hi. Thanks. Okay. Hi, everybody—last question time. I was just trying to process that and whether it linked to the primary question, but, with the indulgence of the chamber—the government has a number of responsibilities that extend across various areas, including defence. The answer to the question in there is: no, that would not be the government's position. I acknowledge it's the Greens' position, but the Greens don't have to really, with all due respect, worry about these matters. It's up to parties of government that have to take decisions in the national interest based on a whole range of information that might not necessarily align all the time, or at times, with the Greens' political policy. So, no, the government will continue to work in the national interest and make sure that the decisions we take, particularly in the budget, are the right ones for the country and support jobs and support families and support business through these difficult and challenging times. (Time expired)