Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in accordance with informal arrangements agreed to by the whips.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash, Duniam and Hume today.

We saw from the government another pathetic attempt to try and deflect from the complete mayhem that they have been in over recently weeks with respect to the management of the fuel crisis that we have in this country. Of course, for two weeks they denied there even was a problem. They told us every day here at estimates that there was plenty of fuel in the country, that every ship that was due to arrive had arrived, that every ship that was due to come would come. That's what they told us for two weeks. Then the day after the parliament rose, Minister Bowen went out and held a press conference when there was no opportunity for the parliament to continue to scrutinise what the government was saying, and suddenly there was a crisis.

It took them two weeks to work out what our constituents had been telling us for that whole time—that supply chains were running dry, that fuel stations were running dry, that farmers could not get fuel and that the only diesel the fishing industry had left was what was in their tanks when they got back from sea. They couldn't go back out again because they couldn't get supply.

They still are struggling to understand the supply chains that supply fuel out into the country, because there are over 800 fuel stations in the country today that are out of either diesel or unleaded petrol. They are still struggling to come to terms with that. But what do they do? They do what they always do. They deflect. They try to blame someone else. Today they even handed up a dodgy set of talking points that they'd concocted to try and deflect attention away from themselves.

Then, of course, we heard today that the Prime Minister is going to make a statement to the Australian people tonight at 7 pm. Why doesn't he use the people's house? Why doesn't he walk into the parliament and, on the floor of the people's house, fess up and tell the Australian people what the situation is? The answer is simple: he does not want the scrutiny of the parliament. He would rather wait, just like Minister Bowen did two weeks ago, until the parliament rises, and go out and have a chat to the press and then walk away when it starts to get uncomfortable—all the usual tactics: deflect, blame somebody else; it's somebody else's fault this happened.

This government has been in charge for four years now. At some point they have to take responsibility for the issues in front of them that they have to manage. It is clear that they have no understanding of the supply chains that operate in this country, and they try to blame somebody else for trying to create uncertainty. Well, the Australian people need no help from anyone to be uncertain about what's going on in this country, because the government's doing a bloody good job of it on its own, because it can't keep its story straight. It can't tell the Australian people, truthfully, what's actually going on. And of course the Australian people remember things like $275 as a reduction in their fuel bill that was supposed to be coming. They remember lower housing costs and a better standard of living that were promised by this government. So why should anyone believe them on fuel today? (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to making my contribution to this debate taking note of answers. I want to say that I understand supply chains as well as anyone in this place, I can tell you. I just thought I'd throw that across to my learned friend over on the other side, Senator Colbeck, who's one of the good ones—like you, Mr Deputy President. But I do want to say this: there is a well-worn track here.

I'll go back—and I'm shooting from the hip, but I think it was about 2015—to when the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee conducted its first or second inquiry, and I'll be held to account on that, on Australia's future oil supplies. Mr Deputy President, you were a proud member of that magnificent committee, but I don't know whether you were on that inquiry, the first one or the second one. One was done when we on this side were in government—so, obviously prior to 2013. Then I did one as the chair of the references committee in opposition in 2015.

Back then, we had serious concerns about our fuel supplies. A lot of people in this building get bits and pieces. We understand there is a treaty—and I always forget the initials; it's the nuclear mob—that says we're supposed to have 90 days of fuel supply. This is going back to when we had—I will be corrected if I'm wrong—about eight refineries on our shores. We held the inquiry, we travelled through the states, and the message was simple: nobody knew how many days we had. Now, the evidence is all there. It's all written into the report—and I'm talking about the 2015 report, because that's the one I signed off on. No-one had a clue. We were told it was 40, then we were told it was 30, and I remember suggesting to the department at the time, 'Have another guess,' after which we said, 'Don't dig any deeper,' because no-one knew.

What the public needs to know is that when we were looking at how many days of fuel we had—and I'll throw this at you—the number of days they threw at us included, when we had eight refineries, fuel that was on land: 30 days, 40 days, whatever; they couldn't work it out. We thought, 'Okay; that's fair enough.' But then we dug a bit deeper. And this will shock a lot of Aussies: included in those 30 or 40 days or whatever the figure was that's there in the report was oil on its way on ships from Korea, Singapore or Japan or wherever the fuel was coming from. We thought, 'Well, that narrows it down a little bit.' But then came the hook, the third part of the evidence: it also included orders that had been put in but hadn't left Korea or—

Senator Scarr, you're shocked; you should have seen the shock on my face when we were at the parliament house in New South Wales having the inquiry. It also included orders that hadn't been filled.

So I just want to go back. The report that I wrote—three recommendations is all there were; I can't remember them word for word—was seriously saying to the government back then: 'You need to have a very serious look at what is happening on our shores when we have eight refineries.' And nothing happened. That was in 2015. I'm not passing the buck, but nothing happened. And I can talk as someone who does value fuel. I know that fuel is. For those who don't know, I'm from the trucking industry. I get fuel. I get our supply chains.

I will say one thing, as this is a real nerving issue for people out in the regions. And I'm not talking about the truck stops, where the truckies are telling me they're still getting their fuel; it's there every day. Their usage is regular all the time. I do acknowledge those little towns in regional Australia where there are one or two outlets and they run out of fuel. So I've asked my trucking mates, 'How has that happened?' when I have no doubt we have a lot more fuel on our shores now than what we had before. We now have a line of sight of the ships coming— (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions by Senators Cash, Duniam and Hume. We've been speaking for a number of weeks in this place about the shortage of fuel in this country and the service stations that have run dry either of all fuel or of diesel fuels in particular. I note, in particular, that, when we first raised this issue a number of weeks ago, we were told that we were scaremongering, that we were causing people to panic buy and that we were acting irresponsibly. I do believe I may have even been on take note on the particular day when that occurred.

What has come to pass is the knowledge that, within 24 hours of that and after this parliament had adjourned on Thursday, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy did in fact then say that we did have a crisis in relation to fuel in country. Why am I raising that? I'm raising it because it relates to transparency. It relates to the same lack of transparency we've seen in the answers to all of those different questions that we've asked today. The other side were at pains to talk about talking points. Ultimately the answers to our serious questions about fuel supply in our country came from talking points from the other side. The one thing I want to note is that Australians deserve to know what is going on with fuel supplies; how much we have and if it is enough to sustain what we need to do; and, if we have more supply than we've ever had, why we are not expediting those supplies into the service stations that are empty—exactly what Senator Cash said.

The Prime Minister is holding an address to the nation this evening. When we asked why the Prime Minister wouldn't just tell us today what he had to say, the other side said that we didn't want him to talk to Australians and that we didn't want Australians to hear from their prime minister. In fact, we do. But the Prime Minister is here today in Parliament House, the seat of democracy in our country, and he hasn't told us what he is going to say tonight, because he does not want to be held to account by the people in this chamber. I am told—and I would seek to know whether this is accurate; those opposite might be able to tell us—that tonight's message has been prerecorded. The Prime Minister has already recorded the national address to the country that will be broadcast at 7 pm tonight. If that is actually the case, then we must know why the Prime Minister has seen fit to record a message that he would not make from the dispatch box in the other place.

What does he have to hide if that is actually true? If it is true, then it is shameful. If it is true, the very next time we come back here, he must answer to every single one of us as to why he refused to stand up in his spot as the Prime Minister of our country and, at the dispatch box, tell the whole country what has perhaps already been prerecorded and will be shown to Australians at seven o'clock tonight. Is that so that the rest of us in this chamber and in the chamber in the other place cannot hold him to account? That has become the hallmark of this government: to prevaricate, to hide and to evade until they are ready to tell us what they want us to know rather than the truth.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government will do everything that we can to shield Australians from the impacts of the global shocks occurring from the war in Iran. What Australians don't need is political leaders creating more doubt and anxiety when people are already worried. People are already worried right now. What we've seen from the leaked talking points from those opposite is that one of their political tasks is to sow doubt into your minds about what's happening with fuel right now. That is an absolute shame on them. People are already worried, and their job, their political task, is to go out and make people more worried. I think that is absolutely shameful right now. On this side of the chamber, and on the government's side of the chamber in the other place, we will do everything that we can to shield Australians from the global shocks. We will stand up for Australia's interests, whilst those opposite only stand up for their own political interests.

The second thing that I would say is that we have a National Fuel Security Plan so Australians can see what the forward plan looks like. The plan has four levels. The first level is 'Plan and prepare', the second is, 'Keeping Australia moving'—that's where we are now—the third is 'Taking targeted action' and the fourth is 'Protecting critical services for all Australians'. That is the plan that Australians can have a look at.

There are a number of things that we've done right now, in the immediate, in response to the global shocks. We've convened National Cabinet a couple of times now. We've agreed, with premiers and chief ministers, to the National Fuel Security Plan that I've just outlined—the four-point plan. We've halved the fuel excise, saving Australians 26.3c per litre, and paused road user charges for truckies for three months—and we've just heard from Senator Sterle about the importance of the trucking industry.

We've passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies for false and misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, up to $100 million. We've tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel price monitoring and issue on-the-spot fines. We've begun the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves. We've changed petrol and diesel standards to get more fuel flowing. We've created new trading powers to underwrite shipments of fuel from overseas. We've given the Fair Work Commission powers to demand truckies are paid fairly when fuel prices spike. We've appointed a national fuel supply taskforce coordinator, Anthea Harris. We've created a $2 billion emergency pool to respond quickly to domestic fuel issues.

We've made it easier for Australia's refineries to access government funding when they run at a loss. We've unlocked $2 million in financial counselling funding for impacted farmers. We've deferred the next increase of the heavy vehicle road user charge by six months. We've engaged with international partners, including opening a supply agreement with Singapore. We've engaged with the states and territories on supply and distribution. We're holding a special energy ministers meeting on activating the National Coordination Mechanism, which has met twice.

We are absolutely moving with the urgency this situation demands, deploying a national plan that prioritises security and shields Australians and industry from global uncertainty and shocks.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that one of the best tests for whether or not this Labor government is handling this crisis appropriately is to look at consumer confidence, and the confidence of Australian people, the confidence of Australian consumers, is at its lowest rate in 50 years. It's at its lowest rate since 1972. The Australian people have lost confidence. As President Roosevelt said, we have nothing to fear except fear itself, and that lack of confidence is of great concern in relation to the Australian economy. It's even lower today than it was at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the coalition was in government and had the job, during a crisis, to manage the messaging to the Australian people and to instil confidence in the Australian people that the Australian government was pulling the levers it needed to pull in order to protect the national interest and the interests of all Australians. So, from my perspective, that result, of consumer confidence being at its lowest level in 50 years, is quite damning of the government's response to the crisis we're in.

The second point I want to make is in relation to the Prime Minister's national address, which is going to occur tonight. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is going to speak to the Australian people. I believe there should have been more of it and that it should have occurred earlier and more often. The concern I have is that this parliament has been sitting for four of the last five weeks. It appears—and my colleague Senator Kovacic raised this—that this message is prerecorded. It raises the obvious question as to why the Prime Minister isn't giving that message now—and didn't earlier today—in the Australian parliament so all of us here as Australian senators have an opportunity to raise concerns and interrogate the messaging that's contained in that address and to raise issues of concern to the people we represent? Why are we being deprived of that opportunity?

For four out of the last five weeks, this parliament's been sitting, yet the Prime Minister makes a decision to give that national address on the afternoon of the last day of those four weeks of sitting. Why? Of greater concern is that this parliament will not be sitting for five weeks, until the national budget, so the Australian people will be deprived of their representatives having the opportunity to interrogate the government and the executive with respect to its response to this crisis.

The last point I want to make is that the Australian people are being hit from all sides in terms of this cost-of-living crisis, and my attention was caught by this quote:

Westpac chief economist Luci Ellis said even factoring in the reduction of the fuel excise, she expects headline inflation to peak at 5.4 per cent in the June quarter. She also now expects the official cash rate to peak at 4.85 per cent this year. Ellis previously forecast one additional rate hike in May, but now also sees follow-up hikes in June and August …

That is devastating news for those Australians, including young Australians, who are servicing their home loans. The Australian people are copping it from all sides under this Labor government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.