Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Rebello supported the bill to provide cost-of-living relief but criticised the government for not offsetting the $400 million cost. Rebello argued that the coalition's support did not endorse the government's broader economic management or spending levels. Rebello called for transparency on whether the relief was passed on to consumers and warned that the measure was a temporary band-aid on a larger economic problem.

Ryan supported the tapering of relief to avoid shock to businesses and consumers, noting that diesel prices remained elevated. Ryan called for greater transparency on how much relief reached consumers and highlighted Australia's vulnerability due to reliance on imported fuels. Ryan criticised the government for maintaining fuel tax credits for large fossil fuel users while scaling back support for electric vehicles, arguing this undermined energy security.

McCormack supported the bill to assist regional Australians and the trucking industry, which faced significant insolvencies. McCormack highlighted the severe impact of fuel shortages on farmers and regional communities during the initial crisis. McCormack criticised the government's economic management, particularly regarding national debt and water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin, while advocating for greater domestic energy production.

Penfold supported the bill but argued that relief should not be confused with a solution to the cost-of-living crisis. Penfold highlighted the strain on households and small businesses, citing rising inflation and insolvencies. Penfold called for a long-term fuel security strategy, including stronger reserves and storage capacity, and criticised the government for focusing on political management rather than economic fundamentals.

Boele backed the relief but tabled an amendment to limit the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme to $50 million for each firm to guarantee equity. Boele contended that major mining firms obtained significant subsidies whereas everyday Australians dealt with increased fuel prices. Boele suggested that amounts exceeding the limit be kept solely for capital spending on electrification infrastructure, seeking to encourage decarbonisation and lower dependence on fossil fuels.

Le supported the bill as necessary relief for his community, which relied heavily on cars due to inadequate public transport. Le highlighted the burden of fuel costs on low-income families and small businesses in western Sydney. Le called for long-term solutions, including frequent local bus services and an east-west rail connection, to reduce dependence on private vehicles and improve connectivity.

lead

Tehan stated that the Coalition supported the bill because the concept of fuel excise relief originated from their policy proposals. Tehan argued that the government had previously ignored the fuel crisis and only acted after Opposition pressure and international diplomatic efforts secured fuel supplies. Tehan warned that the government, influenced by the Greens, might attempt to remove the diesel fuel rebate in the future, urging Labor members from coal-producing regions to oppose such moves. Tehan emphasised the need for domestic fuel production and affordability to support key economic sectors like mining and agriculture.

Repacholi supported the bill as a targeted measure to extend fuel excise relief from 1 July to 2 August 2026, keeping the rate at 16 cents per litre. Repacholi explained that this tapering approach prevented a sudden price increase for motorists, providing approximately $11 in savings per fill-up for a standard tank. Repacholi noted that while global fuel prices had decreased from their peak, many families and workers still faced financial pressure, making the gradual transition beneficial for economic stability. Repacholi also criticised Opposition tactics for causing unnecessary fear among motorists and damaging local tourism during the Easter period.