Fuel

Opened the debate

McDonald argued that Australia faced an urgent fuel security crisis due to the war in Iran and restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz, which had already increased petrol prices by 10 per cent. McDonald stated that parts of the Northern Territory were paying $4 a litre and that farmers and miners were experiencing fuel rationing. McDonald contended that Australia imported up to 90 per cent of its petrol and diesel through volatile shipping routes, leaving the nation vulnerable despite being an energy superpower. McDonald warned that Brent crude prices could surge to between $100 and $120 a barrel, increasing inflation and costs for consumers.

Government response

Ayres argued that the suspension of standing orders was not warranted because the government had already implemented minimum stockholding obligations, resulting in 112 billion litres of petrol and 3 billion litres of diesel in reserve. Ayres stated that the government’s approach focused on domestic fuel reserves rather than relying on foreign sources, contrasting this with previous government policies. Ayres asserted that promoting electric vehicles was a practical fuel security measure that reduced pressure on petrol and diesel supplies. Ayres characterised the opposition’s campaign as dishonest and disruptive, noting their silence during the previous government’s tenure.

Opposition response

McKenzie supported the motion, arguing that the government’s failure to address rising fuel prices was unconscionable and would exacerbate home-grown inflation. McKenzie stated that high government spending, which had reached the highest proportion of the economy in 40 years, was driving up interest rates and cost-of-living pressures. McKenzie argued that the government should use the budget to cut spending to alleviate these pressures on Australians.