Matter of Public Importance

Fuel Security

Senate · Monday 30 March 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a matter of public importance regarding the national fuel shortage and high prices. The opposition moved the motion, arguing the government had delayed action and failed to address supply issues. Government senators defended their multifaceted response, including halving the fuel excise and releasing reserves, while crossbench members criticised the policy's economic impact or called for more drastic measures. The debate concluded with the motion not being passed.

Outcome

The motion was not passed, with 29 senators voting against and 35 voting for.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Cash argued that the government had ignored the crisis for five weeks and blamed consumers for the shortages. Cash stated that 870 service stations had run dry and that record fuel prices were causing severe hardship for motorists, farmers, and waste management industries. Cash contended that the government's recent announcement failed to address the immediate lack of fuel availability. Cash called for the abolition of the fuel tax and urgent measures to distribute fuel to where it was needed.

Government response

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Ananda-Rajah described the situation as a global oil shock and outlined the government's response targeting supply, distribution, and price. Ananda-Rajah announced the halving of the fuel excise and the suspension of the heavy-vehicle road user charge for three months. Ananda-Rajah noted that 20 per cent of fuel reserves had been released and prioritised for regional areas, while penalties for price gouging were doubled. Ananda-Rajah also highlighted long-term investments in cleaner liquid fuels and heavy vehicle electrification to reduce reliance on volatile international markets.

Opposition response

Bridget McKenzie (VIC) (National Party) Nationals

McKenzie criticised the government for failing to act decisively and for blaming external factors rather than taking responsibility. McKenzie argued that the trucking, construction, and rail industries were suffering due to high diesel costs and supply constraints. McKenzie questioned the feasibility of electric heavy vehicles for regional transport and called for the use of existing powers to direct fuel distribution. McKenzie advocated for utilising domestic ethanol and biodiesel capacity to address the immediate supply shortage.

Tyron Whitten (WA) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation oppose

Whitten argued that the government's measures were insufficient and that One Nation had identified the crisis earlier. Whitten proposed completely cutting the fuel excise and GST on fuel, and triggering the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 to force supply to regional areas. Whitten attributed the crisis to net zero policies and called for the abolition of climate change subsidies to reinvest in domestic fuel production and storage.
Raff Ciccone (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Ciccone defended the government's actions, stating that the conflict in the Middle East was the root cause of the crisis. Ciccone reiterated the announcement of the temporary fuel excise cut and the elimination of heavy vehicle road user charges. Ciccone criticised the opposition for failing to reform the fuel sector when in power, noting the reduction in refineries, and emphasised the need to support allies in the region.
David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind mixed

Pocock expressed concern that halving the fuel excise would increase demand in cities, exacerbating shortages in regional areas. Pocock cited economic experts who warned that the measure could worsen fuel shortages and disproportionately benefit high-income earners. Pocock argued that the policy was short-term and could lead to higher interest rates, suggesting that better alternatives existed to support farmers and regional communities.
Jane Hume (VIC) (Liberal Party) Liberal oppose

Hume accused the government of leadership failure and deflection, stating that the crisis had been ignored despite early warnings. Hume welcomed the adoption of the coalition's policy to slash the fuel excise but criticised the lack of a funding plan, estimating the cost at $2.5 billion. Hume argued that the measure would be inflationary and that the government had no strategy to ensure fuel reached empty bowsers.

Votes during this debate

Division 4: Fuel Security Not passed 29–35

Opened by

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party)

Liberal

Speeches

8 speeches, 4 other contributors

Topics

Fuel Security

Debate Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 25 May 2026 · Shared topic: Fuel Security
Debate Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 14 May 2026 · Shared topic: Fuel Security
Question Time Senate Question Time 23 Jun 2026 · Shared topic: Fuel Security
Question Time Senate Question Time 13 May 2026 · Shared topic: Fuel Security

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.