Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026; Second Reading

O'Neill defended the government's coordinated response with state leaders to address fuel supply and price volatility. O'Neill highlighted that the excise cut would save families $19 per fill-up and that the road user charge reduction would support essential transport and infrastructure businesses. O'Neill emphasised that the government had implemented a four-stage plan to ensure fuel supplies continued to reach the market.

Waters supported the short-term relief but criticised the government for backing a war that disrupted global energy markets. Waters argued that Australia needed to transition to renewable energy independence to avoid future fossil fuel price shocks. Waters noted that the bill did not prevent petrol stations from price gouging and foreshadowed an amendment calling for free public transport and electrification.

McKenzie stated that the Nationals supported the excise cut but argued the government had adopted the opposition's policy without providing budget offsets. McKenzie claimed the delay in action had allowed the government to collect additional revenue while the crisis deepened. McKenzie suggested establishing a select Senate committee to investigate the government's broader response to the Middle East crisis and its economic impacts.

Hanson argued that One Nation had proposed halving the fuel excise during the previous election and that the government was now implementing their policy. Hanson criticised the Greens for hypocrisy regarding military involvement and advocated for a sovereign fuel industry to ensure self-sufficiency. Hanson claimed that Australia's reliance on imported fuel and net zero policies had left the country vulnerable to global shocks.

Liddle supported the bill but argued that the coalition had led on the policy while the government delayed action. Liddle highlighted the severe impact of high fuel prices in South Australia, particularly in remote areas where costs were approaching $4 per litre. Liddle criticised the lack of budget offsets and clarity in the government's fuel security plan, noting that GST arrangements had fallen into disarray.

Whitten argued that One Nation had identified the fuel shortage as a crisis earlier than other parties. Whitten claimed that the government's partial excise cut was insufficient and advocated for a complete removal of the excise and GST relief on fuel. Whitten called for triggering the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act to force supply to regional areas and criticised the closure of domestic refineries.

Brockman supported the bill but stated that the government had no comprehensive plan to deal with the ongoing fuel crisis. Brockman listed numerous Western Australian towns experiencing fuel shortages and argued that the government had initially dismissed concerns about supply issues. Brockman noted that the government had warned diplomatic families to leave the Middle East, suggesting they should have anticipated the impact on oil prices.

Pocock supported the bill for providing urgent relief but criticised it as a blunt instrument that disproportionately benefited high-income households. Pocock cited economists who warned that the measure could increase demand, worsen shortages, and fuel inflation. Pocock argued that long-term resilience required transitioning away from dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels.

Roberts stated that One Nation had proposed reducing fuel excise during the 2025 election campaign and that the government was now adopting their policy. Roberts argued that lowering fuel prices would reduce transport costs across the economy and help everyday Australians. Roberts claimed that One Nation had raised concerns about fuel security and price volatility before other parties.

Gallagher reiterated that the bill provided temporary support to motorists and truckies in response to global oil price increases. Gallagher highlighted the specific savings for consumers and the flexibility granted to the Minister for Transport to adjust charges. Gallagher commended the bill as part of the government's broader efforts to ease cost-of-living pressures and secure fuel supply.

Waters moved an amendment noting that the government bore responsibility for supporting a war that disrupted global markets. Waters argued that short-term relief was insufficient without medium-term solutions such as free public transport and electrification. Waters stated that financial pressures would persist until the economy shifted away from dependence on imported oil.