In its prescient evidence to the inquiry<\/a>, Engineers Australia stated: \u201c[The] policy equivalent of \u2018the cheque\u2019s in the mail\u2019 is worrying. Liquid fuel in transit to Australia through some of the world\u2019s geopolitical hotspots is not fuel security, it is wishful thinking.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, over the past decade, a diverse range of organisations \u2013 for example, the Australia Institute<\/a>, Australian Strategic Policy Institute<\/a>, Engineers Australia<\/a>, the Maritime Union of Australia<\/a>, the Lowy Institute<\/a> and NRMA<\/a>) has forecast our current problem. Whether the topic is liquid fuel security, energy security more broadly, or the overarching issue of national security, Australia simply cannot say it was not warned.<\/p>\n A fuel distribution centre in the inner-western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia (William West\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n As New Zealand\u2019s Foreign Minister Winston Peters recently stated<\/a>, both Australia and New Zealand\u00a0ought to have known that some of their oil refineries should have been kept open. New Zealand now has no onshore refining capacity, and Australia only has two remaining refineries. As Peters remarked, the current situation is the result of both countries \u201cbeing far too cocky about the world circumstance [they\u2019re] in\u201d.<\/p>\n The cockiness Peters describes was visible even before the 2014\u201315 inquiry. The preceding 2013 parliamentary report into Australia\u2019s oil refinery industry<\/a> concluded that:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 changes in domestic refining capacity to date will not impact on Australia meeting its liquid fuel requirements. There are reliable, mature and highly diversified international fuel supply chains, which provide Australia with economic security … Australia\u2019s supply chains and infrastructure [will] continue to meet local fuel demands\u201d<\/p>\n Everything is fine, until it is not \u2013 the same policy approach with the same predictable outcomes. When it comes to national security, \u201cmarket-based solutions\u201d do not age well, and this exposes a major tension between commercial interests and national security interests.<\/p>\n It is undeniable that large-scale onshore storage of any commodity is expensive. Industry does not want to foot the bill, and nor should it. This leaves government to do the heavy lifting. And in an already stretched fiscal environment, expenditure on something consistently assured to be unnecessary would not be well received by an agitated electorate.<\/p>\n A much better policy approach to these complex problems has played out in the critical minerals debate, particularly evident in\u00a0the cooperation seen between historical trade sparring partners the European Union and Australia.\u00a0While it is de rigueur to criticise policy incompetence and inaction, in the case of critical minerals, things are progressing and the mistakes of the past appear to have been learned.<\/p>\n The EU still relies on China for 100%<\/a> of its heavy rare earth element supply. Within the realm of national security, sole-source arrangements from partners who have a record of weaponising trade<\/a> are a major concern.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/GettyImages-2265492938.jpg\")
<\/p>\n