The Coalition’s proposal to cut fuel excise by 25 cents per litre for 12 months may sound like a gift to voters, but let’s be clear: it’s not policy. It’s not reform. It’s not even strategic relief. It is a short-term political sugar hit that fails the most basic test of long-term public value.

This is not an argument about party politics. It’s about defending the space for serious, evidence-based decision-making in public policy. As economist Saul Eslake rightly observed, neither major party is offering lasting structural reform; both are just chasing votes.

At face value, 25 cents a litre sounds generous—until you examine the assumptions. The so-called “average” saving is based on a hypothetical weekly usage of 52 litres of fuel, a figure pulled from thin air rather than real data. That level of usage implies significantly higher-than-average driving patterns, possibly twice the actual median. Many motorists—particularly those in smaller vehicles, hybrids, or EVs—will see little of the supposed benefit. And yet the narrative is being sold as if all Australians will be equally better off.

That it’s only for 12 months is another crucial detail quietly omitted from the headline pitch. The real savings will be meagre for many, but the longer-term costs—financial, environmental, and policy-wise—could be significant.

This isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Playing politics with fuel excise is playing with fire.

History Has Warned Us

History is littered with examples of governments fiddling with fuel tax for electoral gain—often with regrettable consequences. In the United States, the federal fuel tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Over that time, inflation has doubled. The result? A crumbling road network. As of early 2025, nearly 40 per cent of major roads in the US are in poor or mediocre condition. Once frozen, taxes are politically hard to restore, even when critical infrastructure is at stake.

Australia has its own form. In 2001, then-Prime Minister John Howard cut excise by 1.5 cents a litre and scrapped future indexation. It was quietly reversed more than a decade later. In 2022, the Morrison government halved fuel excise for six months. It was labelled one of the worst policy failures of the year—poorly targeted, barely noticed by those most in need, and irrelevant to operators like truck drivers who already received rebates.

Universal subsidies rarely help those who need support the most. Like past water subsidies that mainly benefitted households with large gardens and swimming pools, a blanket fuel discount helps frequent, high-consumption users. In contrast, targeted support—such as increased public transport investment or direct income supplements—better serves low-income households.

Fuel Policy Must Face the Future

A meaningful policy approach doesn’t just lower the price at the bowser. It confronts broader questions: how do we ensure mobility access for all while managing congestion, pollution, and infrastructure costs? What role should user-pays systems play in future transport planning?

We must move beyond dabbling. Serious reform includes time-of-day pricing, congestion charges, and road user charges based on distance travelled. These tools are more effective at managing demand, funding infrastructure, and supporting behavioural change.

Yes, they’re politically harder to sell. But they’re also fairer and more sustainable. Professor David Hensher has shown how even modest road-use pricing can encourage smarter travel choices without causing financial pain. He advocates dropping the term "congestion tax" in favour of language that better reflects its benefits—reduced delays, cleaner air, better cities.

We also need to flip the conversation. Instead of obsessing over what people pay, let’s talk about what they get: safer, quieter streets; healthier lifestyles; time reclaimed from traffic jams. Cities are for living, not commuting.

Avoiding the Trap of Moral Superiority

Advocates for serious reform must also rethink how we communicate. A tone of moral superiority doesn’t win hearts or votes. But there are ways to frame the debate constructively.

Take pollution. I’ve had productive conversations even with climate sceptics by focusing on local air quality. Imagine the next transport ministers’ meeting held in a schoolyard beside a congested arterial. Suddenly, the cost of inaction becomes personal and urgent.

Or consider the rise of hybrid work. Working from home just one or two days a week can slash commute distances and costs, easing strain on both households and networks. There’s real potential here for targeted incentives to make a tangible difference.

The Danger of Clickbait Populism

Unfortunately, populist gestures thrive in a media environment addicted to clickbait. Thoughtful policy debates are swamped by emotive headlines and short-term sloganeering.

Professionals, economists, and planners must fight back—not with lectures, but with vision. They must articulate real-world gains. They must show how good policy not only works on paper but improves lives.

The 25-cent per litre cut isn’t just a fiscal misstep—it’s a missed opportunity to pivot the national conversation toward a smarter transport future. We can and must do better.

We can—and should—spend some time highlighting the flaws in shallow, election ploys. But the greater task is not to dwell on what’s wrong; it is to build momentum for what is right. That means presenting thoughtful, long-term solutions in a way that resonates with the community, not just as abstract policy, but as practical steps toward a more liveable, equitable and sustainable future—something people can recognise, relate to, and support.