The policy had essentially evaporated by the time it mattered most.
When governments act in haste to soothe public anxiety, they often sacrifice the very foundations that would make their actions meaningful. A rare joint verdict from Australia's left and right think tanks has found that Scott Morrison's fuel excise cut — rushed through parliament without performance measures, review mechanisms, or guiding principles — delivered only the illusion of relief before market forces quietly erased it. The bipartisan condemnation, arriving in late 2022, is less a political judgment than a structural one: policy built without architecture cannot stand when circumstances shift. It is a recurring lesson in democratic governance that urgency, however genuine, is no substitute for design.
- Petrol prices fell at the pump almost immediately after the excise cut passed — then climbed straight back to pre-announcement levels by June 2022, leaving motorists no better off and the government billions poorer.
- The bill's fatal flaw was not its intent but its emptiness: no performance benchmarks, no review process, no guiding principles — nothing to hold the policy together once market conditions moved.
- Two ideologically opposed think tanks, Blueprint Institute and Per Capita, delivered a rare unified verdict, lending the criticism a weight that neither side alone could have mustered.
- Other poorly rated policies — NSW's protest fine legislation and Victoria's windfall gains tax — shared the same pattern: minimal consultation, absent evidence, and parliamentary processes too compressed for meaningful scrutiny.
- Against this backdrop, Queensland's renter protection legislation scored 9.5 out of 10, and the federal Fair Work amendment was praised for genuine revision and costed alternatives — proof that better is possible.
- A senior democratic reform advocate warned that politicians are still failing to meet minimum evidence standards even on low-complexity issues, framing the fuel excise cut not as an anomaly but as a symptom.
A joint study by the right-leaning Blueprint Institute and the left-leaning Per Capita has delivered an unusually unified verdict on Australian policymaking: Scott Morrison's fuel excise cut was the year's worst-formulated policy. The bipartisan nature of the finding gives it particular force. The cut was introduced as a temporary cost-of-living measure, passed quickly through parliament — and was gone in effect before winter arrived. By June 2022, retail fuel prices had rebounded to where they stood before the announcement was even made.
The report's authors traced the failure to the bill's construction. It entered law without embedded performance measures, without a review mechanism, and without the guiding principles that might have allowed it to adapt as market conditions shifted. David Allan of the Evidence Based Policy Research Project noted that NSW's new Statement of Public Interest — which requires legislation to demonstrate need, consider alternatives, and map expected impacts before reaching parliament — would have stopped this bill in its tracks.
Other policies fared poorly for similar reasons. NSW's $22,000 automatic fine for traffic-blocking protesters was introduced with minimal consultation and a compressed parliamentary debate that foreclosed stakeholder input. Victoria's windfall gains tax, which applied marginal rates of up to 62.5 percent on rezoning windfalls, could not be supported by any clear evidence-based justification, and its explanatory memorandum was poorly compiled.
The study was not uniformly damning. Queensland's housing legislation expanding renter protections scored 9.5 out of 10. The federal Fair Work amendment, despite fierce opposition, was praised for genuine scrutiny, substantial revision between introduction and passage, and costed alternatives grounded in demonstrable need.
Glen Barnes of Citizens for Democratic Renewal offered the study's most sobering note: even on issues of low complexity, Australian politicians are still struggling to meet minimum evidentiary standards. The fuel excise cut — costly in foregone revenue, fleeting in effect — stands as the year's clearest illustration of that persistent failure.
A joint assessment by two ideologically opposed think tanks has concluded that Scott Morrison's fuel excise cut stands as the year's most poorly constructed policy—a decision that carries particular weight given the bipartisan nature of the verdict. The Blueprint Institute, which leans right, and Per Capita, which leans left, collaborated on a study that examined how well major legislation met basic standards of evidence-based policymaking. Their finding was unsparing: the fuel excise reduction, implemented as a temporary measure to ease cost-of-living pressures, was rushed through parliament without the foundational work that might have made it effective.
The mechanics of the failure are instructive. When the bill passed into law, petrol prices at the pump dropped almost immediately, and wholesalers passed the savings directly to retailers without friction. But by June 2022, fuel prices had climbed back to where they sat before the cut was even announced. The policy had essentially evaporated. The report's authors identified the root cause: the bill was hurried through the legislative process with no embedded performance measures, no review mechanism, and no guiding principles to shape how it would operate. Once circumstances changed—as market conditions inevitably do—the policy had no architecture to sustain its intended effect.
The think tanks graded policies on a scale of ten, assessing whether they were built on demonstrated need, whether alternatives had been genuinely considered, whether consultation had occurred, and whether the expected impacts were clearly mapped. David Allan, who leads the Evidence Based Policy Research Project, had been a vocal champion of NSW's new Statement of Public Interest, which requires every piece of legislation to answer these exact questions before it reaches parliament. The fuel excise cut would have failed that test decisively.
Other policies also drew criticism for sloppy formulation. NSW's automatic $22,000 fine for protesters who block traffic was deemed to have followed an unacceptable process—introduced with minimal consultation, little exploration of alternatives, and a compressed parliamentary debate that left no room for stakeholder input. The Greens objected that the bill was rammed through without public consideration. Even the opposition, which ultimately supported the measure, acknowledged that the legislative process itself was compromised and would have benefited from longer deliberation.
Victoria's windfall gains tax, designed to recapture value increases when the government rezoned land, suffered from a different but equally fundamental problem: the government could not articulate why the tax was needed in the first place. The legislation applied a 62.5 percent marginal rate to value uplifts between $100,000 and $500,000, and 50 percent for uplifts exceeding that threshold. Yet there was no clear, evidence-based statement justifying the tax, no stakeholder consultation, no serious consideration of alternatives, and no thorough analysis of the underlying problem it was meant to solve. The explanatory memorandum submitted to parliament was poorly compiled.
Not all policies examined received poor marks. Queensland's housing legislation, which expanded renter protections, scored 9.5 out of 10 for thoughtful design. NSW's mandatory disease testing requirement for police and emergency workers exposed to deliberate bodily fluid contact also ranked highly. The federal Fair Work amendment from 2021, which included JobKeeper provisions and other COVID recovery measures, emerged as one of the year's best-formulated policies. Despite fierce opposition, Blueprint's chief executive David Cross noted that the bill underwent genuine scrutiny, was substantially revised between introduction and passage, and rested on demonstrable evidence-based need with wider consultation and costed options.
Glen Barnes, co-chair of Citizens for Democratic Renewal, offered a sobering observation: politicians are still struggling to meet minimum standards of evidence for legislation they enact, even on issues of low complexity. The fuel excise cut, which cost the government billions in foregone revenue and delivered no lasting relief to motorists, stands as the year's most visible example of that failure.
Citas Notables
The bill was rushed through parliament and there was no inclusion of principles, performance measures or a review process.— Evidence Based Policy Research Project study findings
It is concerning to see that our politicians are still struggling to meet minimum standards of evidence for the legislation they enact, even on issues of low complexity.— Glen Barnes, co-chair of Citizens for Democratic Renewal
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter how a policy is formulated if the intent was good—to help people with fuel costs?
Because intent divorced from process is just hope. The fuel cut was well-meaning, but it was built on sand. No one asked whether it would actually work, or for how long, or what would happen when markets shifted. That's not caution; that's negligence.
But the prices did drop immediately. Didn't that help people?
For a moment, yes. But by June, they'd climbed back. The policy had no mechanism to sustain itself, no review process to adjust course. It was a temporary relief that felt permanent until it wasn't. That's worse than no policy at all—it's a broken promise.
What would a well-formulated version have looked like?
It would have started with a clear statement of the problem. It would have explored alternatives—targeted support for certain groups, perhaps, or a different mechanism entirely. It would have included performance measures and a review date. It would have been tested against evidence, not just rushed through parliament.
The NSW protest fine and Victoria's windfall tax also failed. What's the pattern?
Speed without substance. All three policies skipped the hard work of justification and consultation. They treated legislation like an emergency response when it should be architecture. You can't build something that lasts if you don't know why you're building it.
Does it matter that left and right-leaning think tanks agreed?
Enormously. This isn't partisan criticism. Both sides looked at the evidence and reached the same conclusion. That's what makes it damning.