Unless this oil is kept for Queenslanders, big oil companies will get the cream
Amid anxieties over global supply chain fragility and geopolitical disruption, Queensland has moved to open state-owned coastal land to oil storage and refinery development across six port cities. The Accelerating Fuel Infrastructure Program reflects a government wager that domestic energy infrastructure is the surest hedge against price shocks and foreign dependency. Yet the announcement arrives in the shadow of an older and more immediate question — not whether a nation should secure its fuel, but whether the security it builds will belong to its people or to its shareholders.
- Queensland has unlocked state land at six major ports for oil storage tanks and potential refineries, framing the move as a shield against volatile global energy markets.
- Premier Crisafulli is pressing the federal government to reverse a 2025 decision that excluded fossil fuel projects from national interest exemptions, calling it the single greatest barrier to new drilling.
- The opposition warns the announcement is a political gesture — years away from delivering anything — while Queenslanders are already struggling at the petrol pump today.
- A deeper dispute cuts through the debate: without explicit protections, critics argue any fuel produced will enrich oil companies rather than ease costs for ordinary households.
- Billions in additional royalties — attributed by the opposition to the Iran war — sit in the background, with calls to redirect that windfall to immediate cost-of-living relief rather than long-horizon infrastructure bets.
Queensland's government has announced it will open state-owned land along its coastline to oil storage facilities and potential refineries, targeting six port cities including Brisbane, Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Abbot Point, and Bundaberg. Under the Accelerating Fuel Infrastructure Program, companies can submit expressions of interest to build on these parcels, with the government promising to audit available land, fast-track industry engagement, and streamline approvals — though no construction timeline has been set.
Premier David Crisafulli cast the initiative as a matter of national resilience, arguing that Australia's position at the end of global supply chains leaves it exposed to price shocks and geopolitical disruption. He also called on the federal government to reverse a 2025 decision excluding fossil fuel projects from national interest exemptions under environmental law, describing it as the single greatest obstacle to new drilling. Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie drew a parallel to the state's existing Land Activation Program, which has unlocked underutilised government property for housing — suggesting the same logic should now apply to energy.
The opposition received the announcement with scepticism. Opposition Leader Steven Miles acknowledged the value of long-term fuel security but dismissed the program as a political gesture offering nothing to Queenslanders facing high fuel costs now. Deputy Opposition Leader Cameron Dick went further, warning that without explicit protections the fuel produced would benefit corporate shareholders rather than households, and arguing that billions in royalties — which he linked to the Iran war — should be redirected to immediate relief rather than infrastructure projects years from fruition.
The fault line running through the debate is one of time and distribution. The government is placing a long-term bet on supply-side resilience; the opposition is focused on who bears the cost today and who captures the benefit tomorrow. Both sides agree fuel security matters — they disagree, sharply, on whether this path will deliver it to the people who need it most.
Queensland's government has moved to open state-owned land along its coast for oil storage facilities and potential refineries, betting that domestic fuel infrastructure will shield the state and nation from volatile global energy markets. The Accelerating Fuel Infrastructure Program, announced this week, targets six port cities: Brisbane, Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Abbot Point, and Bundaberg. Companies interested in building fuel storage tanks—and possibly refineries—on these parcels can submit expressions of interest. The government will conduct an audit of available land, fast-track industry engagement, and streamline the approval process for new oil projects, though no timeline for construction has been set.
Premier David Crisafulli framed the initiative as a matter of national resilience. Australia's position at the end of global supply chains leaves it vulnerable to price shocks and geopolitical disruption, he argued. By expanding the state's capacity to drill, refine, and store fuel domestically, Queensland could help insulate the country from those risks. Crisafulli also took aim at a federal decision made in 2025 to exclude fossil fuel projects from the national interest exemption under environmental law. He called the restriction the single greatest barrier to new drilling projects and urged the Commonwealth to reverse it, saying such a move would signal to the market that oil development could proceed.
Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie drew a parallel to the state's Land Activation Program, which has been used to unlock government-owned property for housing development. The Queensland government, he noted, owns substantial land across the state that has sat underutilized for years. This program aims to put that asset to work in the same way.
The opposition, however, questioned both the timeline and the beneficiaries. Opposition Leader Steven Miles welcomed long-term fuel security measures but dismissed the announcement as a political gesture that would do nothing for Queenslanders struggling with fuel costs today. Deputy Opposition Leader Cameron Dick went further, warning that without explicit protections, the fuel produced would flow to corporate shareholders rather than ordinary households. He pointed to billions in additional royalties the government is receiving—he attributed this to the Iran war—and argued those funds should be redirected to immediate cost-of-living relief instead of waiting years for infrastructure projects to bear fruit.
The tension at the heart of the debate is one of time and distribution. The government is making a long-term bet on supply-side resilience. The opposition is focused on short-term demand—people at petrol pumps right now—and on who ultimately profits from whatever fuel infrastructure does get built. Neither side disputes that fuel security matters. They disagree on whether this particular path will deliver it to the people who need it most.
Notable Quotes
We said that we would commit to pulling every lever we could to increase fuel sovereignty and security in this country, and that's exactly what we're doing.— Premier David Crisafulli
Unless this oil is kept for Queenslanders, big oil companies will get the cream and Queenslanders will get the crumbs.— Deputy Opposition Leader Cameron Dick
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Queensland think it needs to build its own refineries? Isn't fuel already flowing in from global markets?
It is, but the government sees that as a vulnerability. If there's a disruption anywhere in the global supply chain—a war, a blockade, a price spike—Australia feels it immediately. Having domestic storage and refining capacity means you're not entirely dependent on what happens overseas.
That makes sense for national security. But why announce it now, and why these six ports specifically?
The ports are already hubs for shipping and logistics, so the infrastructure to move fuel in and out already exists. As for timing, fuel prices have been a political pressure point. The government is trying to show it's doing something about that, even if the actual relief is years away.
The opposition says this is just a photo op. Is that fair?
There's some truth to it. The announcement itself doesn't lower anyone's fuel bill tomorrow. But it's also not nothing—if companies actually build these facilities, the long-term supply picture changes. The opposition's real concern is different: they're asking whether the fuel will actually stay in Queensland or whether it'll be exported for profit.
Will it stay in Queensland?
That's the unanswered question. The government hasn't committed to keeping the fuel domestic. If a company builds a refinery, they'll likely sell to whoever pays the most, which might not be Queenslanders.
So the opposition is right to be skeptical?
They're right to ask the hard questions. The government is making a supply-side argument. The opposition is making a distribution argument. Both matter.