Shadow Portfolio — 1 April 2026

The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Kevin Hogan, used his parliamentary day on 1 April 2026 to advance two distinct opposition lines: scrutiny of a Treasury tax bill and a pointed question to the Prime Minister on fuel security policy.

The substantive legislative work centred on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026. Mr Hogan confirmed the Coalition will not oppose the bill in the House but will push for a Senate Economics Committee referral — a procedural choice that signals the Coalition's objections are real but calibrated. The core attack is not on the bill's technical tax measures, which the Coalition broadly accepts as sensible, but on the government's decision to exclude tobacco and gambling activities from research and development tax incentives [TA-260401-house-6ae0f5f9fd41:s023].

The Coalition's framing is principled rather than sectoral: by allowing government to subjectively designate which industries qualify for the incentive, the bill sets a precedent that a future government could use to exclude any industry it disfavours [TA-260401-house-6ae0f5f9fd41:s023]. That is the argument the Senate inquiry is being asked to test.

Mr Hogan developed two factual lines to complicate the government's rationale for the exclusions. On tobacco, he cited a collapse in excise revenue from a projected $13.3 billion in 2025–26 when the government took office to an estimated $6 billion — a figure he linked to illicit tobacco proliferation, organised crime, and the growth of vaping [TA-260401-house-6ae0f5f9fd41:s023].

The implication is that the sector's policy environment is already disordered enough to warrant scrutiny before further legislative exclusions are layered on. On gambling, he raised a definitional risk: the exclusion's wording may inadvertently capture video games that offer in-game rewards, citing Untitled Goose Game, Fruit Ninja, and Hollow Knight as examples.

The definitional ambiguity question is squarely aimed at the Senate committee as a technical drafting problem requiring resolution.

During question time, Mr Hogan directed a question to the Prime Minister asking which users will be classified as critical under the National Fuel Security Plan [TA-260401-house-6ae0f5f9fd41:s145]. The question is short but consequential: the classification of critical users is the operative mechanism determining who receives protected fuel access under the plan, and the opposition's decision to press the Prime Minister directly — rather than the relevant minister — elevates the question to a matter of government-wide accountability.

The National Fuel Security Plan sits across the Climate and Energy and Resources portfolios; the question signals the Coalition is tracking implementation specifics, not just the plan's headline commitments.

Across the day, Mr Hogan's activity reflects a consistent approach: accept government legislation where it is broadly sound, but identify the specific mechanism or definition that creates future risk or lacks transparency, and use Senate committee referral or direct questioning to force the government to answer in detail. The tobacco excise revenue figures and the fuel security classification question are both examples of the opposition deploying concrete data points to shift the burden of explanation onto the government.