Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We are debating these two bills, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, together right now because of some ridiculous point-scoring shenanigans. This is at a time when Australians would like to see their politicians acting like adults and focusing on where we can actually make a difference.

The coalition wants to say that the government is not moving fast enough and so has brought on the government's own idea and said we need to do this faster—in the absence of any better ideas, I might say. The government has responded by outsmarting the coalition using procedure and taking a double-or-nothing approach on moving fast: 'Fine, if you want us to move fast, we'll move fast on this other thing too.' This is making an absolute mockery of the idea that this House is meant to be providing scrutiny to bills.

These bills were introduced yesterday or this morning. We have not had time to really consider these and their implications, and it does not do the Australian people any good to push these bills through without proper scrutiny. Both sides are to blame for this.

On the substance of the bills themselves, the first one is about doubling penalties—giving the ACCC the ability to double penalties for price gouging. Now, I don't think that this will change anything actually. I don't think there are many companies in the country who say, 'Well, if it's a $50 million penalty, we're going to go for broke. But if it's $100 million penalty, that gives us pause for thought.' In reality, this is a performative move to be seen to be actually doing something. It will not in any way change the ACCC's ability to actually prosecute price fixes; it just means the numbers are different at the end of that prosecution.

We do need to do more to make sure that the ACCC can appropriately prosecute price fixes. I also think that everyone's looking for a dog to kick when prices go up, and it's easy to say this is price gouging. We have a legal framework to determine if it is or not and that should be followed through as per the legal process, and doubling the penalties is not really going to change anything.

The second bill is more complicated. It will effectively enable faster regulatory relief for truck drivers and transport operators during fuel price shocks without permanently changing the framework that's put there. Now, I don't know if this is a good thing or not, because this was introduced yesterday and I've not had adequate time to actually review it. I'll give you some of the questions that I would have been asking had we actually had time to look at this in a reasonable timeframe with the sober approach that Australian communities want us to have.

I would be asking: How narrowly defined are the imminent and significant negative effects? What objective criteria must be met before the minister can reduce the consultation period? I would have been asking: what transparency or accountability mechanisms apply to the minister's authorisation decision, and will reasons be published? I would be asking: how does the government ensure this emergency mechanism doesn't become a de facto shortcut used in non-exceptional circumstances? I would be asking: how will the commission ensure expedited orders don't unintentionally disadvantage small transport businesses or sole operators higher up the chain? I would have asked: with reduced timeframes, how will genuine engagement with industry stakeholders be assessed and enforced in practice? I would have been asking: how will orders made under expedited timeframes be time limited or subject to automatic review once market conditions stabilise? I would ask: is the intent of the amendment strictly limited to fuel price shocks, or could it be applied to other cost pressures such as insurance or tolls or other compliance costs? I would have asked: how has consideration been given to how contractual change orders may affect competition, freight pricing and downstream consumers? I would have asked: what evidence from existing contractual chain orders show that cost-sharing mechanisms actually improve safety, sustainability and viability for drivers? And I would have asked: how does this emergency measure align with longer term reforms aimed at improving resilience, sustainability and fairness in the road transport supply chain?

I don't have time to ask any of these questions. There may well be reasonable answers to these questions, and I would have been open to hearing those answers. But, because these are being rushed through the parliament in an exercise of point scoring and outsmarting using parliamentary procedure, none of these questions can actually be answered before I'm required to vote on behalf of the people of Curtin on these two pieces of legislation, and I think that's ridiculous.

See this speech in context