Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. This legislation was introduced by the government in response to the serious global fuel security issues rising from the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran. This conflict has disrupted—in fact, halted—the passage of fuel, fertiliser and other goods through the Strait of Hormuz.

The consequence of this conflict cannot be understated. It's put our industrial, agricultural and transport industries under significant strain, and everyday Australians, who are already under pressure to make ends meet, saw their fuel costs skyrocket. In regional areas, this impact has been particularly acute. There are limited and often non-existent alternatives for transport. Farmers are forced to make tough decisions about planting crops in an environment of deep uncertainty, and people have little buffer in their budget or flexibility in their options if the fuel pumps are dry.

When this crisis began, I asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for assurance that the government would work closely with industry and intervene where necessary to prioritise fuel supplies to regional communities, such as the people of Indi. I acknowledge the steps the government has taken to shore up supply where possible, and to develop and release to the public a structured response to what is, indeed, not a short-term shock.

In considering this legislation, I'm not just giving heed to the global environment we face today but also considering what this legislation means for the long term. Our competition laws exist to ensure consumers are protected, markets are fair and operators are accountable. This includes powers already in place for the ACCC to authorise particular conduct that would usually be in breach of competition laws when in the public interest to do so, including in response to a national disaster as declared under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Indeed, we saw the flexibility of these powers in action earlier this year, when the ACCC granted urgent interim authorisation to allow the coordination of fuel supply by distributors to address shortages.

This bill goes further in providing a new power for the minister to make 'exceptional circumstances' declarations. It also allows the ACCC to authorise or declare a class exemption for conduct that would otherwise breach our competition laws. The government says this is necessary where circumstances might arise that do not meet the existing criteria under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Under this law, the declarations and authorisations can be retrospective to 1 April 2026, and the bill includes civil penalties for breaches of the oil code of conduct. I speak often—actually, more than to my liking—about the erosion of scrutiny and safeguards in the name of broader powers. Too often, we see governments step beyond the fair, the necessary and the proportionate in the name of urgency. Because there is an existing framework and because the ACCC has powers, I am not yet convinced that this bill is proportionate to the needs or has undergone the scrutiny that should be given to changing our competition laws. The government itself has confirmed that the ACCC can already grant authorisations. As I said before, it already has done so during the current crisis.

But the government says the existing process is burdensome and slow for what Australians might face, yet the ACCC was able to grant an authorisation quite expeditiously in March, and I've not heard nor seen evidence that the ACCC experienced any exceptional problem in doing so. There are some guardrails in this legislation, including that the ministerial declarations be disallowable—I'm happy about that—and this bill was improved in the Senate by an amendment to make class exemptions disallowable. But these instruments might come into effect before the parliament has an opportunity to meaningfully scrutinise them. There are six-month limits to declarations, but that can be extended in rolling three-month increments, with no cap, and the new powers themselves don't sunset. The ACCC keeps a register of authorisations, but publication of the register does not have to occur while the declaration is in place. The consequence of retrospective provisions should always concern us as legislators. They alter legal consequence after the fact, and the government has simply not made the case for declarations, class exemptions and authorisations to be retrospective to 1 April.

Committees exist in this parliament to interrogate legislation, to give opportunity for questions to be asked and answered and for stakeholders and impacted persons to share their views with parliament. It's how we make good policy. Yet time and again we see this important process sidelined in the name of expediency. 'Never let a crisis go to waste' might be a well-worn phrase, but it should not be applied to legislative practice. It should not curtail scrutiny, transparency and oversight.

As I've been clear, I support measures that limit the impact of the current fuel crisis being faced by Australia and the world as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, but these powers are more enduring than the crisis of today. Where a framework already exists, powers are there and have been used and the case is not clear that reasonable or urgent action is being obstructed, I'm simply not convinced of this bill. I cannot support it until we have further scrutiny or indeed that we see sensible amendments.

See this speech in context