Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran began on 28 February, our government has been responding to the biggest oil shock in history with a comprehensive plan to secure more fuel, strengthen supply chains, build resilience and take the sting out of prices. The government's Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package will deliver more fuel for drivers and industry, more fertiliser for farmers and more fuel security for the economy, with its centrepiece being immediate fuel supplies and a permanent Australian fuel security reserve to ensure we have the fuels and fertiliser we need.

Our government is helping businesses and manufacturers bolster supply chains through interest-free loans via the National Reconstruction Fund, along with incentives to shift more freight onto trains and ships. Targeted support for electric vehicles, more charging stations and heavy vehicle reform will strengthen our long-term fuel resilience, while the Cleaner Fuels Program and reforms to the low-carbon liquid fuels market will help Australia produce more fuel at home and support future demand.

We are reserving 20 per cent of gas exports for Australian users to increase domestic supply and lower prices, and we are advancing the Future Made in Australia agenda through the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve and investments in domestic smelting and manufacturing. We understand this crisis is adding to cost-of-living pressures, which is why we're more than halving the fuel excise, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero, putting petrol companies on notice by doubling the consumer watchdog's maximum penalties and ramping up enforcement and monitoring, giving businesses more leeway at tax time if they face fuel supply problems, and continuing to make it easier and quicker for small businesses to access credit when they need. It.

This bill supports that action by creating new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis by increasing the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct.

Under schedule 1 of this bill, the minister can make an extraordinary circumstances declaration in circumstances that pose a risk to the Australian economy, businesses and consumers, but which may fall short of a declared national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Once extraordinary circumstances have been declared, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be able to exercise new, streamlined powers to enable coordinated responses to the crisis by businesses to complement the work of the government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impact of the crisis.

These new powers are pre-emptive. They allow the minister to make a declaration enlivening the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers when there is a foreseeable harm and allow decisive cooperative action with the business community to prevent or mitigate that harm early. In the current situation, this could include businesses working together to minimise fuel usage to keep supply chain costs low for them and their consumers. Instead of reacting to fuel shortages, we can allow businesses to find innovative and collaborative solutions to prevent shortages.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission already can grant authorisations, and has done during the current situation and past crises. But this process is burdensome and slow, making it too inflexible to respond to the changing situations Australia may face during exceptional global or domestic circumstances. This new power will make it easier and faster for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and businesses to assist these vital efforts to respond to these circumstances, and future exceptional challenges the Australian economy faces.

Schedule 2 to the bill increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct. Under this bill, the regulations will be able to impose penalties on corporations in the oil industry up to the greater of $10 million, three times the value they derive from breaching the code, or 10 per cent of their last year of turnover. For persons other than corporations breaching the code, penalties of up to $500,000 will be available for contraventions. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be able to issue penalty notices of 600 penalty units to corporations for suspected breaches and 12 penalty units for other persons. For context, the value of a penalty unit is currently $330.

These changes mirror those introduced by the government in 2024 into the Competition and Consumer Act for breaches of the food and grocery code. They also complement recent action taken by the government to increase other penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act, and other action taken to address the supply and price of fuel in Australia. The bill will further discourage fuel companies seeking to flaunt their obligations under the Oil Code of Conduct, including those taking advantage of the conflict in the Middle East.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 and move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether:

(1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate;

(2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad;

(3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable;

(4) transparency requirements are strong enough;

(5) the retrospective start date is justified;

(6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and

(7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".

This bill has been considered in the Senate, and our House amendment aligns with the amendments we moved in the Senate.

Sometimes in this chamber the road to ruin is paved with good intention, and I actually understand the good intention of this bill and what it is seeking to potentially deal with. We obviously have a fuel supply issue in this country, and we are looking to make sure that fuel and other things like food and essential services get to where they need to get—and get there as quickly as possible. We will work to support measures that help manage this and protect households and small business. But we have some genuine concerns that this bill gives the ACCC significant new powers, and they're powers that I note weren't needed during COVID. Some of the supply issues that we have with fuel and many other products were certainly evident through COVID.

Given that the proposed government powers would be immune from Senate disallowance, have retrospective application and impact matters as serious as suspensions of competition law, these changes should not be done lightly. I make the general observation that, if there's something we need in this country more than anything else, it's better competition in most sectors. I think we could have better competition across just about every sector of our economy. That's what some of our concerns are about, and we want to—quite reasonably, we think—refer this to a committee to have a look at some of these issues and to make sure that they don't lessen competition in our community and our society, which would obviously not be good for the consumer. An inquiry by the parliament is the bare minimum, we think, when the government is asking for these powers. This bill also calls for the powers to be retrospectively backdated to 1 April 2026. But, on this side, we're not clear on why it needs to be retrospective. We think the government is limiting parliamentary scrutiny on this. This amendment would give parliament the courtesy of having scrutiny of the bill, a bill that will itself limit scrutiny in the real world.

This bill creates a new framework for exceptional circumstances. The Treasurer will be able to declare that exceptional circumstances exist, and this decision will be disallowable. Once that declaration is made, the ACCC can rapidly exempt conduct that may otherwise breach competition law, and their authorisations will be exempt from disallowance. We have some concerns around that, and we would like extra parliamentary scrutiny around this. This goes beyond the current fuel crisis as well. The Treasurer having this would not be limited to the current fuel crisis. We want to work constructively, but we want a proper inquiry.

The concern is that competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers, it protects small businesses and it stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition, so any exemption from competition law needs to be treated seriously. Yes, temporary coordination in a crisis may be necessary, but anticompetitive conduct must not become normal. This is the balance and why we want this inquiry to make sure parliament gets it right.

The government argue that the current authorisation framework is too slow and too restrictive, and they say that the disallowance and public consultation requirements can get in the way of a rapid crisis response. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: this current framework worked through COVID. It also appears to be working so far during the current fuel supply issue. It's appropriate that we take the time to test whether this framework has been drafted properly.

The Treasurer's power to declare exceptional circumstances is extremely broad. It's not confined to the fuel crisis. It can be used at any time the Treasurer so declares it. Once this is made, it opens the door to the ACCC exemptions from competition law. We are very cautious about any attempts to take away parliamentary scrutiny. Our inquiry should test whether the threshold is tight enough. It should also test whether the safeguards are strong enough.

The Treasurer's declaration can be disallowed by parliament, but the individual ACCC authorisations made after that declaration cannot be disallowed. A Senate amendment allowed class exemptions to be disallowable, but individual authorisations will not be. This is a significant issue. It means that parliament can reject the broad declaration, but it cannot directly disallow the specific exemptions that may affect competition in particular markets. We believe this weakens parliamentary oversight.

The ACCC exemptions only need to be made public within seven days. In some circumstances, that may be understandable, but these exemptions can authorise conduct that would otherwise breach competition law. The public parliament and affected businesses should know what has been authorised as soon as possible. This parliament should test whether faster publication, notification and reporting is possible, and transparency should be built into the framework from the start.

As I said earlier, the bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. I'm not clear about the reason for that date. Retrospective lawmaking, as we know, should always be very rare. Retrospective competition law exemptions should require a clear and specific justification.

Why is an inquiry needed? I get the bill is well intentioned, but it is giving significant new powers to the Treasurer and the ACCC. An inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Economics should test whether the ACCC's powers are generally inadequate, whether the Treasury's declaration for power is too broad, whether the ACCC authorisations should be disallowable, whether transparency requirements are strong enough, whether the retrospective start date is justified, whether the powers are properly limited in time and scope, and whether there should be strong sunset and review mechanisms.

I reiterate that we want to work constructively on measures that help manage this current fuel crisis. We support practical steps to protect households, small business and essential supply chains. But suspending competition law and giving the government powers that are immune from Senate disallowance should not be taken lightly. The government wants to limit parliamentary scrutiny. They don't want to give us the courtesy of scrutinising their bill, and we think they should.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians understand that we are living through uncertain times. We are seeing instability overseas, disruptions to global markets and events far beyond our shores affecting prices right here at home. Families feel it when they pull up at the bowser, small businesses feel it when their transport and supply costs rise, industries that rely on fuel and freight feel it across their operations, and communities feel it when rising costs place even more pressure on already stretched household budgets. That is because fuel touches almost every part of our economy. When fuel costs rise, transport becomes more expensive, freight becomes more expensive and businesses face higher operating costs. Those pressures do not stop there. They flow through supply chains, onto supermarket shelves and into the weekly budgets of everyday Australian families. Australians are rightly frustrated when events unfolding so far away overseas end up making life more expensive here at home.

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has contributed to volatility in global energy markets and placed pressure on fuel prices internationally. While Australia remains well positioned and our fuel supply continues to operate effectively, responsible governments do not cross their fingers and hope for the best. Responsible governments prepare, and that is what this Albanese Labor government is doing with this legislation. Resilience is not built in the middle of a crisis; it is built long beforehand. That's why this government is taking practical action to ensure Australia is better equipped to respond when global uncertainty places that pressure on our families, businesses and the broader community. We are strengthening our preparedness, we're improving coordination when extraordinary circumstances arise and we're ensuring that the systems are in place to respond quickly when disruption threatens supply chains, prices or indeed economic stability. That is what this bill is designed to do.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 is a practical and measured response to global uncertainty. It gives government and it gives regulators the tools that they need to respond more quickly during extraordinary circumstances that threaten those supply chains, that increase costs or that place additional pressure on Australian consumers and on Australian businesses. It streamlines coordination when swift action is needed and strengthens penalties for serious breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct to reinforce accountability in the fuel market and to reinforce not just accountability but fairness in the fuel market to make sure that the actions that large businesses take are not negatively affecting the Australian people when it matters the most and when hip pockets are tight. Most importantly, this bill is about prevention. It's about making sure that we are not waiting until supply disruptions deepen, prices spike further or businesses face avoidable disruption before acting. Instead, in quite the contrast, it ensures that Australia has sensible tools available to respond early, to coordinate effectively and to keep our economy moving.

The first major reform in this bill creates new powers to allow faster and more effective coordination during extraordinary circumstances—extraordinary circumstances that we have seen of late. It is important to be clear about exactly what this means. The bill allows the Treasurer to declare extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious risk to the Australian economy, businesses or consumers but where those circumstances may fall short of a formal national emergency. It's when things are tough, it's when matters are extraordinary, and it's when we know that someone needs to step in to protect our businesses and our people. That distinction matters. Not every significant disruption reaches the threshold of a national emergency declaration, but there are moments when swift and coordinated action is still necessary to minimise economic harm.

Under existing arrangements, businesses can already seek authorisation from the ACCC to coordinate in certain circumstances. The problem is that the current system can be too slow. The current system can be too cumbersome when time matters and when time is of the utmost importance. In ordinary times, that process is absolutely appropriate—we need to make sure that we are working through a systematic process. But extraordinary circumstances require flexibility. They require pace. They require the quick coordination that only this legislation can deliver. We know from past crises that events can move quickly. Supply chains can shift overnight, consumer demand can change rapidly, and global disruptions can escalate without much warning at all. During moments such as the pandemic, businesses and regulators learned the importance of responding quickly to changing conditions to ensure that Australians could still access essential goods and services, to make sure that the Australian people could get what they needed in a tough time. Waiting months for processes to unfold simply does not make sense when circumstances are moving so very quickly.

This bill enables the ACCC to grant faster, streamlined approvals so that business can coordinate in practical ways that support Australians and complement the work of government. I want to emphasise that point specifically—'complement the work of government'. This is not replacing government action. It is about government, regulators and industry working together in harmony to minimise the harm. In the current context, this could mean businesses working together to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. It could mean businesses working together to improve logistics, to manage transport efficiency or, indeed, to avoid avoidable disruptions to those supply chains. It could mean better coordination to reduce costs. It could mean improving efficiency and maintaining reliability for consumers instead of waiting for shortages or disruptions to emerge. Businesses can work collaboratively to prevent them. We know that, when times are tough in this country, our communities are very good at coming together. Our communities are very good at looking at what needs to be done and working with each other to solve problems. This bill helps make that possible, and this bill helps bolster the Australian spirit to drive together to find those solutions with government. Prevention is always better than reaction. If we can avoid unnecessary price pressures before they hit households, that matters. If we can keep supply chains functioning smoothly, that matters. And, if we can reduce disruption for businesses and consumers, that matters.

Now, whenever governments introduce extraordinary powers, Australians rightly expect safeguards, and this bill has them. These are not open ended powers. They are limited, they are targeted and they are temporary. They are built for exactly what this bill intends to address: extraordinary circumstances. Declarations must relate to genuine extraordinary circumstances that present risks to the economy, to businesses or to consumers. The powers are subject to clear legal requirements, and they're subject to public accountability. The ACCC must continue to consider the public interest, and coordinated conduct must remain proportionate and appropriate.

These arrangements are designed for exceptional situations, rather than being permanent changes to how businesses operate. We have seen what happens when exceptional circumstances come into play. We were all there for the pandemic, when people were unsure as to what would happen next. We have all been there more recently, as fuel has been incredibly challenging for people at the bowser, as people have watched the numbers tick over and worried about where their groceries might come from. We were there, and what we remember, in this country, is that coordination, stability, a clear plan—a plan rolled out by this government—is what has helped people get through those tough times and navigate those extraordinary circumstances. This is about making sure that we have a framework for that happening again and again and again.

Australians have an expectation, and it's an expectation that they deserve to get an answer to. Australians expect governments to act decisively when circumstances demand it, but they also expect us to act responsibly. This bill strikes that balance—a responsible government, a decisive government when exceptions are extraordinary.

Labor is focused on keeping Australia moving, because, when supply chains fail, Australians can feel it. When transport slows, Australians can feel it. When fuel costs ripple through the economy, it is Australians on the front line, and they can feel that too. We see it in rising prices, delivery delays, higher business costs and the additional strain on family budgets. For communities like mine in Moreton on Brisbane's southside, these pressures are very real. People rely on affordable transport to get to work. Small businesses rely on efficient freight and logistics. Families, already having stretched their budgets, do not have room for unnecessary price increases caused by avoidable disruptions. This bill recognises that reality. It is practical reform, it's real reform, and it's preventive reform. And it is designed to reduce the likelihood that Australians pay more because governments or regulators failed to act early enough.

The second major reform in this bill concerns accountability, because, in times of instability, Australians rightly expect businesses to do the right thing, to not take advantage of a crisis. The bill strengthens penalties for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct. Significantly stronger penalties will apply to corporations that breach their obligations, including penalties tied to turnover or financial benefit where appropriate, ensuring that misconduct is not simply treated as the cost of doing business. This sends an important message: periods of global disruption are not an opportunity for bad actors to ignore obligations or to exploit instability. Australians expect fairness, they expect transparency, and they expect confidence that the rules will be enforced, particularly when the chips are down. The stronger penalties in this bill support those expectations. They reinforce accountability and they strengthen confidence in Australia's fuel market at a time when trust and stability matter more than ever.

This bill does not exist in isolation. It forms a part of a broader commitment by this Albanese Labor government to help Australians manage cost-of-living pressures and strengthen our economic resilience. We know that global shocks affect household budgets. We have seen inflationary pressures flow through international supply chains. We have seen energy and transport costs affect prices across our economy. That is why this government is focused on delivering practical measures to help everyday Australians with the cost of living. It's why we're strengthening Medicare with more bulk-billing. It's why we're getting more young people into homes. It's why we've introduced stronger consumer protections. It's why we've introduced productivity reforms. And it's why we're delivering more tax cuts to help Australians to keep more of what they earn. Whether it is strengthening supply chains or improving fuel security—reducing unnecessary disruption at times of deep uncertainty—Australians deserve confidence here at home, and that's what this bill delivers.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start not with a discussion on the legal framework but with a memory that I think many Australians can relate to. It's early 2020. A virus that most of us had never heard of a few weeks earlier is spreading across the world. Australians are watching the news. They're worried about their families; they're worried about their jobs. Then they go to the supermarket and the shelves are empty. Toilet paper, pasta, hand sanitiser—gone. It wasn't because there wasn't enough to go around; it was because our systems weren't built to move fast enough to respond. The supply chains were there. The products existed. What we lacked was the ability to coordinate quickly and decisively.

That experience—that image of bare supermarket shelves—is part of what this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026, is about. It's about making sure that when we're next confronted by global events we are better prepared. It's about making sure that when the next crisis hits, and there will be another crisis, we are better prepared; the businesses and the federal government can work together at speed; and the legal frameworks that govern competition don't become the very thing that slows our response to an emergency. This bill makes two practical changes to our competition laws, but I want to first focus on how our existing laws work.

Australia has world-class competition laws. The Competition and Consumer Act is a framework that, for the most part, serves us well. It protects consumers from price fixing and prevents some businesses from colluding against the public interest. These are important protections, and nothing in this bill weakens them. But here's the problem. The same laws that prevent bad businesses from ripping off consumers can, in certain circumstances, prevent good businesses from coordinating to help them. In an emergency—whether it's a pandemic, a fuel crisis or a supply chain shock caused by conflict on the other side of the world—there are moments when we need competing businesses to talk to each other, to work together, to share information and to make sure the essential goods get to the people who need them.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, already has the power to authorise this kind of coordination. The mechanism exists; however, in its current form, that process is simply too slow for a fast-moving crisis. How slow is it? Well, in 2020, when COVID was sweeping through our communities and supermarket shelves were bare, it took the ACCC six months to deliver a final authorisation which allowed supermarkets to coordinate their grocery supply—by which point the worst of the initial crisis had already passed. The mechanism worked, technically speaking, but it just didn't work in time. This bill seeks to amend that. It will give us the tools to act with the speed that a crisis actually demands.

The first schedule of this bill creates a new mechanism—the exceptional circumstances declaration. Under this framework, the Treasurer, subject to clear public interest tests, can declare that exceptional circumstances exist. But let's be clear: it isn't a blank cheque. The bar indeed is high. The Treasurer must be satisfied that the circumstances are causing or are likely to cause significant harm to the Australian economy. The declaration is disallowable by the parliament and sunsets at six months. An extension is capped at three months and is also disallowable by the parliament. These are real checks and balances, which are also a necessary step in crisis management. Once a declaration is made, the ACCC gains streamlined powers to authorise specific targeted coordination between businesses.

Given the substantial change this bill is making, we should be very clear about what that means but also about what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean businesses get a free pass and it doesn't mean they can use a crisis as a cover to price fix or exploit consumers. The authorisation will be narrow and specific. If we're facing a fertiliser shortage affecting farmers in regional Victoria, for example, the ACCC might allow fertiliser companies to coordinate supply to address that shortage. That's it. They can't use the authorisation to then coordinate on pricing or to engage in any other conduct that harms competition. Those guardrails remain firmly in place.

The bill also provides for streamlined class exemptions, which are a mechanism that allows multiple businesses to self-assess whether their proposed conduct is covered, rather than each having to individually apply for authorisation. Again, this comes down to speed. In a crisis, every hour matters and reducing red tape is a necessity.

There's one other aspect of this schedule that I want to address because it deserves a clear explanation. The bill allows for temporary confidentiality around authorisation, applications and decisions during an exceptional circumstances event. Now, transparency is a core principle of good governance, and rightly so. But think about what full transparency in real time could mean in a crisis: news breaks that the government is urgently facilitating talks between fuel suppliers about a potential shortage; what happens next? Well, the behaviour we saw from those opposite earlier this year is a prime example. Bad-faith actors will use that sort of information to trigger the very panic we're seeking to prevent. We saw people rush to the petrol stations, forcing some to run out of fuel despite there being enough supply. So the cure becomes a part of the problem.

This is not about hiding things from the public. Within seven days of an exceptional circumstance event ending, all applications and authorisations must be published in full. Australians will be able to view this information, and the relevant accountability is applied. But, in the heat of a crisis, a short window of operational confidentiality is a sensible and proportionate measure.

The world right now is not a stable place. The conflict in the Middle East is creating real pressure on global supply chains. Fuel supply chains, in particular, are subject to disruptions that can flow through quickly to prices at the bowser and costs for businesses across the economy. We are already seeing this. Australia's fuel supply is currently operating normally. There is no immediate crisis. But the Treasurer intends to make an exceptional circumstances declaration following the passage of this bill to facilitate protective coordination with industry in responding to the challenges from the current conflict. We're not waiting for things to go wrong. We are preparing now while there is still time to get ahead. Quite frankly, this is what Australians should expect and do expect of everyone in this place.

The second schedule of this bill is more straightforward in its mechanics. At the moment there are no penalties in the Oil Code of Conduct, and any penalty added to the code is limited to a maximum of $198,000. It feels inadequate. For a large fuel company turning over hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars a year, that is not a deterrent. It is barely a slap on the wrist. For many, it's just a cost of doing business. Think about that for a moment from the perspective of a trucking operator transporting supplies from manufacturing hubs in Tullamarine, in my electorate, or a farmer who depends on diesel to run their machinery. If the fuel company breaches the code, engages in unfair conduct, withholds supply, exploits a shortage, the consequences for that farmer or that truckie can be severe. Their livelihood can be at risk, and yet the company responsible faces a fine their lawyers would describe as negligible. This bill changes that.

Under the new framework, penalties for bodies corporate can reach $10 million or the court can determine the financial benefit the company gained from the breach three times that benefit. If the benefit can't be precisely determined, 10 per cent of the company's annual turnover will be applied for the relevant period. This is a substantial shift in how we hold companies accountable. These are the kinds of penalties that actually change board-level conversations about risk and compliance. They seek to align the oil code with the penalties framework that already applies to the food and grocery code and the franchising code. Now, we have consistency across our major industry codes. Infringement notice penalties issued by the ACCC are also being lifted, from $19,800 to $198,000 for corporations. Again, this is about making sure the consequences of breaching the code are felt, not just noted in a report.

Most Australians hear about competition law, but, let's be honest, it's not something they think about from one year to the next. But the effects of competition law impact every Australian. They are felt at the petrol station and the supermarket checkout. They are felt by the family who can't find formula on the shelf. They are felt by the small businesses that depend on those supply chains to survive. When those systems come under pressure, like they did during the pandemic or when the war in Ukraine sent shockwaves through global supply, Australians need to have confidence that our frameworks can respond fast, because, if they don't, it has real consequences on the lives of all Australians. This bill is about making sure that, when the next major crisis arrives—and we as parliamentarians cannot bow our heads and say that it won't, because it will—Australians can have faith that our laws can move at the speed that helps us as much as possible to stay ahead of that crisis, that businesses can work with government quickly and within a clear legal framework, that the protections of consumers remain intact and that those who would seek to exploit a crisis for profit face penalties that actually mean something. It is practical in its aims and it is proportionate in its penalties. It's the kind of legislation that doesn't necessarily grab headlines but quietly makes Australia better prepared and better protected for when the next headline-making crisis comes. I commend the bill to the House.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. In doing so, I commend the ministers who have led this legislation, the ministers who have led the government's response to the problems arising out of a conflict well and truly out of our control, the Treasurer leading the economic team, the minister for energy and the minister for productivity, as well as the work that goes on within the government through our caucus processes. I think history will show this was just an excellent response to something that really came out of nowhere. I think that the rest of the economy and the rest of the public now feel some security, because we're not talking about it anymore, and that's always a good sign that things are under control. But we didn't get here by accident, and the government, through extremely innovative measures, like the export finance corporation bill, I think achieved things that you wouldn't have thought possible if you were just gaming this strategy out in an office somewhere. It was really a lesson for us to be able to set processes in place to make it easier in the future, and that is what this legislation does. I think that the realisation, which is not always apparent in the community, is how important the role energy plays in our economy is.

I'd like to quote somebody else. I can't remember who it was that said, and it isn't my original thought, but they described the 19th century essentially as being about coal and steam, the 20th century as being about oil and the internal combustion engine and in the 21st century as going to be about electricity and renewable energy. At each points of those new energy ideas coming into the economy, living standards have gone up exponentially. You can see how quickly something like the price of fuel can flow through to living standards and can flow to through to costs not just in the price that we pay at the bowser as consumers but also for businesses as well.

The government having mechanisms in place to be able to deal with things like fuel shortages is critical. This is another part I think of the government's wider strategy to see the Australian economy be more resilient. It is also part of the government's wider strategy to attack cost-of-living pressures through increasing consumer protection. One of the mechanisms that the government is now able to employ, if this bill passes, is something which falls short of declaring a national emergency and falls short of using the emergency powers under the Fuel Act. It allows for a sensible and measured approach by government and business working together to coordinate a response which at any other time might fall foul of competition laws. For example, the response through COVID took approximately six months for the ACCC to authorise the sort of cooperation amongst companies that would have otherwise fallen foul of corporation laws in order for them to coordinate supply of food during the COVID crisis. Six months is just not acceptable. We now know that we need to be able to be more flexible when it comes to fuel, in this case, or to any other sort of any other sort of pressure which is otherwise unforeseen.

The fact is that this also sits well and truly within the Albanese Labor government's commitment to intervening in the economy where the private sector fails. That's why the government, in the recent budget, has a $14-something billion strategy to guarantee fuel supplies coming in the future. But that also fits within a wider government strategy of not letting the important industries to our country just walk out the door and walk overseas, like has happened under previous governments. That's why I think the government really does need to be commended, and the community needs to be assured that this government is responding to those sorts of sovereign risks that exist when our essential industries are under pressure.

As a Queenslander, the investment that the government made, something like $1 billion co-investing with the Queensland government I would credit, to support the Boyne Island smelters is going to secure aluminium production in Gladstone for the future. It is going to secure billions of dollars' worth of investment and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. As a Broken Hill boy, I always felt that Whyalla and Port Pirie in South Australia were our sister towns. We were all in the same television network. And so I grew up with an affinity for people in Whyalla and Port Pirie. That's why the federal government and the South Australian government investing billions of dollars to secure our steel supply is something that they should be commended for—and also securing the smelter in Port Pirie. Up in Queensland, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars at this stage going to protecting the smelters in Mount Isa, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars going to the investment, in Western Australia, in urea, which is essential to farming but also to the transport industry.

This government is doing what governments haven't done over the last few decades. We have realised that you cannot just leave it to the market to secure those sorts of important industries and to secure those sorts of important pieces of infrastructure. You just can't leave it to the market. Otherwise, you end up with the car industry walking out the door because you're not prepared to support it. If it weren't for this government taking this approach, you would have seen the steelworks in Whyalla and the smelters in Port Pirie, Gladstone and Mount Isa close. You would have seen Tomago under a lot more pressure than it is now. If government were to turn its back, those industries would walk out the door. Not only would that have a massively negative impact on employment in those regions and across the country, but it would place at risk our sovereign capacity to defend ourselves and to produce for ourselves.

Of course, the investments are not just in critical minerals and critical industries, though the list of those investments is really long and extensive, whether it's the 20 per cent gas reservation or the investment in the Critical Minerals Strategy and in a stockpile. It is not just about those literally elemental industries that Australia relies on; the government's investment and intervention in the housing sector and in the energy sector also need to be highly commended. Over the 10 years of the former government, I think they built something like 370 public housing dwellings. In Forde alone, at a site in Logan Reserve, we're building over 200 social housing dwellings, and I've been there.

The philosophy around public housing that I've always held on to is that public housing isn't there because it's provided out of the goodness of our hearts; public housing is there because you want to provide affordable housing to workers, to help keep the cost of living down and to help keep rents down. When you can do that, you actually take the pressure off wages, which helps business as well. It was written into the charter of the South Australian Housing Trust that it would have a focus on the economic development of the state. I think there is no single bigger productivity measure that a government can do than to provide affordable housing for workers.

And so it is the case with energy as well. Through the batteries program, among many other programs that exist through the government, the amount of electricity being created is higher than at any other point in the past. There's one piece of evidence that I don't think gets the credit it deserves: over the last summer we had more energy use than ever, and there wasn't a blackout nor a single day lost due to a shortage of electricity in the market.

I think that there is an interventionist edge to this government which the public yearn for. I think that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the community. People absolutely feel like they've been left behind. One of the reasons for that is governments haven't taken control of those essential services, those critical industries, and they've let them wither on the vine to the point where, in the biggest oil shock since the 1970s, we had two oil refineries operating. This legislation fits well and truly within that general strategy. The changes to the penalties for the oil code also sit within the government's wider strategy for consumer protection.

Again, there's a long list there. The government has, for instance, outlawed things like unfair contract terms. I know one case where a young woman moved away from the gym she was going to, and she had a 90-minute one-way trip to get to the gym in order to use it, so she rang up to cancel. The gym said, 'No, you can't cancel over the phone; you need to come in, in person.' It was alright for her to sign up online but not to cancel online. So she was expected to make a three-hour round trip just to cancel. After her persistence and after she showed them the law, she was able to get the gym to cancel her membership. But what if she wasn't so savvy? What about all of those other people who might have just given up and let whatever it is, $20 a week, get wasted?

Whether it's strengthening the unit pricing code—I actually saw it in Woolies myself. I'd heard that they were doing this, and, because I knew they were doing it, I looked out for it the last time I went shopping. There is a practice where they bunch up five bananas together, and they sell that as a unit. It was something like five bucks or six bucks for a bunch of bananas. There was no unit price. You didn't know how much it weighed. When I actually took those bananas and placed them on the scales, they cost twice as much by weight as exactly the same type of bananas sitting next to them. I've heard Woolies excuse this before in the past in the media, saying that they're making it convenient for people. It is convenient for Woolworths that it also happens to cost twice as much. We're going to be cracking down on that.

We've made it easier for people to unsubscribe from online services. We've made it easier for people to be more mobile in the marketplace by outlawing unfair non-compete clauses. Again, these things aren't done just because they're the just and right thing to do, which they are, but they're going to have a practical economic impact on the cost of living for people. They're going to have a practical economic impact when it comes to buying your bananas at Woolies. It's going to have a practical economic impact on workers who are going to feel safer to go looking for a new job without the worry of being penalised by an employer trying to keep them.

I commend this bill to the House. I ask the opposition—I'm not exactly sure what their position is, but I'm not sure they know what their position is either—to support this bill, because this is really a very sensible measure. In the scheme of things, I think it is one part of a very significant change in direction for this country, where you've got a government actually intervening in the economy to make sure that we've got not only the levers to control things when things go badly but also the stockpile of minerals or fuels which are practically needed. So I commend this bill to the House.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start by thanking the member for Forde for his contribution and especially for his shout-out to my home state, the great state of South Australia, particularly with respect to energy. In South Australia, we are leading the way in the transition to renewable energy, with 80 per cent of our energy needs being met on any given day by renewables. So South Australia is the state you want to be in.

Today we talk about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 , which I speak on in support. In this country, we've got a range of legislation that exists to cover what are termed national emergencies. The National Emergency Declaration Act is a case in point. It sets out the conditions for making a national emergency declaration, which include:

(a) an emergency has recently occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur (whether in or outside Australia); and

(b) the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm in Australia or in an Australian offshore area.

It's also a requirement that either each state and territory government experiencing or likely to experience the harm has requested the national emergency declaration in writing; or that the emergency has affected, is affecting or is likely to affect Commonwealth interests; or the making of the declaration is appropriate, considering the nature of the emergency and the nature and severity of the harm; and the declaration is desirable for emergency management to allow national emergency laws to be utilised. If these conditions are satisfied, then, under that act, the Governor-General may make a declaration that there exists a national emergency. This must be declared for not longer than three months but can be extended, and the legislation includes a requirement that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or an equivalent committee, must review each national emergency declaration on the first anniversary of the day that declaration was made.

What is nationally significant harm? It's broadly but carefully defined. It includes harm that has a significant national impact because of its scale or consequences, and includes harm to the life or health, including mental health, of an individual or group of individuals; harm to the life or health of animals or plants; damage to property, including infrastructure; harm to the environment; or disruption to an essential service.

If a national emergency declaration is issued by the Governor-General, several things can happen, including the mobilisation and deployment of Commonwealth resources to assist states and territories to deal with the matter. The minister may also be granted powers to modify, bypass or suspend certain administrative laws like requiring physical signatures on documents or undertaking routine reporting so that there are no delays to the issuing of emergency assistance. It also allows the federal government to take action in a state or territory, even if no assistance has been requested.

Businesses large and small face significant challenges when there is a national emergency declaration. We last saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic, where businesses were put under significant and protracted hardship. Challenges may also be faced by businesses in circumstances which do not meet the threshold for a declaration of a national emergency, as I've just outlined. It is challenges that fall outside of these thresholds that this bill seeks to address, such as the ongoing and unpredictable effects of the conflict in the Middle East. The conflict began on 28 February 2026, and, on some assessments provided by the US government, was estimated to be over in several weeks. But, three months on, it's still going and still having an impact on global and regional energy security, on global and regional supply chains and, therefore, on our domestic businesses.

The Albanese Labor government, particularly the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, have devoted significant efforts to drawing on established regional relationships—which the government had the foresight to build when it came to power in 2022—in order to secure the fuel and fertiliser supplies Australia needs for both critical industries and general domestic consumption. But the conflict continues, meaning the government has determined that also looking for domestic opportunities to meet the challenges being faced by businesses is essential. This is not only seeking to meet current global circumstances but also planning for the future. We know with almost 100 per cent certainty that conflict, disruption and global instability is only going to increase, meaning domestic powers need to be in place now so that businesses can more easily meet the challenge this instability will inevitably bring to their operations in Australia.

Schedule 1 to the bill includes a power for the minister to make what is called an exceptional circumstance declaration. The term 'exceptional circumstance' is taken to have its natural and ordinary meaning and has not been defined with any more specifics, in order to not limit the circumstances in which such a declaration can be made. This level of flexibility is appropriate because it reflects the unpredictability and range of exceptional circumstances that may materialise. An exceptional circumstance may not include circumstances that meet the threshold for a national emergency declaration, although a national emergency would always be an exceptional circumstance. These things work together. The effect of the minister issuing an exceptional circumstance declaration is that it triggers the operation of exceptional circumstances class exemptions and authorisation provisions, which would otherwise not operate.

So what does this mean? Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 prohibits a wide range of anticompetitive conduct, which, at a very high level, operates to distort, restrict or prevent healthy competition in the market. Anticompetitive behaviour compromises the consumer by limiting choice and also prevents smaller market operators from competing for business fairly. It can include things like collusion on prices or collusion on the supply of goods or bid processes. It can include a larger company using its market dominance to eliminate smaller competitors, or it can include businesses banding together to refuse to deal with particular classes of individuals or consumers and suppliers. It can also include resale price maintenance, which is where retailers have minimum prices dictated to them. Conduct of this nature distorts the market, which ultimately disenfranchises the consumer, which is why it is prohibited.

The bill proposes that the ACCC be able to authorise an exempt conduct, which may ordinarily breach competition laws, where it is in the public interest, in that it provides assistance in responding to exceptional circumstances. Businesses coordinating with each other to take certain relevant actions in response to an exceptional circumstance is the most obvious example which would likely qualify for a class exemption, and this will operate in the form of a new section 95AC that will allow the ACCC to create class exemptions for particular kinds of conduct to ensure that the ACCC has the power to quickly, flexibly and broadly grant exemptions to specified provisions of competition laws in exceptional circumstances. It also has the effect of supporting businesses to work together to respond efficiently and effectively to any exceptional circumstances event. Businesses will need to consider whether their conduct falls within a class exemption once that class exemption is in force, in the usual self-assessment way.

A class exemption of this nature will also enable businesses to coordinate to manage the circumstances themselves, so long as they are reasonably restricted to conduct that would assist, or would be likely to assist, in the response or recovery from the harm posed by the exceptional circumstances. So this is not a green light for businesses to participate in anticompetitive conduct outside of the class exemption framework applicable to the exceptional circumstance declaration. Businesses will have the ability to respond rapidly, which they should have, but will still need to take care to ensure the rapid response does not result in scope creep beyond the rapid response directly and genuinely needed.

Importantly, the ACCC may only determine a class exemption if an exceptional circumstances declaration or national emergency declaration within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act is in force. Further, the ACCC must not determine a class exemption unless it's satisfied in all the circumstances that the kind of conduct specified in the exemption class would actually assist or be likely to assist in the response to or recovery from the matter at hand. In conducting this analysis, the ACCC must have regard to the likely benefit to the public which would result from the assistance or likely assistance in response to the issue. The ACCC must also have regard to any other public benefit that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct, and must also consider the detriment to the public that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct.

The factors that must be considered in determining class exemptions seek to strike a balance between ensuring that class exemptions are determined in a structured decision-making process that has proper regard to public benefit and public detriment and ensuring that the ACCC can respond rapidly to allow businesses to address whatever the exceptional circumstance at hand is. Any class determination must precisely specify the exceptional circumstances or emergency to which it relates.

Although the ACCC already has class exemption powers to enable businesses to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by the Competition and Consumer Act, the cost and the time involved in the existing administrative processes for establishing these exemptions can delay efforts by businesses to respond rapidly to exceptional circumstances, which then has the potential to cause further public detriment. The ability to respond quickly and early may even prevent or substantially mitigate the extent of significant harm to the economy, which is exactly what this bill seeks to prevent.

Given what is happening in the world at the moment in our region and beyond and given general global unpredictability and instability, the intention of the bill—that the ACCC will be able to work with industry to complement the actions of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in working to minimise public detriment—is entirely appropriate. The first cab off the rank will be the ACCC, industry, the Commonwealth, the states and the territories working together to minimise future disruptions to fuel supply. We see constant updates regarding the prospects of finalising negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but these updates constantly change, and, even if a negotiation were concluded successfully today, returning things close to where they were prior to 28 February 2026 would likely take months to be achieved, so there's further disruption ahead of us.

This bill, which promotes early coordination so that businesses avoid risks to them and to the Australian people, who are the most important consumers in the marketplace, is entirely appropriate in these circumstances and completely on point. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank those members who contributed to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026—the members for Page, Indi, Moreton, Maribyrnong, Forde and Sturt.

Schedule 1 of the bill creates new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis. Where exceptional circumstances exist which are likely to cause harm to Australia's economy, business or consumers, similar to the current fuel crisis, the Treasurer will be empowered to make a declaration. After an exceptional circumstances declaration is made, the competition watchdog will be able to exercise new streamlined powers to either grant an authorisation to specific businesses or a class exemption to a broader cohort of businesses. These businesses may then take coordinated action to complement the work of government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impacts of the crisis. These new powers will ensure the Treasurer and the competition watchdog can respond promptly to challenging situations Australia may face during exceptional global or domestic circumstances. They will make it easier and faster for businesses to assist these vital efforts to respond to such circumstances.

Schedule 2 to the bill provides further protections against unfair and unlawful conduct by fuel companies. It will allow the government to introduce severe penalties for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct that reflect the gravity of these contraventions and provide a real disincentive to fuel companies disregarding their obligations and benefiting from the current conflict in the Middle East. These changes will allow penalties on corporations up to the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit they derive from breaching the code or 10 per cent of their adjusted turnover from the 12 months up to when the contravention occurred. Penalties of this size are needed to ensure fair and lawful conduct through the fuel supply chain to ultimately protect Australian consumers, who are already feeling the impacts of this conflict at the petrol pump. I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.