Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

Before I was so rudely interrupted by a hard marker earlier today after a 46-second speech, I was getting to the point that, when we get down to it, there's a rush to put something through. Let's get down to it.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 was not written overnight. We know the drafters take some time, so, even if this had been brought on yesterday, we would have had another day. The fact is we're still talking about it tonight, and all we wanted was to do a short inquiry. We could have had the inquiry tonight. We've done that before. But we won't vote until tomorrow now. So what is so absolutely urgent that we are hiding from an inquiry? It could have actually taken place and not slowed down this bill. That's what's really getting to us.

I came out this morning and said that it's in Labor's DNA, when in government, to push things through, run things through, guillotine, not have inquiries and not know. What I don't get on this specifically is the Greens support for this, because it is the Greens who normally like accountability and that sort of stuff, and this is about the ACCC, of all things. I said how I was on the supermarket inquiry with Senator McKim. He loved the ACCC having extra powers to prosecute, to go after them. He wants to talk about price gouging. He wants to talk about breaches with the ACCC. But on this single point the Greens are backing running this through without an inquiry, without knowing. That's why I said, to quote Ted 'Theodore' Logan from that great movie Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure:

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

Strange things are afoot here, where the Greens are backing not going through with the ACCC stuff.

When we come to it, it was a great point today. This is being retrospectively added back to April Fool's Day, back to 1 April. So what would it matter if it went down another three weeks, another four weeks or another day to have the inquiry? It wouldn't matter because everything back to that day is covered anyway. Why do you rush when you have retrospectivity? When everything that has happened will be forgiven, you don't need to rush it through. That is why the amendment by Senator Canavan to have an inquiry is so important.

What are the motivating points such that this needs to be pushed through, that this needs to be rushed through, and why is it done? Are we aware of circumstances already where the ACCC are aware of actions that have been taken in a non-competitive manner that they don't want to disclose? Has this taken place? Has a nod and a wink been given to organisations—'Go and do this, and we'll clean it up'—that they don't want to be discovered? Something is crook in Tobruk when there was the capability of inquiry tonight without holding up the bill and when the Greens have been offered something so fabulous as part of a deal that they walk away from their key principles of transparency, of inquiries and of giving the ACCC powers. If you join the dots, something's a little bit rotten here. Why can't we have an inquiry?

Look at the bill on its merits. We understand that in a crisis there may be requirements to do this. But something's a bit on the nose when all these things line up and we don't understand why. There could be an inquiry. We'd only have to ask four or five questions—why, what and how?—and we'd get this through. But it's just a blanket no. That is not good government. That is not the way things should operate when it could absolutely be there. We could come back in a month if that took that long. We could come back for a separate hearing later on and pass this because everything will be given retrospectivity back to April Fool's Day, back to 1 April. The only fools here are the Australian people who think that this is the right way to run government.

We know we got through a little thing called COVID. It went for a couple of years. You might have heard of it. It wasn't a three-month, one-month or two-month war in the Middle East. This affected the entire world, and the ACCC and the previous government got through with the powers they had. But, no, this government cannot get through this Middle Eastern conflict without being able to change the rules to a level of no disallowance. If you want to, call this an emergency. I accept what's going on is extenuating circumstances in the Middle East. We wouldn't want to disallow that, necessarily. But the what ifs of a minister and the ACCC being able to tick off individual measures, allowing the ACCC to give permissions that they don't already have, is where it comes down. What is it? There is this mates' rates deal—I'm not saying it will happen, but it could happen—to tick the box where the parliament can do nothing because we've signed off on it now. There's no disallowance. There's no ability to review.

Let's go back to the seven-day disclosure basis. It's like the legislation. They wrote the legislation over a period of days, if not weeks, but they don't disclose that until the morning they want it through. They will do the same with the actions they take. When they declare an action or say they're going to do something, they are not going to do it on the spur of a moment and take seven days to have to disclose it. They could tell us straightaway that they are taking this action. They could tell us what they are trying to prevent, who they are giving the nod to and how it's going to act. But, no, they want seven days so that people could not possibly know the nod has been given and the fix is in for seven days.

That is everything that this parliament should not stand for. This parliament should be about getting out there, being open and saying: 'This is the problem—problem (a)—and this is the action we need to give. We need to allow, say, the fuel companies to say who's sending fuel where, and this is why.' In all reasonable circumstances, this parliament would also always say yes. That is another thing that triggers this. You go through. It is drafted over time without disclosure. It is brought in not following process. There is no inquiry. It is retrospective, so it doesn't really matter when it passes, because actions are there. There is no disclosure for seven days. All of these things spell potential trouble. When you look between conspiracy and circumstance, it's usually circumstance, but we want that clarity and the Australian public needs that clarity. That is why we are here. That is why we are opposing moving through this quickly. That is why we want a small committee hearing to answer some questions that are reasonable, that the public would expect us to ask. Nothing matters more in that process.

I urge the Senate to vote for the amendment, to have a deeper look at this. This could almost pass on the voices if our concerns were met. They aren't anything out of the box. They aren't 'we hate this idea'. I will tell you that I've had my experiences with the ACCC in my previous engagement. I was involved in three court actions with them. In two they took us on and lost. In one they went in on something on our behalf even though we weren't thrilled with it, and they lost that too. So I'm not really thrilled with the ACCC's ability to hold people to account, but in this we'll see. I hope they have more success in the Woolworths action they've got now. But let's have a quick inquiry. Let's get this done and get it through as soon as possible.