Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. It's very pertinent to note the way that the government is conducting the debate on this piece of legislation, which provides an exceptional circumstances section within the Consumer and Competition Act. Having been in this place for a long time and having been engaged with my local farmers, food manufacturers, the supermarkets, a number of dairy inquiries and a number of beef inquiries, the importance of the Consumer and Competition Act and the fairness of that act is not lost on me.

I don't know how many debates, discussions or inquiries I've been involved in around the act. There have been plenty even within my own party about changes to the act. It's a complex piece of legislation, but it's a really important piece of legislation for protecting consumers but also ensuring fairness in supply chains. This government has made a lot of promises to farmers about the way that they will be protected in supply chains and how they'll make sure that consumers get a better deal, farmers get a better deal and the supermarkets will be managed properly. Any changes to this act are always scrutinised closely by anyone who has any engagement with them. I certainly know that's the case with growers that I work with at home in Tasmania.

The fact that this government isn't prepared to provide any level of scrutiny for these changes—which are important but also substantial in that they give the Treasurer significant powers to make a declaration and the ACCC significant powers to operate—is something that I'm keenly interested in and that I know that my constituents are keenly interested in. Pieces of legislation like this should be jealously guarded. I have to say the fact that no government senator has come to put a perspective on this piece of legislation is of great concern to me. They haven't even had somebody come in to trot out the talking points.

What is the story? Why won't the government let us understand what's going on, particularly in relation to the retrospectivity in this piece of legislation? What happened in April that means we have to go backwards and provide retrospectivity with respect to the management of the fuel crisis? Why do we have to do that? We know, in the early days of the fuel crisis, the government said: 'This is not a problem. There's plenty of fuel. There's nothing to see here. We don't have to worry about it.' They banged on and trotted out those talking points for a whole fortnight here in the chamber. The day after we left, the responsible minister, Mr Bowen, came out and acknowledged that there was a crisis and that there were significant issues in certain supply chains. I even asked in this chamber during question time, on one occasion, who was hoarding the fuel. If there was so much fuel around, where was it? Who was hoarding it? We still don't know the answer to that question. It took the government two or three weeks to get a handle on all of the supply chains and what was going on, so what happened in the interim? Why do we have to go back to 1 April in the context of retrospectivity?

It's becoming a genuine pattern of behaviour of this government, which promised to be open and transparent with the Australian people, that we have debate after debate in this place where, on some occasions, we don't even get the opportunity to speak. At least we're getting that opportunity on this piece of legislation. But it is the most secretive government that I've ever seen. They ignore notices for the production of documents. They redact heavily documents that they do provide. In this circumstance, where there's a significant change to an important piece of legislation, they're not even prepared to work with the opposition to have a quick inquiry, to ask the questions that we all want to ask and then get on with it.

It's not as if this parliament hasn't passed legislation quickly before. It has. There have been a lot of references to what occurred during COVID. But, during COVID, when the coalition was in government, we worked with the then opposition to establish an inquiry—the COVID inquiry. We gave the then opposition the chair of that inquiry. They could look at whatever they wanted and call hearings whenever they wanted to look into the elements of the work that we were doing in quite an extraordinary time. It was a time that I hope none of us has to see again. It's a difficult time right now, and there are global pressures on the supply of fuel and energy into this country, but there is no such cooperation from this government in terms of this piece of legislation.

We learnt last night that we can't trust what they say. We can't trust what they promise because last night they continued their record of breaking their word, their solemn word, to the Australian people. The point is that we're not talking about temporary changes to the Competition and Consumer Act with this piece of legislation. We're not talking about a temporary change. We're talking about inserting a whole new section into the act that will be permanent. It's not here for the term of the fuel crisis. It's a permanent addition to the act.

We're told that these powers are needed so that the government can make quick decisions, but we know that the ACCC can act quickly. Many of my colleagues have already put on the record how quickly the ACCC was able to act to make decisions within 24 hours under the existing provisions. So what is in this legislation or what sits behind the rationale for this legislation that we're not being told? I feel very justified in asking that question because my trust levels with this government are very low, particularly after last night, when they proved yet again that you can't believe anything that they tell you. This is important legislation. These permanent changes to the act are not just about the fuel crisis. They stay on.

A number of my colleagues have talked about their concerns with respect to the 'capacity to disallow' elements of the proposed legislation that stands before us. The declaration of an exceptional circumstance will be able to be disallowed, but, once that's done, the ACCC is free and clear. There's no capacity for scrutiny with respect to the ACCC's actions.

We know that there's a need to move quickly at times, but, as I said earlier in my presentation, the ACCC has proven before that it can act nimbly. It did so under the coalition when we were in government. A number of decisions were made within a day, within 24 hours, two, three or four days a week. Why do we need to be retrospective with this legislation? It's critical that we have some insights as to why that's going to be the case. When is the government going to come clean with respect to that not only with the chamber but the Australian people? As I said, there hasn't been one single government senator who's stepped into the chamber to make a contribution on this piece of legislation to explain to us what's going on, particularly with respect to retrospectivity. It's an important matter.

Competition laws in this country have been hugely contested over a long time from both sides, particularly by smaller operators who have wanted to make sure that the big end of town couldn't do them over. They are genuinely concerned about that. That was one of the things I was hearing in the early days of this fuel crisis, when independent supply chains, in particular, were clearly being starved of fuel by somebody. We were told there was plenty of fuel in the country, but there were hundreds of fuel stations in different jurisdictions that had no diesel or no petrol or nothing at all. What was going on and what were the drivers of that? We still haven't received any data on those elements.

I want to be assured so that I can assure my constituents, who are concerned about the way that this piece of legislation operates, that those protections that are important for consumers and particularly for small business aren't undermined by this process. It doesn't matter whether you're selling fuel or whether you're a farmer, a fisher, a vegetable grower or a small business operating a centre close to a big supermarket. We've all heard and we've all seen the complaints and the concerns about the way the supermarkets can operate to impact on the trade of a small business.

I think it's only reasonable that the government lets this place use the toolkit that is available to it so that we, as elected representatives in this place, can confirm for ourselves that we're comfortable with this piece of legislation. We are very comfortable to work with the government, but what's clear is that the government doesn't want to work with us. The government continues to undermine the democratic process in the way it attempts to ram legislation through this parliament. They'll do a deal with the Greens. They'll subvert a Senate inquiry process, like they did with the changes to the EPBC Act. They're all about the politics. They're all about the deal, and they don't care about the people who are being impacted by the legislation. They just want to have another tick on the sheet to say that they've achieved this outcome.

This legislation is too important for us to just roll over, have our tummies tickled and say, 'We'll give this a tick and flick.' We want to ensure that our constituencies are receiving the protections they deserve and that they demand from this important piece of legislation, from these permanent changes to the bill.