Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I think it's fair to say that the coalition is not in the business of opposing sensible measures that are going to help manage things like a fuel crisis and protect households and small businesses. But what we've seen from this government is their urgent need for us to look at this bill, to not scrutinise it at all and to pass it in a hurry. It is always very, very concerning when the Greens and Labor get together to work on backroom deals to pass emergency legislation.

The government's explanation for this is that we've got an urgent need for this legislation because of the fuel crisis that's happening in Australia. I think there are some sensible questions that need to be asked. Why isn't the current framework operating the way it should? If it's not, why has it taken until now for the government to decide that this has got to be rushed through? I think it's fair to say that, even during the COVID pandemic, extraordinary powers like these were never sought by the coalition government. We were actually able to work with the ACCC and turn around exemptions in under 24 hours without the need for exceptional powers to be granted that have no oversight from parliament and no scrutiny at all.

It is very, very concerning that the government is seeking to give both the government and the ACCC significant new powers with very little to no oversight from the parliament. That is a very concerning thing. I think everyone out there, the Australian public, are sick to death of government coming in with a strong, heavy arm, creating legislation that is going to infringe on their rights. It's fair to say that consumer protection laws are there to protect consumers. While Labor may have good intentions for this to manage what is, at the moment, a fuel crisis, the trouble with rushing through bills is the unintended consequences of granting such powers that don't come under any kind of parliamentary scrutiny.

I think it is only reasonable that, at a bare minimum, Labor allows an inquiry to happen through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee so that the committee can have a look at this bill, go through it thoroughly and ask some of these questions. This is a bill that is going to limit parliamentary scrutiny. This government is actually saying that we're not even going to have scrutiny over a bill that is going to limit scrutiny. I don't know about anyone else out there, but it concerns me a lot when government is looking to have no oversight from the parliament on what are extraordinary laws.

This bill is creating a framework to set up exceptional circumstances, and I think it is reasonable for everyone to ask what an exceptional circumstance is. At the moment, the exceptional circumstance might be the fuel crisis. But is an exceptional circumstance in the future something different to that? That is certainly what this legislation will take into account. It is not just limited to dealing with the fuel crisis. Perhaps if this bill was limited, had a very short sunset clause and existed purely for the management of the fuel crisis, that might be slightly more palatable. But it doesn't. This is going to look at what exceptional circumstances exist well into the future—things we don't even know will happen. It will be up to the Treasurer to decide what those exceptional circumstances are. That will then allow the ACCC to exempt conduct that would otherwise breach competition law in Australia.

I think we've got to be really careful if we're exempting competition laws and stopping that business from occurring. There may be unintended consequences to that. Do you know who pays for those unintended consequences when governments rush through legislation? It's the Australian people who will pay the ultimate price of those unintended consequences and overreach by government. It is always concerning when you have someone from the government turn up and say, 'Hi, I'm here from the government, and I am here to help.' That is what I am hearing from this government, and I think every Australian should be very concerned by the approach they are taking.

The bill's intentions are to allow businesses to coordinate during major disruptions, and I think that that is a reasonable thing, but can't that happen under the current framework? Hasn't that been occurring under the current framework? Or is there more about this fuel crisis that this government is not telling us? Is there more that they know and are not sharing with the Australian people and not sharing with the opposition or the parliament? And that's a problem when we're talking about a bill that is going to limit scrutiny of the parliament and we're not really being told why it's urgent and we're not allowed to ask questions and it's very likely that the government will just guillotine the legislation through, as it has been doing in this place on a regular basis, so that it doesn't allow a committee process or any kind of scrutiny. It's not allowing it to go off to a committee to hold a wholesome inquiry. This is really concerning. Is there more that we don't know?

Are these extraordinary powers needed because this government is not being honest? Just in the handing down of the budget we have certainly seen that there are broken promises everywhere. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't trust a single word that this government says, because it will go back on its word anytime it needs to. They come and say, 'We need this, and these are the good intentions that we have,' but, frankly, that does not cut it for me, because time and time again we have seen this government walk back commitments and promises that it has made. We've had legislation that hasn't explored what unintended consequences might look like, and it is the Australian people who ultimately pay the price for government overreach and sloppily drafted legislation.

I think it's fair to say that, in a genuine crisis, we do want businesses to be able to coordinate. We've got to have the priority of keeping fuel supply, food and essential goods moving. We've got to try and inoculate households and small business so that they're not suffering because government is too slow to respond in a crisis. That's why the coalition is prepared to work constructively with the government. We're willing to allow common sense so that we keep Australia moving, because that's what Australia needs. Australia needs to keep moving. There are things that happen far away from our shores that impact our economy and our way of life, so it is completely logical and reasonable that we would put measures in place to allow for things like food to keep finding its way to our supermarkets, farmers to be able to keep planting their crops and businesses to be able to stay open.

I think the key concern for us with this particular legislation is that competition law exists in Australia for a reason. It is protecting consumers and small businesses. It stops the large players from coming in and coordinating in a way that damages competition. It stops the big players from pushing the smaller businesses out of business, and that's really important. So we have to think very carefully when this government is putting forward legislation that would essentially allow the ACCC to put that competition law to one side during what they would define as a crisis, and that definition is whatever the Treasurer decides it to be. We have to be really careful. Any exemption from competition law in Australia needs to be taken very seriously. Perhaps temporary coordination is something that is necessary from time to time, but that should be limited. How long it would go for and in exactly what circumstances it would operate should be very specific, and we have to make sure that any kind of suspension or a temporary suspension of those protections doesn't have the unintended consequence of putting a small-business owner out of business and that it doesn't unfairly advantage bigger players.

We've got to make sure we can do all of that, which means that a bill like this requires some scrutiny. It's why we should be thoroughly working through bills of this nature and doing our due diligence. As elected members in the Australian parliament, we are trusted by the Australian people to go through and do that due diligence, and when this government takes that opportunity away from us, it means that we can't fulfil our obligation to the Australian people. That is an obligation I take very seriously, because I think it is very important that, when we are looking at any piece of legislation, particularly when it is looking at having extraordinary powers with no parliamentary oversight, it is incumbent on every single member in this place to take their obligation to the Australian people very seriously.

In terms of how the existing system works, I don't think this government has provided a reasonable or thorough explanation as to why the framework that currently exists hasn't been adequate to be able to respond to the fuel crisis in Australia or any emerging crisis that may happen in the future. I don't think this government has been able to explain why they need these extraordinary powers and why they need this piece of legislation. Certainly, sending it off to a Senate inquiry would allow for us to get to the bottom of exactly what the intention of this legislation is and exactly why the government feels that it needs these extraordinary powers.

The Treasurer's power to declare exceptional circumstances is very broad. It is not confined purely to the current fuel crisis. Once a declaration is made, it will open the door to the ACCC to provide exemptions to competition law, which the government says would not be disallowable by the parliament. If those exemptions are made, this parliament could not go through and disallow those. That is extraordinary. That is a significant power that will exist outside of parliamentary scrutiny. I think parliamentary scrutiny is a really important safeguard we have in this country to protect people from government overreach or the unintended consequences of legislation. I think a Senate inquiry is reasonable to test whether the threshold is tight enough on this. I think we should also test whether the government and the safeguards it is putting in place on this legislation are strong enough.

The Treasurer's declaration under exceptional circumstances would be disallowable by the parliament, but the ACCC exemptions made after that declaration would not be. It means that, while the parliament could reject the broad declaration, it couldn't do anything about exemptions the ACCC has granted. The ACCC needs to make the public aware within only seven days of the exemptions. Seven days is a really long time when we live in a world where you could pick up your phone put something up on a website or social media. It could be instant. It is really unclear as to why seven days is the timeline this government has chosen, particularly when there is no scrutiny and no oversight to this. It should be transparent. It be immediate.

This bill is also backdated to 1 April 2026, and the government has provided no reason for that specific date. Basically, all the government has said is, 'We need this flexibility, we need this legislation to be able to deal with the fuel crisis and future crises that may come up in Australia's future,' but I don't think it has done its job in justifying why this bill is needed and why the current framework is not adequate to deal with these things. Either the government is hiding something or this is just a really grotty power grab to make sure it can intervene in things that it probably shouldn't.