Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak on the motion to exempt the legislation entitled the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 from the cut-off order. Obviously, there are serious issues that our country faces when it comes to matters relating to this fuel crisis, which, let's not forget, the government told us just a couple of months ago wasn't happening—there was nothing to see here; we didn't need to worry about it—and urgent responses are always needed. But it is important when, as a country, trying to deal with matters in the national interest, we have a bipartisan approach to any solution to those issues, especially when it comes to significant changes to legislation.

As far as I'm aware, the opposition has not been given a huge amount of insight or forewarning or indeed detailed briefings around what this legislation is and the urgency for such legislation. If the legislation is to empower ministers to make decisions in certain circumstances to do things, then one only has to turn one's mind back to the issues confronted by our country during the COVID period. At that time, we had a minister who was able to authorise certain actions that enabled the government to do certain things with regard to AdBlue in this country. That did not require legislative change. The powers existed to enable the minister to do that.

The opposition does support appropriate measures to ensure that we have in place the right measures to deal with any issue confronted by this country, to ensure that Australian households and businesses are not unfairly hit. We will always support those measures, but proper process and scrutiny is necessary here. We have indicated to the government that we would be very willing to support, as I said, appropriate measures that are well thought through and appropriately designed. I understand we have an amendment relating to an inquiry into the legislation that we're talking about here.

We're not talking about delaying this. This is not about some unduly long process to send this off into the never-never. We could do this a very short period of time. It is to understand what the powers in this legislation that we have barely had a moment to look at actually do and what solutions will be provided to the Australian people. To enable a parliament to do its job and properly scrutinise this legislation is the appropriate course of action, I think. I would very much welcome any indication from the government whether they are open to such an approach—to allow the parliament, while we're sitting this week, to undertake such scrutiny. We could properly interrogate this legislation. It is my understanding that Senator Canavan does have a second reading amendment relating to an inquiry. Obviously, the Senate will divide on this question of whether we do exempt from the cut-off. The opposition's position on that will be to oppose that on the basis that, at this point in time, we have not been provided with clarity around the necessity, the scope, the implications. We do not want to delete things unnecessarily; we are just asking for proper process to be followed here. We are willing to cooperate, and please give us those elements of information and supports we need to be able to cooperate properly for a good outcome.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just set out the rationale for this procedure. The first thing to say is, in a substantial sense, this must be dealt with and finalised today or tomorrow. That is the nature of the relationship between the sitting calendar and this set of issues. The rationale for that and the offer of briefings in this set of circumstances have been made to the opposition.

I want to set out what this bill does in order to, I hope, get people in this place to lift a little bit above the partisanship and politics which have characterised the opposition's approach to this set of questions since 2022. This bill supports the government's response to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which is of course impacting fuel prices, affecting Australian businesses in logistics, in the mining industry, and it is affecting ordinary Australians.

Schedule (1) to the bill creates new powers for the Treasurer and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis. In short form, our competition regulatory environment is designed to support maximum competition. What we require is the capacity, should the circumstances arise in those extraordinary circumstances, to make a declaration that those risks to the Australian economy, businesses and consumers, but which fall short of a declared national emergency, require the ACCC to be able to exercise new and streamlined powers to enable those kinds of coordinated responses which will be so important to providing for supply, particularly to regional Australia—particularly to regional Australia.

I think it is extraordinary, having explained that to the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation, that they would contemplate some inquiry process that potentially means that that approach cannot be taken today or tomorrow. That is what is required here. I heard the reference to some of the challenges the previous government dealt with in the COVID context. We can't be prisoners of the past here. What is required here is for a very different set of circumstances.

While the ACCC can make some interim decisions quickly, the legislative requirements, particularly those in relation to consultation and very high thresholds for satisfaction of the ACCC, make the existing class exemption and authorisation powers too slow and inflexible for fast-evolving situations inside the economy that are the result of nothing that Australians, Australian businesses or the Australian government have done but external impacts on the Australian economy. It is too challenging for the ACCC to do what is required to authorise conduct and to respond to economy-wide shocks in a timely manner. It is too difficult. It is too high a threshold. For example, it took more than six months for the ACCC to deliver a final authorisation for supermarkets to coordinate grocery supplies in 2020.

We should actually have a little bit of an adult approach to this set of issues. It has been explained to the coalition. Now is the time to drop the partisanship, the ideology and the resorting to anger and oppositionalism that has got them into the mess that they are in in political terms. They have been the authors of their own destruction.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Drop the partisanship? I'm going to be really partisan!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying to help you understand. You are burying leader after leader. You are doing it again. You got yourselves into the pickle that you were in last Saturday by continuing to take the partisanship approach that you have taken. I'm just saying to you that Australians reward oppositions that act in the national interest. That's what they want to see in their politics. That's what they want to see in their parliament. It's about time you got the message. I urge the Senate to support the motion that I outlined before.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will quickly make the point to the Senate that the minister's argument is completely undermined by the fact that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 is retrospective. The minister just got up and said that they need this bill to take action in the next few weeks to secure fuel supply. If it is the case that that's the reason for this bill, why is it retrospective to 1 April? Those things have already happened. There is no urgency to exempt potentially anticompetitive conduct that happened over the past couple of months with a bill that rushes through and completely exempts a major change from the normal review practices of this place. We are happy to work with the government to fix something in the future. We are less happy to absolve the government or any other major corporation from bad behaviour they might have had in the last few weeks. We can consider that with more time. We should have more time. I'm happy to. I've even suggested the government have a quick snap inquiry today. Let's get the ACCC in. We deserve to hear from them, because these powers are very extraordinary and much broader than just the fuel situation we face today.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Ayres be agreed to.