Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it's a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister's office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won't even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should.

This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers' expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia's fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding.

Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they're helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I'll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians.

I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment.

Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it's the people who pay. We can't normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don't really mean it. I'm just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn't it? Is that right?

One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions.

In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That's why he's got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. One Nation is not here to rubberstamp legislation for Labor. We're here to represent the people who have been forgotten, ignored and taken for granted by the two major parties for far too long. Our voters—in fact, your voters—sent all of us here to question and scrutinise legislation that this government is constantly trying to rush through. They are laws that hand more power to Canberra without accountability. We didn't get a copy of the proposed legislation until yesterday. Today we're being asked to consider a bill that gives the Treasurer sweeping new powers to declare exceptional circumstances and then allows the ACCC to grant exemptions from competition law. This is for a crisis that doesn't exist, by the way. We are expected to deal with it in a timeframe that makes genuine scrutiny almost impossible. It is the government of transparency and more tax!

How are we supposed to properly represent our constituents when we have not had a real chance to review this legislation? This is the first and most fundamental problem with this bill. It is being rammed through probably with the help of the votes-for-sale Greens. We have a duty to read legislation; to understand its implications; and to consult with experts, small business, consumers and people actually keep this country running—or have you forgotten about the people you're meant to represent? When the basic process is short-circuited, we can't do our job. If we can't do our job, the people who voted for us are not being represented. It's pretty simple.

This is not an isolated incident. This is typical of the Labor government. You might have heard of them—the government of transparency and more tax. They constantly complain about the Senate not moving fast enough. They lecture us about the need for urgency. They accuse anyone who asks for proper process of getting in the way. They claim we don't support their rubbish legislation. Yet they have done absolutely nothing to cultivate trust with this Senate or with the Australian people. Remember old Mr 'My Word is my Bond'? Trust is not something you demand. It is something you earn, and you are losing the trust of the Australian voters very quickly. This government has done everything possible to destroy what little trust remains. We don't trust them. The Australian people don't trust them, and they have every reason not to.

Look at the budget handed down only this week. Australians were told not once, not twice but over 50 times, allegedly, that there would be no changes to negative gearing. That sounds like Labor. 'There will be no child living in poverty'—blah, blah, blah. Seriously. Australians were told repeatedly that capital gains tax arrangements would not be touched. The Prime Minister himself stood at the dispatch box and said it again and again and again. 'For the 50th time' he said on one occasion. Then, the moment they believed they had the numbers and the political cover—oh, and the little issue of running out of your money—they turned around and slammed through major changes anyway. This is not a change of heart based on new information. This is a deliberate deception. This is not a Robin Hood budget, as it was being sold—you know, 'Take money from the older people who have worked hard and saved and give to the young'. This is a Klaus Schwab budget—'You will own nothing and you will be happy.'

Now they expect us to take them at their word on this bill. If the government genuinely wants support for its legislation, then it needs to start being honest. It needs to start being transparent. It needs to stop treating this parliament and the people of Australia as an inconvenience that gets in the way of its agenda and start treating it as the democratic institution it's supposed to be.

The government says this is necessary because of the current fuel crisis. One Nation understands the pressures on fuel supply and energy prices caused by the complete lack of foresight by this very government. We understand that, in genuine emergencies, there can be a need for rapid coordination between businesses to keep essential goods moving. No-one wants to see fuel shortages or panic buying because the law is too slow to respond. But understanding the problem does not mean we accept any solution the government puts forward, no matter how flawed.

Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers from price gouging. It protects small businesses from being squeezed out by larger players who can coordinate their behaviour. It stops anticompetitive conduct from becoming normal. Any law that carves out exemptions from those protections must be treated with extreme caution. This bill gives the Treasurer an extremely broad power to declare exceptional circumstances. Do we really want this bloke to have more power? It is not limited to the current fuel situation. It could be used in a future pandemic, another economic shock or any situation the Treasurer of the day decides qualifies. Once that door is open, the ACCC can grant exemptions that this parliament cannot disallow. The only transparency requirement is that the exemptions be made public within seven days. In some cases, that might be acceptable. In others, it is nowhere near good enough.

Then there is the retrospectivity. The bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. We ask why that particular date was chosen. The Treasurer's office apparently said they wanted sufficient flexibility. That is not a justification. Is this a belated April fools joke? Who knows. That is an admission that they want to cover their tracks or give themselves room to act without proper oversight. Retrospective lawmaking, especially in the area of competition law, should be extremely rare. It should require a clear, specific and compelling reason and maybe some oversight. 'We want flexibility' does not meet that standard.

One Nation has seen this movie before. Governments of both persuasions use any crisis as an excuse to permanently expand their power. They say it's only temporary. They say the safeguards are adequate. Then, when the next crisis comes along, those expanded powers are still there and the safeguards have been quietly weakened even further. We are not prepared to let that happen again without a fight. This bill should be subjected to a full and proper inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That inquiry should examine whether the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate, it should test whether the Treasurer's declaration power is drawn too broadly, it should consider whether the ACCC exemptions should be made disallowable by parliament, it should look closely at the transparency requirements and whether seven days is anywhere near sufficient, it should demand a clear and specific justification for the retrospective start date and it should consider whether stronger sunset clauses and review mechanisms are needed so that these powers do not become permanent.

None of that is unreasonable. None of that is obstruction. It is the basic responsibility of this chamber, the house of review. Cries of urgency do not justify our trusting a government that has repeatedly broken its word to the Australian people. Our constituents did not vote for us so we would roll over every time a minister said that something is urgent. They voted for us because they are sick of being treated with disdain, sick of being ignored, and sick of watching the power of ministers and bureaucrats grow with every passing crisis.

If Labor wants this bill to pass in a form that commands genuine support across the chamber, they know what they need to do: stop the rush; support a proper Senate inquiry; be transparent about why these particular dates and these particular powers have been chosen; and start treating the Senate and the Australian people with the respect they deserve. Until that happens, One Nation will continue to ask the hard questions. We will continue to demand proper scrutiny. And we will continue to stand with the Australian people who sent us here, rather than with a government that seems to believe it can command a trust it has never earned.

It is time for this parliament to start earning their trust again, one honest debate, one proper inquiry and one transparent piece of legislation at a time. You can screech across the chamber as much as you want that we don't vote for your rubbish legislation, but this is exhibit A of our defence.

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

Well, another One Nation senator sounding like just another Liberal—that's what that contribution was: the right-wing uni-party, One Nation, the Liberals and the National Party, in that order of primary vote. One Nation, the Liberals, the National Party—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, a point of order?

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

A point of order on relevance: the government has brought this bill forward, and they're saying it's to deal with exceptional circumstances relating to the issue of fuel security—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister!

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

I said it was on relevance, if you were listening, Senator Ayres. This bill, and the minister's got—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, I'm happy to rule. Generally speaking, second reading debates are fairly wide ranging. The minister has the call.

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

This is an important piece of legislation that is urgent and in the interests of Australians, particularly Australians who rely upon diesel and particularly Australians who rely upon petrol and Australians who rely upon jet fuel and fertiliser. As with every other issue, when it comes to issues that actually matter for Australian supply chains, you'll find that the old right-wing uni-party—One Nation, the Liberals and the National Party, or what's left of them—are in complete accord, because the anger and hate that drives these parties together is their primary motivation. They're angry people. They're not interested in the Australian national interest; they're just interested in anger politics.

That is the decline of conservative politics in Australia. That's what has happened, and it leads them to opposing bills like this. Senator Whitten and Senator Canavan and all the other Liberals suddenly say—as all Liberals always do—that there's not a role for government in dealing with these challenges. Well, it's been government that has insulated Australia here, as best as any government could, from what is the biggest energy shock in our history. It's been government, this Albanese government, that has enhanced our reputation internationally and in our region in a way that gives us credibility to be able to secure shiploads of additional diesel, shiploads of additional petroleum products and jet fuel—something previous governments could never do. I remember the previous prime minister talking about 'negative globalism', sounding like just another One Nation senator, with all the same stuff, all the kooky stuff, which diminished Australia in the region.

Those guys—they are almost all guys—could never have delivered what the Albanese government has done here. Some of you are still in a paroxysm of rage about what happened in 2022 let alone what happened in 2025. It's meant you've lost the capacity for reason and the capacity to act in the national interest. One of the key things that needed to be done in a market that is established to drive the maximum competitive outcome in the way that we deal with petroleum products, particularly diesel—when there is a shock internationally, it jams up. Some of that was evidenced in what happened in regional Australia for a few weeks. While you lot were telling people to hoard diesel, we were in ports and in refineries around the world dealing with the actual practical challenges, not being complacent, smug, partisan, self-interested, anti-Australian forces in our political system. We were just acting for Australia. We didn't get distracted by the ideology and the social media memes.

I want to thank people who've contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 establishes new powers for the Treasurer and ACCC to enable coordinated action during crises. Where exceptional circumstances threaten harm to the economy, businesses or consumers, the Treasurer may make a declaration. The ACCC can then use streamlined powers to grant authorisations or class exemptions, allowing businesses to coordinate in support of the government's response, which is a pretty good thing, I reckon. These reforms ensure faster, more effective action in crisis situations and make it easier for businesses to assist in the national interest, to work together as Australians in the national interest—a foreign concept, I know, to the One Nation-Liberal-National right-wing uniparty over there. I note in relation to schedule 1, the government will support amendment 3804 moved by Senator McKim.

Schedule 2 to the bill provides further protections against unfair and unlawful conduct by fuel companies. It will align maximum penalties in the Oil Code of Conduct with other industry codes to provide a real disincentive to fuel companies who disregard their obligations and benefit from the current conflict in the Middle East. This is a very sensible, very straightforward proposition. You could go into any shopping centre, pub or main street in any country town in Australia, and Australians would expect the government to act in this kind of way, requiring high standards from Australian companies by getting them to work together in the national interest when there is a shock like the one the world is experiencing now. That's what they would expect.

But you've got One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals in a conspiracy to deprive government and Australians of the tools they need to act, which is to secure more fuel, to make sure it gets to where it needs to go, to support farmers and to support country families and communities in doing what they need to do to keep Australia moving, to make sure that, despite high prices, we're doing what we can in areas like fertiliser to make sure as much gets planted as can possibly get planted and that we get diesel to where it needs to get to. The kind of ideology that would see this being held up so that it couldn't be dealt with in a parliamentary session until June is the most self-obsessed, unreal, ideological, un-Australian kind of proposition that you could possibly muster.

There's a pool of reflection out there. Some of you ought to go and have a look. Have a look in the mirror and a bit of self-reflection on what your actual job is here. It is not in the interests of worrying about what overseas extremists might say but actually in the interests of what country communities, country towns, Australian industry and Australian farmers need from government and how to support Australian firms to continue in that work. We won't be out there finger-pointing in an energy shock. We will be working here in Australia and with partners overseas to make sure Australia gets what it needs.

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

The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Canavan be agreed to.