Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Campbell argued that the bill provided practical tools to respond to global uncertainty and protect supply chains from disruption. Campbell stated that the new powers allowed for faster coordination between businesses and regulators, preventing shortages before they impacted households. Campbell emphasised that the measures included safeguards, such as disallowable declarations and public interest tests, ensuring powers were temporary and targeted. Campbell linked the bill to broader government efforts to manage cost-of-living pressures and strengthen economic resilience.

Haines argued that the bill was disproportionate given that the ACCC already possessed powers to grant authorisations, which had been used expeditiously during the current crisis. Haines expressed concern that the new powers lacked sufficient scrutiny, noting that declarations could be extended indefinitely and that transparency requirements were weak. Haines highlighted the issue of retrospective provisions dating to 1 April 2026, stating the government had not justified this approach. Haines concluded she could not support the bill without further parliamentary inquiry or amendments.

Briskey argued that existing competition laws were too slow to respond to emergencies, citing the six-month delay in ACCC authorisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Briskey explained that the bill enabled rapid coordination to prevent supply disruptions, with strict guardrails to prevent price-fixing or consumer exploitation. Briskey defended temporary confidentiality measures as necessary to avoid panic buying, noting full transparency would occur within seven days of an event ending. Briskey also highlighted the significant increase in penalties for Oil Code breaches, arguing this would deter misconduct by large fuel companies.

Holzberger commended the government's interventionist approach to securing essential industries and managing cost-of-living pressures. Holzberger argued that the bill was part of a broader strategy to ensure economic resilience, including investments in fuel security and critical minerals. Holzberger stated that the legislation allowed for sensible coordination between government and business during unforeseen pressures, avoiding the delays seen in previous crises. Holzberger linked the bill to wider consumer protection reforms and government investments in infrastructure and housing.

Clutterham argued that the bill addressed gaps in the National Emergency Declaration Act, allowing for responses to significant but non-emergency disruptions like the ongoing Middle East conflict. Clutterham explained that the ACCC could grant class exemptions for conduct that assisted in responding to exceptional circumstances, subject to public interest tests. Clutterham emphasised that the bill enabled rapid business coordination to minimise public detriment, with strict requirements to prevent scope creep. Clutterham stated the legislation was appropriate given the unpredictability of global supply chains and the need for early intervention.