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

Canavan argued the existing interim authorisation process was effective, citing ACCC data showing decisions made within 24 hours during COVID. Canavan questioned the urgency and justification for retrospective powers dating to 1 April 2026, suggesting they might shield past anticompetitive conduct. Canavan moved an amendment to refer the bill to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry, highlighting concerns about non-disallowable ACCC exemptions and lack of transparency.

McKim supported the bill's aim to ensure access to essential goods during crises caused by the conflict in the Middle East. McKim criticised the government's foreign policy stance but stated the Greens would not block the bill. McKim announced an amendment to require ACCC class exemptions to be made via disallowable instruments to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and prevent unnecessary relaxation of competition laws.

Hume argued the bill granted significant new powers without adequate scrutiny or sunset clauses, unlike measures used during the pandemic. Hume highlighted concerns that ACCC exemptions would not be disallowable by parliament, weakening oversight. Hume questioned the seven-day transparency window for exemptions and the lack of justification for the retrospective start date, calling for a Senate inquiry.

McDonald criticised the government for bypassing democratic scrutiny and using time management procedures to rush the legislation. McDonald argued the existing framework had worked well for over a decade, including during recent floods. McDonald expressed concern that the bill removed parliamentary review rights and lacked transparency, potentially harming small businesses in regional Australia.

Brockman echoed concerns about the lack of scrutiny and the government's routine use of guillotines. Brockman argued the existing system was fit for purpose, citing rapid responses during COVID. Brockman questioned the broad scope of the Treasurer's declaration power and the seven-day delay in publishing exemptions, calling for a proper inquiry to assess unintended consequences.

Blyth argued the bill created a framework for exceptional circumstances that was not limited to the current fuel crisis. Blyth expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary oversight for ACCC exemptions and the broad definition of exceptional circumstances. Blyth called for a Senate inquiry to test whether the safeguards were strong enough and if the powers were properly limited in time and scope.

Sharma argued the existing competition law framework had proven effective during the pandemic and other crises. Sharma highlighted concerns about the non-disallowable nature of ACCC exemptions and the seven-day transparency delay. Sharma questioned the justification for retrospectivity and the lack of public explanation for the bill's urgency, supporting the coalition's call for a Senate inquiry.

Cadell criticised the government for introducing the bill late and guillotining it through without debate or inquiry. Cadell expressed surprise at the Greens' support, noting their usual stance on scrutiny. Cadell's speech was cut short by time limits, but he reiterated concerns about the lack of transparency and proper legislative process.

lead

Cadell opposed the bill's rapid passage, arguing that the government was avoiding necessary scrutiny despite the legislation having retrospective effect from 1 April. Cadell questioned why an inquiry could not be conducted, suggesting the rush indicated a desire to hide potential misconduct or improper deals involving the ACCC. Cadell highlighted the absence of disallowance powers for individual measures as a significant democratic deficit. Cadell urged senators to support an amendment for a committee hearing to clarify the government's motives and ensure transparency.

Colbeck expressed concern that the bill introduces permanent changes to the Competition and Consumer Act rather than temporary crisis measures. Colbeck questioned the justification for retrospectivity given the government's initial dismissal of fuel supply issues in April. Colbeck argued that the ACCC already possesses the ability to act quickly under existing laws, making the new powers unnecessary. Colbeck called for greater transparency and cooperation from the government to reassure constituents about supply chain fairness.