Said to need committee scrutiny
Labor senators said the bill made significant competition-law changes and should be reviewed, consulted on and tested rather than passed immediately.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal)
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Budget, tax & economy
What does this bill do?
The bill would amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit a corporation with substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. from charging, offering or agreeing to an excessive priceThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. for a good or service.
Why was it introduced?
Senator Nick McKim introduced the bill because the Greens argued that corporations with substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. could charge excessive prices without a direct price-gouging prohibition in Australian competition law. The explanatory memorandum links the proposal to cost-of-living pressure, corporate profits, and two specific reform prompts: recommendation 1.5 of the February 2024 ACTU inquiry led by former ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. chair Allan Fels, and recommendation 2 of the May 2024 Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices. The bill's practical answer was to add an economy-wide excessive-price rule to section 46The part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 dealing with misuse of market power. The bill would add the new excessive-price rule to this section. of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, enforced through the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. and the courts.
Broader context
The bill sits in a wider argument about supermarket power, cost-of-living pressure and whether Australian competition law should directly prohibit excessive prices. The local evidence shows the proposal was built from the ACTU/Fels price-gouging inquiry and the Senate supermarket prices inquiry, then contested in the Senate as either a needed economy-wide enforcement tool or an overbroad form of price setting.
Key criticism
Criticism focused on design and economic risk rather than defending high supermarket prices. Labor senators argued the bill was not ready and should be examined through committee while the government pursued ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. funding, unit pricing, the Food and Grocery Code and other competition reforms. Coalition and One Nation speakers argued the bill was too broad, could become price setting, and could harm suppliers or consumers. Senator Tammy Tyrrell supported the intent but said the bill should start with supermarkets and define the excessive-price threshold more clearly.
Who supported it?
Senator Nick McKim introduced this bill. It was supported by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation; and did not pass.
Introduced in Senate 16 Sept 2024
Defeated at second reading in Senate 05 Feb 2026
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
6 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
507 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill would amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit a corporation with substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. from charging, offering or agreeing to an excessive priceThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. for a good or service.
-
A court would assess whether a price was excessive by considering the competitive priceThe bill's benchmark for judging whether a price is excessive: the price that would have applied if the corporation did not have substantial market power.: the price that would have applied if the corporation did not have substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. in that market.
-
The ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. would be able to apply to a court for orders. The explanatory memorandum says existing Competition and Consumer Act sanctions could include civil penalties, damages, orders preventing conduct and declarations of contravention.
-
For a body corporate, the explanatory memorandum says the maximum penalty would be the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period if the benefit cannot be determined.
-
The explanatory memorandum says the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. could also use enforceable undertakings to require a corporation to lower a product price for a specified period while guaranteeing supply.
-
The proposed prohibition would not apply where a Commonwealth, state or territory law requires or allows the price, and it would not apply to a corporation and related bodies corporate with less than $10 million turnover in the last income year.
-
The bill would apply only to conduct after commencement. It would start on a proclaimed day, or automatically four months after Royal AssentThe final formal approval needed before a passed bill becomes an Act. This bill did not receive Royal Assent. if no proclamation was made.
-
The Senate voted down the bill at second reading on 9 October 2024, restored it to the Notice PaperThe Senate's official list of business. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate for possible debate. on 26 August 2025, and voted it down again at second reading on 5 February 2026.
Show source excerpts
-
A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that results, or is likely to result, in... a price that is excessive.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) introduced bill text -
The competitive price... is the price at which the good or service would have been acquired by, or supplied to, the other person if the corporation did not have a substantial degree of power in that market.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) introduced bill text -
The ACCC will be able to apply to the Court for an order where it believes a corporation has contravened subsection 46(2).
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) explanatory memorandum -
The maximum penalty payable by a body corporate... is the greater of: $50,000,000... 3 times that value... 30% of the corporation's adjusted turnover.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) explanatory memorandum -
The undertakings the ACCC may impose are sufficiently broad to allow the ACCC to require a corporation to lower the price of a product... for a specified period of time while guaranteeing supply.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) explanatory memorandum -
Subsection (2) does not apply... if a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, requires or allows the good or service to be acquired or supplied at that price.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) introduced bill text -
A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 4 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent...
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) introduced bill text -
Second reading negatived... 09 Oct 2024... Restored to Notice Paper... 26 Aug 2025... Second reading negatived... 05 Feb 2026.
APH bill progress and Senate division records
Context
Broader context for this bill
The bill sits in a wider argument about supermarket power, cost-of-living pressure and whether Australian competition law should directly prohibit excessive prices. The local evidence shows the proposal was built from the ACTU/Fels price-gouging inquiry and the Senate supermarket prices inquiry, then contested in the Senate as either a needed economy-wide enforcement tool or an overbroad form of price setting.
- Feb 2024
Fels inquiry backs excessive-price law
The explanatory memorandum says the ACTU inquiry into price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price., led by former ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. chair Allan Fels, recommended amending section 46The part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 dealing with misuse of market power. The bill would add the new excessive-price rule to this section. of the Competition and Consumer Act to make charging excessive prices unlawful in terms similar to European Union provisions.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - May 2024
Supermarket inquiry adds reform pressure
The explanatory memorandum says the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices also recommended amending the Competition and Consumer Act to prohibit charging excess prices.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 16 Sept 2024
McKim introduces economy-wide bill
Senator Nick McKim introduced the bill in the Senate, framing it as a response to cost-of-living pressure and alleged corporate price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. across essential goods and services.
Senate second reading speech ↗ - 09 Oct 2024
Senate rejects referral and bill
The Senate defeated Senator Jess Walsh's proposed committee referral, then defeated the bill's second reading by 29 noes to 16 ayes.
Senate division records ↗ - 26 Aug 2025
Bill returns to Senate business
The APH progress record shows the bill was restored to the Senate Notice PaperThe Senate's official list of business. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate for possible debate., allowing it to be debated again in the new Parliament.
Parliament of Australia ↗ - 05 Feb 2026
Restored bill is voted down
Senators again debated whether an economy-wide excessive-price law was needed. The Senate defeated the restored bill's second reading by 29 noes to 12 ayes.
Senate division record ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 16 Sept 2024
Senator Nick McKim introduced the private senator's bill in the Senate.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 16 Sept 2024
Senator McKim moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum.
Second reading moved
Senate debated the bill 09 Oct 2024
Senators debated whether the bill should proceed, including a proposed government referral to the Economics Legislation CommitteeA Senate committee that examines bills and economic policy matters. The defeated government amendment would have sent this bill to that committee for inquiry..
Second reading debate
Bill defeated at second reading 09 Oct 2024
The Senate voted down the second reading by 29 noes to 16 ayes, so the bill stopped at that stage until it was later restored.
Second reading negatived
Bill restored to Senate business 26 Aug 2025
The bill was restored to the Senate Notice PaperThe Senate's official list of business. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate for possible debate. in the new Parliament.
Restored to Notice PaperThe Senate's official list of business. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate for possible debate.
Second reading moved again 05 Feb 2026
Senator McKim again moved the second reading after the bill had been restored.
Second reading moved
Senate debated the restored bill 05 Feb 2026
Senators debated the restored bill, including arguments about supermarket competition, existing laws and whether the proposal amounted to price setting.
Second reading debate
Restored bill defeated 05 Feb 2026
The Senate again voted down the second reading, this time by 29 noes to 12 ayes.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
Criticism focused on design and economic risk rather than defending high supermarket prices. Labor senators argued the bill was not ready and should be examined through committee while the government pursued ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. funding, unit pricing, the Food and Grocery Code and other competition reforms. Coalition and One Nation speakers argued the bill was too broad, could become price setting, and could harm suppliers or consumers. Senator Tammy Tyrrell supported the intent but said the bill should start with supermarkets and define the excessive-price threshold more clearly.
The strongest criticism in the local corpus comes from Senate debate. The source bundle does not include submissions to an inquiry on this bill because the proposed referral was defeated.
Risk of price setting
Coalition and One Nation speakers argued that asking officials or courts to work out a competitive priceThe bill's benchmark for judging whether a price is excessive: the price that would have applied if the corporation did not have substantial market power. would amount to price setting and could damage supply, quality or investment.
Too broad beyond supermarkets
Senator Tammy Tyrrell supported stronger ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. powers but said the bill should first apply to supermarkets, because its $10 million turnover threshold would capture many other large businesses.
Competition reforms preferred
Coalition criticism argued that stronger competition tools, including supermarket divestiture powers and support for suppliers, would be more effective than the Greens bill.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated Senate cleared second reading
Defeated 16 to 29. Support came from Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 10 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 8
Independent 4 / 0
Unknown 1 / 3
Nationals 0 / 1
One Nation 1 / 0
UAP 0 / 1
Defeated Senate cleared second reading
Defeated 12 to 29. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation.
Defeated
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 22
Greens 9 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
Nationals 0 / 2
One Nation 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Amendments at a glance
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Carried Allow McKim to introduce bill
Passed 41 to 4. Support came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from One Nation and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Allow McKim to introduce bill
The Senate agreed 41 ayes to 4 noes, allowing the introduction process to continue that day.
Party Aye / No
Labor 15 / 0
Greens 11 / 0
Liberal Party 7 / 0
Unknown 6 / 1
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 0 / 2
UAP 0 / 1
Carried Close debate on the bill
Passed 41 to 18. Support came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Close debate on the bill
The Senate agreed 41 ayes to 18 noes, ending that stage of debate despite Labor objections about the speaking list.
Party Aye / No
Liberal Party 17 / 0
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 10 / 0
Nationals 5 / 0
Unknown 3 / 2
Independent 4 / 0
One Nation 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Defeated Refer bill to Economics inquiry
Defeated 18 to 41. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Refer bill to Economics inquiry
The Senate defeated the referral amendment 41 noes to 18 ayes, so the bill was not sent to that inquiry.
Party Aye / No
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Labor 16 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Nationals 0 / 5
Unknown 2 / 3
Independent 0 / 4
One Nation 0 / 1
UAP 0 / 1
Carried Allow immediate second reading vote
Passed 43 to 19. Support came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Allow immediate second reading vote
The Senate agreed 43 ayes to 19 noes, clearing the way for the final second-reading vote that followed.
Party Aye / No
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 4 / 3
Nationals 5 / 0
Independent 4 / 0
One Nation 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Nick McKim
Nick McKim supported the bill, saying it would make price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. by corporations with substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. unlawful and was based on ACTU and Senate supermarket inquiry recommendations.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Helen Polley
Helen Polley said Labor shared concern about supermarket prices but argued the Greens bill needed much more work and pointed to Labor measures on unit pricing, the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. and the Food and Grocery Code.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Fatima Payman
Fatima Payman supported the bill, saying price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. concerns went beyond supermarkets and that Australians needed stronger action on the cost of essentials.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Mixed
Tammy Tyrrell
Tammy Tyrrell supported the intent of giving the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. stronger tools, but argued the bill was too broad and should first focus on supermarkets with clearer thresholds for excessive prices.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
2 speakers · 2 oppose
Labor
2 speakers · 2 oppose
-
Helen Polley ★ Helen Polley said Labor shared concern about supermarket prices but argued the Greens bill needed much more work and pointed to Labor measures on unit pricing, the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. and the Food and Grocery Code.
“The difference with this legislation... is that it needs so much work.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jess Walsh Jess Walsh opposed passing the bill immediately and moved a government second-reading amendmentA proposed change to the Senate's second-reading motion. Senator Walsh's amendment would have referred the bill to committee; it would not have changed the bill text directly. to send it to the Economics Legislation CommitteeA Senate committee that examines bills and economic policy matters. The defeated government amendment would have sent this bill to that committee for inquiry. for inquiry.
“This bill, as it stands, requires more discussion. It requires more review for the measures it seeks to introduce.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
2 speakers · 2 oppose
Coalition
2 speakers · 2 oppose
-
Dean Smith Dean Smith opposed the bill for the Coalition, saying it was an overreach and that competition, divestiture powers and a broader reform package would be a better response.
“What is needed here is a comprehensive and well-planned package of reforms that will change the supermarket sector for the better in the years to come.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 5 contributions · 2 support
Greens
2 speakers · 5 contributions · 2 support
-
Peter Whish-Wilson Peter Whish-Wilson supported the bill and argued that Parliament had previously strengthened competition law when senators worked across party lines.
“The Greens bill would make price-gouging illegal across the economy and give the ACCC the powers it needs to investigate and prosecute corporations.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Nick McKim ★ 4 contributions Nick McKim again supported the restored bill, arguing that supermarket-specific government action was not enough and that price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. should be unlawful across the economy.
Hansard records 4 separate contributions by Nick McKim, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Nick McKim supported the bill, saying it would make price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. by corporations with substantial market powerA level of power in a market that lets a corporation act with less competitive pressure. The bill only applies to corporations with this kind of market power. unlawful and was based on ACTU and Senate supermarket inquiry recommendations.
“The Greens Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 amends section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010... to prohibit a corporation with substantial market power from abusing that power by charging an excessive price.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Nick McKim supported the bill and argued that the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. and courts needed direct powers to respond to corporations misusing market power through excessive prices.
“Under this bill the ACCC will be able to apply to the court for an order where it believes a corporation has abused its market power by price gouging.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Nick McKim used a point of order to argue that Labor was trying to stop the Greens bill from coming to a vote.
“What's going on here is Labor is so scared of the supermarket corporations it's trying to stop this bill from coming to a vote.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Moved amendment
Nick McKim again supported the restored bill, arguing that supermarket-specific government action was not enough and that price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. should be unlawful across the economy.
“This bill that we are debating here today is based on evidence. It has the support of Professor Allan Fels and the support of a range of economists.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
One Nation
2 speakers · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
One Nation
2 speakers · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
-
Malcolm Roberts Malcolm Roberts said One Nation agreed with the motivation but opposed the bill because he considered it poorly worded and unlikely to help customers.
“One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tyron Whitten Tyron Whitten opposed the bill, arguing that price caps would harm supply, competition and quality, and that lower taxes and less regulation were better answers.
“Capping prices does not work. Price caps destroy supply, kill competition, reduce quality and limit choice.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
-
Tammy Tyrrell ★ Tammy Tyrrell supported the intent of giving the ACCCThe national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would rely on the ACCC to bring court action where it believed a corporation had breached the proposed price-gouging rule. stronger tools, but argued the bill was too broad and should first focus on supermarkets with clearer thresholds for excessive prices.
“This bill doesn't just apply to the supermarkets. It would apply to any business with a turnover of over $10 million.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Fatima Payman ★ Fatima Payman supported the bill, saying price gougingThe kind of price the bill would prohibit when charged by a corporation with substantial market power. The court would assess it by considering the competitive price. concerns went beyond supermarkets and that Australians needed stronger action on the cost of essentials.
“Compared to the government's regulations, an element of this bill that recommends itself is that it does not believe... that the scourge of price gouging has quarantined itself within this country's supermarkets.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- Sponsor
- Senator Nick McKim -- Collected from APH metadata.
- Final recorded vote
- Second reading negatived on 5 February 2026 -- The Senate division was 12 ayes to 29 noes.
- 16 Sept 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
Senator Nick McKim introduced the private senator's bill in the Senate.
- 16 Sept 2024
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
Senator McKim moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum.
- 09 Oct 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Senate debated the bill
Senators debated whether the bill should proceed, including a proposed government referral to the Economics Legislation CommitteeA Senate committee that examines bills and economic policy matters. The defeated government amendment would have sent this bill to that committee for inquiry..
- 09 Oct 2024
Senate · Second reading negatived
Bill defeated at second reading
The Senate voted down the second reading by 29 noes to 16 ayes, so the bill stopped at that stage until it was later restored.
- 26 Aug 2025
Senate · Restored to Notice Paper
Bill restored to Senate business
The bill was restored to the Senate Notice PaperThe Senate's official list of business. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate for possible debate. in the new Parliament.
- 05 Feb 2026
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading moved again
Senator McKim again moved the second reading after the bill had been restored.
- 05 Feb 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Senate debated the restored bill
Senators debated the restored bill, including arguments about supermarket competition, existing laws and whether the proposal amounted to price setting.
- 05 Feb 2026
Senate · Second reading negatived
Restored bill defeated
The Senate again voted down the second reading, this time by 29 noes to 12 ayes.