This bill became law on May 26th, 2026.
Budget, tax & economy
The Treasurer can declare exceptional circumstances for up to 6 months, with extensions of up to 3 months each, so competition exemptions can be used before or during serious disruptions.
Ongoing Middle East conflict impacts exposed that businesses may need to coordinate during serious disruptions that are not national emergencies. The bill lets the Treasurer declare exceptional circumstances and lets the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. approve or exempt public-interest cooperation that might otherwise breach competition lawThe rules that usually stop competitors from colluding, fixing markets or otherwise reducing competition., with safeguards and petroleum code penalty increases.
Australia already had ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. authorisationAn ACCC approval allowing specified businesses to do something that might otherwise breach competition law because the public benefit is judged to outweigh the harm. and class-exemption processes for cooperation that might otherwise breach competition lawThe rules that usually stop competitors from colluding, fixing markets or otherwise reducing competition., but the government said those processes could be too slow when exceptional circumstances fell short of a declared national emergency. After Middle East conflict beginning in February 2026 disrupted fuel prices, businesses and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the bill created faster Treasurer-triggered ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. exemptions and was soon used for a short-term class exemptionA decision that protects a whole category of business conduct from competition-law penalties if it fits the exemption's terms. covering global supply-chain disruption.
The main criticism was that the bill rushed broad, partly retrospective powers to suspend normal competition-law safeguards before Parliament had properly tested whether existing ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. emergency tools were inadequate. Coalition speakers opposed the bill in its current form, while the Greens supported it only with stronger parliamentary disallowanceA parliamentary process that lets either house cancel certain legal instruments after they are made. oversight, which the Senate added.
Senator Tim Ayres introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens; opposed by Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Liberal Party, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 May 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
13 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Treasurer can declare exceptional circumstances for up to 6 months, with extensions of up to 3 months each, so competition exemptions can be used before or during serious disruptions.
The Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. can let businesses coordinate in exceptional circumstances or emergencies when the coordination helps the response or recovery and might otherwise breach competition lawThe rules that usually stop competitors from colluding, fixing markets or otherwise reducing competition..
The Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. can set conditions on these business authorisations, revoke an authorisationAn ACCC approval allowing specified businesses to do something that might otherwise breach competition law because the public benefit is judged to outweigh the harm. later, and cannot use this fast process to approve mergers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. can make whole categories of emergency cooperation exempt from competition rules, and Parliament can disallow those exemptions.
Oil suppliers, distributors and retailers can now face infringement notices and civil penalties under petroleum marketing industry codes, including 600 penalty units for companies.
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a declaration under this section if the Minister is satisfied that:Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2026 final Act text
(1) Subject to this Division, the Commission may, on an application by a person, grant an authorisation to a person to engage in conduct, specified in the authorisation, to which one or more provisions of Division 1 or 2 of Part IV specified in the authorisation would or might apply.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2026 final Act text
(3) The Commission may specify conditions in the authorisation. Subsection (2) does not apply if any of the conditions are not complied with.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2026 final Act text
(1) If a declaration mentioned in subsection (2) is in force, the Commission may, in writing, determine that one or more specified provisions of Division 1 or 2 of Part IV do not apply to a kind of conduct specified in the determination.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2026 final Act text
The Oil Code of Conduct is a mandatory industry code made in 2017 to regulate the conduct of suppliers, distributors and retailers who are involved in the sale, supply or purchase of declared petroleum products such as unleaded petrol and diesel. The Oil Code of Conduct currently has no civil penalty provisions for non-compliance and as a result, infringement notices cannot be issued nor civil penalties applied.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. authorisationAn ACCC approval allowing specified businesses to do something that might otherwise breach competition law because the public benefit is judged to outweigh the harm. and class-exemption processes for cooperation that might otherwise breach competition lawThe rules that usually stop competitors from colluding, fixing markets or otherwise reducing competition., but the government said those processes could be too slow when exceptional circumstances fell short of a declared national emergency. After Middle East conflict beginning in February 2026 disrupted fuel prices, businesses and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the bill created faster Treasurer-triggered ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. exemptions and was soon used for a short-term class exemptionA decision that protects a whole category of business conduct from competition-law penalties if it fits the exemption's terms. covering global supply-chain disruption.
Middle East conflict disrupts fuel and shipping
Government and ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. material linked the bill to conflicts in the Middle East beginning in February 2026, including impacts on fuel prices and international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
ACCC ↗Treasurer seeks urgent ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. powers for the oil shock
Capital Brief reported Treasurer Jim Chalmers saying businesses had identified Competition and Consumer Act limits that were not suited to a fast-moving economy-wide shock.
Capital Brief ↗Senator Tim Ayres introduces the bill
In the second reading speech, Senator Tim Ayres said the bill supported the government’s response to Middle East conflict affecting fuel prices, businesses and consumers, and would allow pre-emptive cooperation to reduce harm.
Hansard ↗Bill receives Royal Assent
Royal Assent turned the bill into an Act, enabling the new streamlined competition-exemption powers for emergencies and exceptional circumstances.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Treasurer declares global supply-chain disruptions exceptional circumstances
The declaration covered supply-chain disruptions arising from the Middle East conflicts and Strait of Hormuz shipping disruption, allowing the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions.’s new fast exemption process to operate.
ACCC ↗ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. issues first exceptional-circumstances class exemptionA decision that protects a whole category of business conduct from competition-law penalties if it fits the exemption's terms.
The ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. made a short-term class exemptionA decision that protects a whole category of business conduct from competition-law penalties if it fits the exemption's terms., retrospective from 23 June to 22 December 2026, giving legal protection for competing businesses coordinating to address harm to consumers or the economy from global supply-chain disruption.
ACCC ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the WholeA Senate stage where senators examine and vote on detailed amendments to a bill before final passage. debate
Recorded vote: 34 to 27.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill rushed broad, partly retrospective powers to suspend normal competition-law safeguards before Parliament had properly tested whether existing ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. emergency tools were inadequate. Coalition speakers opposed the bill in its current form, while the Greens supported it only with stronger parliamentary disallowanceA parliamentary process that lets either house cancel certain legal instruments after they are made. oversight, which the Senate added.
Criticism focused on scrutiny and safeguards, not on rejecting emergency business coordination in principle.
Broad emergency powers with weak scrutiny
Critics warned the Treasurer and ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. would get sweeping powers to switch on fast competition-law exemptions during loosely defined exceptional circumstances, without enough parliamentary scrutiny, transparency or safeguards.
Rushed without an inquiry
Opponents said the bill should have gone to an economics committee before passage so Parliament could examine the adequacy of existing ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. powers, the breadth of the Treasurer’s declaration power, transparency, retrospectivityWhen a law or exemption is allowed to cover conduct that happened before the law or instrument formally began., sunset clauses and review safeguards.
Retrospective operation and lack of sunset limits
Coalition amendments sought to remove retrospective parts of the scheme and make the exceptional-circumstances exemption powers expire on 2 July 2026, reflecting concern that temporary crisis powers could operate backwards and last beyond the immediate fuel shock.
Risk of unnecessary leeway for large corporations
The Greens supported the bill but warned competition-law exemptions should not become unnecessary leeway for big corporations, pushing successfully for class exemptions made under the bill to remain subject to parliamentary disallowanceA parliamentary process that lets either house cancel certain legal instruments after they are made..
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 34 to 27. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 48 to 94. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and LNP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected the proposal, so debate continued without sending the bill to a committee inquiry first.
Did not vote: Nationals
Defeated 45 to 97. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, LNP, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected these detailed changes and then agreed to the bill, leaving the Senate-amended scheme in place without the proposed sunset or removal of retrospectivityWhen a law or exemption is allowed to cover conduct that happened before the law or instrument formally began..
Did not vote: Nationals
Senate
Defeated 27 to 34. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
The Senate rejected the call for a committee inquiry and then agreed to the bill's second reading, allowing the legislation to proceed to detailed consideration.
Defeated 27 to 34. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
The Senate rejected these changes, so the bill kept ongoing powers and retained retrospective commencement provisions, subject only to other amendments agreed separately.
Defeated 27 to 34. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
The Senate defeated the amendment and passed the second reading motion, declining to delay the bill for a committee inquiry.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
The Senate agreed to Mckim Nick's proposal on voices, covering ensures that class exemptions made under the bill remain subject to parliamentary disallowanceA parliamentary process that lets either house cancel certain legal instruments after they are made. processes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed to Mckim Nick's proposal on voices, covering ensures that class exemptions made under the bill remain subject to parliamentary disallowanceA parliamentary process that lets either house cancel certain legal instruments after they are made. processes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Tim Ayres supports the bill and says it is needed to let the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. and the Treasurer respond faster to fuel-related crises, while also lifting penalties for oil codeIndustry rules for petroleum suppliers, distributors and retailers, with higher penalties under this Act for breaches. breaches to deter companies from exploiting the current conflict-driven price pressures.
Read in Hansard ↗Canavan opposes the bill in its current form and tries to stop it from passing immediately by moving to send it to an inquiry.
Read in Hansard ↗McKim says the Greens will support the bill because it helps keep essential goods and services available during a crisis, but they want stronger parliamentary oversight so competition-law exemptions cannot be used to give big corporations unnecessary leeway.
Read in Hansard ↗Helen Haines says she cannot support the bill as it stands because the government has not shown why new, lasting ministerial and ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. powers are needed when existing emergency competition powers have already worked.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 8 contributions · 6 support
“This bill, which promotes early coordination so that businesses avoid risks to them and to the Australian people, who are the most important consumers in the marketplace, is entirely appropriate in these circumstances and completely on point. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 is a practical and measured response to global uncertainty. It gives government and it gives regulators the tools that they need to respond more quickly during extraordinary circumstances that threaten those supply chains, that increase costs or that place additional pressure on Australian consumers and on Australian businesses. It streamlines coordination when swift action is needed and strengthens penalties for serious breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct to reinforce accountability in the fuel market and to reinforce not just accountability but fairness in the fuel market to make sure that the actions that large businesses take are not negatively affecting the Australian people when it matters the most and when hip pockets are tight. Most importantly, this bill is about prevention. It's about making sure that we are not waiting until supply disruptions deepen, prices spike further or businesses face avoidable disruption before acting. Instead, in quite the contrast, it ensures that Australia has sensible tools available to respond early, to coordinate effectively and to keep our economy moving.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government having mechanisms in place to be able to deal with things like fuel shortages is critical. This is another part I think of the government's wider strategy to see the Australian economy be more resilient. It is also part of the government's wider strategy to attack cost-of-living pressures through increasing consumer protection. One of the mechanisms that the government is now able to employ, if this bill passes, is something which falls short of declaring a national emergency and falls short of using the emergency powers under the Fuel Act. It allows for a sensible and measured approach by government and business working together to coordinate a response which at any other time might fall foul of competition laws. For example, the response through COVID took approximately six months for the ACCC to authorise the sort of cooperation amongst companies that would have otherwise fallen foul of corporation laws in order for them to coordinate supply of food during the COVID crisis. Six months is just not acceptable. We now know that we need to be able to be more flexible when it comes to fuel, in this case, or to any other sort of any other sort of pressure which is otherwise unforeseen.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Most Australians hear about competition law, but, let's be honest, it's not something they think about from one year to the next. But the effects of competition law impact every Australian. They are felt at the petrol station and the supermarket checkout. They are felt by the family who can't find formula on the shelf. They are felt by the small businesses that depend on those supply chains to survive. When those systems come under pressure, like they did during the pandemic or when the war in Ukraine sent shockwaves through global supply, Australians need to have confidence that our frameworks can respond fast, because, if they don't, it has real consequences on the lives of all Australians. This bill is about making sure that, when the next major crisis arrives—and we as parliamentarians cannot bow our heads and say that it won't, because it will—Australians can have faith that our laws can move at the speed that helps us as much as possible to stay ahead of that crisis, that businesses can work with government quickly and within a clear legal framework, that the protections of consumers remain intact and that those who would seek to exploit a crisis for profit face penalties that actually mean something. It is practical in its aims and it is proportionate in its penalties. It's the kind of legislation that doesn't necessarily grab headlines but quietly makes Australia better prepared and better protected for when the next headline-making crisis comes. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tim Ayres on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Tim Ayres supports the bill and says it is needed to let the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. and the Treasurer respond faster to fuel-related crises, while also lifting penalties for oil codeIndustry rules for petroleum suppliers, distributors and retailers, with higher penalties under this Act for breaches. breaches to deter companies from exploiting the current conflict-driven price pressures.
“Schedule 1 to the Bill creates new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis. Under this Bill, the Minister can make an extraordinary circumstances declaration in circumstances that pose a risk to the Australian economy, businesses and consumers, but which may fall short of a declared National Emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act. Once extraordinary circumstances have been declared, the ACCC will be able to exercise new, streamlined powers to enable coordinated responses to the crisis by businesses to complement the work of government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impacts of the crisis.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Tim Ayres strongly supports the bill, saying it gives the Treasurer and ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. faster powers to let businesses coordinate during fuel and supply crises and adds tougher penalties for fuel companies that break the rules. He argues these are practical tools to protect consumers, farmers and supply chains during the current shock, while criticising the opposition for trying to block them.
“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.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Andrew Leigh on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Andrew Leigh supports the bill, saying it should pass because it gives the government and the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. faster powers to let businesses coordinate during exceptional crises and it sharply increases penalties for oil companies that breach the Oil Code of ConductIndustry rules for petroleum suppliers, distributors and retailers, with higher penalties under this Act for breaches.. He argues these measures are needed to protect fuel supply, consumers and the wider economy during the current oil shock.
“This bill supports that action by creating new powers for the Treasurer and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis by increasing the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Andrew Leigh supports the bill, saying it will let the Treasurer and the ACCCThe national regulator that enforces competition and consumer law and, under this Act, can quickly approve or exempt some business cooperation during serious disruptions. act quickly during crises and impose much tougher penalties on fuel companies that breach the Oil CodeIndustry rules for petroleum suppliers, distributors and retailers, with higher penalties under this Act for breaches.. He argues these measures are needed to protect the economy and consumers, especially during the current fuel disruption.
“Schedule 2 to the bill provides further protections against unfair and unlawful conduct by fuel companies. It will allow the government to introduce severe penalties for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct that reflect the gravity of these contraventions and provide a real disincentive to fuel companies disregarding their obligations and benefiting from the current conflict in the Middle East. These changes will allow penalties on corporations up to the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit they derive from breaching the code or 10 per cent of their adjusted turnover from the 12 months up to when the contravention occurred. Penalties of this size are needed to ensure fair and lawful conduct through the fuel supply chain to ultimately protect Australian consumers, who are already feeling the impacts of this conflict at the petrol pump. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
10 speakers · 9 oppose · 1 mixed
“As people in the Senate, my colleagues, know much better than me, it is highly unusual for a bill to be guillotined through. Unfortunately, it is becoming more of a habit under this government but it should be for left for extenuating and extreme circumstances. It is very unusual for a bill not to be referred to a Senate inquiry. It is also unusual to do so the day after the budget. I would expect the government's focus, and rightly so, to be on selling and prosecuting and making the case publicly in parliament for their budget; instead, it is introducing this piece of legislation that really doesn't have anything to do with the budget but that makes some pretty drastic changes to competition law in a retrospective fashion that threatens consumers and leaves the parliament and the public in the dark about what the motivations are. That is why we should be opposing this legislation unless it is referred to a committee for an inquiry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In a genuine crisis, there is always some coordination that is needed between business and government. We can understand that, and we can understand that businesses might need to coordinate between themselves, too. In normal circumstances we would call that cartel behaviour; in a crisis, we might need it. I can understand that. During a fuel shortage, for instance, there could be changes to supply chains, disruptions or a national emergency. There might be circumstances where businesses need to work together quickly. We've seen those circumstances before and we've successfully navigated them before. The priority today must be keeping fuel and food and essential goods moving. We understand that. Households and small businesses shouldn't have to suffer because the law is too slow to respond—but is it too slow to respond? That's the question. This is the reason the coalition is prepared to work constructively on the bill with the government, but only if the government is willing to allow basic and commonsense courtesy of inquiry, because, let's face it, scrutiny of legislation is the role of this chamber, and it is being circumvented. It is being circumvented by a government that hates scrutiny, that hates transparency and, more importantly, that hates accountability.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is also backdated to 1 April 2026, and the government has provided no reason for that specific date. Basically, all the government has said is, 'We need this flexibility, we need this legislation to be able to deal with the fuel crisis and future crises that may come up in Australia's future,' but I don't think it has done its job in justifying why this bill is needed and why the current framework is not adequate to deal with these things. Either the government is hiding something or this is just a really grotty power grab to make sure it can intervene in things that it probably shouldn't.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To reiterate, it was our view and it will continue to be our view that public scrutiny—because a Senate committee process is public—allows stakeholders, not just parliamentarians, not just senators themselves, to make contributions. A Senate inquiry would have added to the confidence around this particular legislation, because the risk now is that the legislation may pass with a much-diminished level of public confidence and a heightened level of public suspicion in regard to what this bill seeks to do. Our view, quite simply, was that a Senate inquiry would have tested whether the existing powers of the ACCC are genuinely inadequate, whether the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad, whether the ACCC's exemptions should be disallowable, whether transparency requirements are strong enough, whether the retrospective start date is justified, whether the powers are properly limited in time and scope and, finally, whether there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms. This is a very disappointing episode.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is too important for us to just roll over, have our tummies tickled and say, 'We'll give this a tick and flick.' We want to ensure that our constituencies are receiving the protections they deserve and that they demand from this important piece of legislation, from these permanent changes to the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am very concerned. I'm concerned that there does need to be interim powers provided to businesses to coordinate during a genuine crisis. The priority must be to get fuel, food and medicine into all parts and points of Australia. But this legislation does not provide for Australians to understand what problem they seek to solve. What problem is it that the government is seeking to use this sledgehammer to solve? I fear we will never know until it is demonstrated to us. Retrospective powers, rushed powers, non-disallowable powers—this is legislation that bears all the hallmarks of a dangerous intervention into the democratic rights and reviews that the parliament should hold and certainly that Australians believe in. Australians fought for the right to have a democracy such as ours, and we should do that right here today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I don't think they have explained the need for this bill. I don't think they have explained the need for retrospectivity. The coalition, as has been said by many speakers in this place, are absolutely willing to look at these kinds of powers. But it needs to be done in the cold, hard light of day, not in a secret deal with the Greens in some back room. That is unacceptable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge the Senate to vote for the amendment, to have a deeper look at this. This could almost pass on the voices if our concerns were met. They aren't anything out of the box. They aren't 'we hate this idea'. I will tell you that I've had my experiences with the ACCC in my previous engagement. I was involved in three court actions with them. In two they took us on and lost. In one they went in on something on our behalf even though we weren't thrilled with it, and they lost that too. So I'm not really thrilled with the ACCC's ability to hold people to account, but in this we'll see. I hope they have more success in the Woolworths action they've got now. But let's have a quick inquiry. Let's get this done and get it through as soon as possible.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Why is an inquiry needed? I get the bill is well intentioned, but it is giving significant new powers to the Treasurer and the ACCC. An inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Economics should test whether the ACCC's powers are generally inadequate, whether the Treasury's declaration for power is too broad, whether the ACCC authorisations should be disallowable, whether transparency requirements are strong enough, whether the retrospective start date is justified, whether the powers are properly limited in time and scope, and whether there should be strong sunset and review mechanisms.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“The Greens are not going to stand in the way of this bill. It ensures that people have access to essential goods and services in times of crisis. However, we do think the bill needs to have stronger safeguards in place to ensure that any exemptions from competition law that the ACCC grants to businesses are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That's why we are preparing and will circulate an amendment that requires any class exemption that the ACCC makes to be made via a disallowable instrument. This will allow the parliament to ensure that the ACCC has granted exemptions that are strictly in the public interest and are sufficiently narrowly targeted to support businesses to resolve the particular crisis or the particular exceptional circumstances but are not so broad as to constitute an unnecessary relaxation of our competition laws. We will not allow a crisis to be used as an excuse to give free rein to big corporations to avoid their competition responsibilities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“As I've been clear, I support measures that limit the impact of the current fuel crisis being faced by Australia and the world as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, but these powers are more enduring than the crisis of today. Where a framework already exists, powers are there and have been used and the case is not clear that reasonable or urgent action is being obstructed, I'm simply not convinced of this bill. I cannot support it until we have further scrutiny or indeed that we see sensible amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 27.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
