Andrew Leigh

I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran began on 28 February, our government has been responding to the biggest oil shock in history with a comprehensive plan to secure more fuel, strengthen supply chains, build resilience and take the sting out of prices. The government's Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package will deliver more fuel for drivers and industry, more fertiliser for farmers and more fuel security for the economy, with its centrepiece being immediate fuel supplies and a permanent Australian fuel security reserve to ensure we have the fuels and fertiliser we need.

Our government is helping businesses and manufacturers bolster supply chains through interest-free loans via the National Reconstruction Fund, along with incentives to shift more freight onto trains and ships. Targeted support for electric vehicles, more charging stations and heavy vehicle reform will strengthen our long-term fuel resilience, while the Cleaner Fuels Program and reforms to the low-carbon liquid fuels market will help Australia produce more fuel at home and support future demand.

We are reserving 20 per cent of gas exports for Australian users to increase domestic supply and lower prices, and we are advancing the Future Made in Australia agenda through the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve and investments in domestic smelting and manufacturing. We understand this crisis is adding to cost-of-living pressures, which is why we're more than halving the fuel excise, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero, putting petrol companies on notice by doubling the consumer watchdog's maximum penalties and ramping up enforcement and monitoring, giving businesses more leeway at tax time if they face fuel supply problems, and continuing to make it easier and quicker for small businesses to access credit when they need. It.

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.

Under schedule 1 of 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 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be able to exercise new, streamlined powers to enable coordinated responses to the crisis by businesses to complement the work of the government in protecting the Australian public and economy from the impact of the crisis.

These new powers are pre-emptive. They allow the minister to make a declaration enlivening the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers when there is a foreseeable harm and allow decisive cooperative action with the business community to prevent or mitigate that harm early. In the current situation, this could include businesses working together to minimise fuel usage to keep supply chain costs low for them and their consumers. Instead of reacting to fuel shortages, we can allow businesses to find innovative and collaborative solutions to prevent shortages.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission already can grant authorisations, and has done during the current situation and past crises. But this process is burdensome and slow, making it too inflexible to respond to the changing situations Australia may face during exceptional global or domestic circumstances. This new power will make it easier and faster for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and businesses to assist these vital efforts to respond to these circumstances, and future exceptional challenges the Australian economy faces.

Schedule 2 to the bill increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the Oil Code of Conduct. Under this bill, the regulations will be able to impose penalties on corporations in the oil industry up to the greater of $10 million, three times the value they derive from breaching the code, or 10 per cent of their last year of turnover. For persons other than corporations breaching the code, penalties of up to $500,000 will be available for contraventions. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will also be able to issue penalty notices of 600 penalty units to corporations for suspected breaches and 12 penalty units for other persons. For context, the value of a penalty unit is currently $330.

These changes mirror those introduced by the government in 2024 into the Competition and Consumer Act for breaches of the food and grocery code. They also complement recent action taken by the government to increase other penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act, and other action taken to address the supply and price of fuel in Australia. The bill will further discourage fuel companies seeking to flaunt their obligations under the Oil Code of Conduct, including those taking advantage of the conflict in the Middle East.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Kevin Hogan

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 and move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether:

(1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate;

(2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad;

(3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable;

(4) transparency requirements are strong enough;

(5) the retrospective start date is justified;

(6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and

(7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".

This bill has been considered in the Senate, and our House amendment aligns with the amendments we moved in the Senate.

Sometimes in this chamber the road to ruin is paved with good intention, and I actually understand the good intention of this bill and what it is seeking to potentially deal with. We obviously have a fuel supply issue in this country, and we are looking to make sure that fuel and other things like food and essential services get to where they need to get—and get there as quickly as possible. We will work to support measures that help manage this and protect households and small business. But we have some genuine concerns that this bill gives the ACCC significant new powers, and they're powers that I note weren't needed during COVID. Some of the supply issues that we have with fuel and many other products were certainly evident through COVID.

Given that the proposed government powers would be immune from Senate disallowance, have retrospective application and impact matters as serious as suspensions of competition law, these changes should not be done lightly. I make the general observation that, if there's something we need in this country more than anything else, it's better competition in most sectors. I think we could have better competition across just about every sector of our economy. That's what some of our concerns are about, and we want to—quite reasonably, we think—refer this to a committee to have a look at some of these issues and to make sure that they don't lessen competition in our community and our society, which would obviously not be good for the consumer. An inquiry by the parliament is the bare minimum, we think, when the government is asking for these powers. This bill also calls for the powers to be retrospectively backdated to 1 April 2026. But, on this side, we're not clear on why it needs to be retrospective. We think the government is limiting parliamentary scrutiny on this. This amendment would give parliament the courtesy of having scrutiny of the bill, a bill that will itself limit scrutiny in the real world.

This bill creates a new framework for exceptional circumstances. The Treasurer will be able to declare that exceptional circumstances exist, and this decision will be disallowable. Once that declaration is made, the ACCC can rapidly exempt conduct that may otherwise breach competition law, and their authorisations will be exempt from disallowance. We have some concerns around that, and we would like extra parliamentary scrutiny around this. This goes beyond the current fuel crisis as well. The Treasurer having this would not be limited to the current fuel crisis. We want to work constructively, but we want a proper inquiry.

The concern is that competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers, it protects small businesses and it stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition, so any exemption from competition law needs to be treated seriously. Yes, temporary coordination in a crisis may be necessary, but anticompetitive conduct must not become normal. This is the balance and why we want this inquiry to make sure parliament gets it right.

The government argue that the current authorisation framework is too slow and too restrictive, and they say that the disallowance and public consultation requirements can get in the way of a rapid crisis response. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: this current framework worked through COVID. It also appears to be working so far during the current fuel supply issue. It's appropriate that we take the time to test whether this framework has been drafted properly.

The Treasurer's power to declare exceptional circumstances is extremely broad. It's not confined to the fuel crisis. It can be used at any time the Treasurer so declares it. Once this is made, it opens the door to the ACCC exemptions from competition law. We are very cautious about any attempts to take away parliamentary scrutiny. Our inquiry should test whether the threshold is tight enough. It should also test whether the safeguards are strong enough.

The Treasurer's declaration can be disallowed by parliament, but the individual ACCC authorisations made after that declaration cannot be disallowed. A Senate amendment allowed class exemptions to be disallowable, but individual authorisations will not be. This is a significant issue. It means that parliament can reject the broad declaration, but it cannot directly disallow the specific exemptions that may affect competition in particular markets. We believe this weakens parliamentary oversight.

The ACCC exemptions only need to be made public within seven days. In some circumstances, that may be understandable, but these exemptions can authorise conduct that would otherwise breach competition law. The public parliament and affected businesses should know what has been authorised as soon as possible. This parliament should test whether faster publication, notification and reporting is possible, and transparency should be built into the framework from the start.

As I said earlier, the bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. I'm not clear about the reason for that date. Retrospective lawmaking, as we know, should always be very rare. Retrospective competition law exemptions should require a clear and specific justification.

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.

I reiterate that we want to work constructively on measures that help manage this current fuel crisis. We support practical steps to protect households, small business and essential supply chains. But suspending competition law and giving the government powers that are immune from Senate disallowance should not be taken lightly. The government wants to limit parliamentary scrutiny. They don't want to give us the courtesy of scrutinising their bill, and we think they should.

Steve Georganas

Is the amendment seconded?

Garth Hamilton

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Long debate text truncated.

Summary

Date and time: 1:24 PM on 2026-05-25
Allegra Spender's vote: Aye
Total number of "aye" votes: 48
Total number of "no" votes: 94
Total number of abstentions: 7
Related bill: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026

Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au