Kevin Hogan

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Sunsetting of amendments

The amendments made by Schedules 1 and 2 are repealed on 2 July 2026.

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 2), omit "may", substitute "must not".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 20 to 22), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".

The amendments would remove the retrospective application of the bill. The government has introduced this bill with a 1 April 2026 retrospective start date, but we don't have any detail or any explanation of why that date is needed. We're happy to work constructively with the government on these issues, but this is a matter of competition law, and we don't know if there's been a breach of the law that the government is aware of. This amendment would remove the retrospectivity of the law. The amendments would also introduce a sunset clause to the bill. The changes to the bill would sunset on 2 July 2026. This would allow for the bill to be passed, a proper inquiry to occur and then the legislation to remove the sunset clause if appropriate. We are trying to be constructive. We are willing to support this bill, even without an inquiry, if it is not retrospective and has a sensible sunset clause.

Andrew Leigh

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The world is facing the largest shock to oil supply that we have seen in world history. In response to that, the government is putting in place unprecedented measures in order to ensure that fuel supply flows and to put downward pressure on fuel prices. This is part of the armoury of the government's response. It is important that it have the breadth as outlined in the bill and that it be able to take effect as outlined. These are important measures which will help consumers by ensuring that there can be coordinated action where it is to the benefit of motorists but not where it is to the detriment of motorists. I commend the unamended bill to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.

Phillip Thompson

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's broken promise to ration allied health services for veterans at $5,000 per year. How many veterans will be out of pocket and forced to pay for another Labor broken promise because the Prime Minister has chosen to rip the guts out of allied health services for our veterans?

Anthony Albanese

I'll make a couple of points before I hand over to the minister. One of the things I'm really conscious of is support for our veterans. Indeed, when we came to office, one of the reasons why the member for Calare is sitting up there and not over there—apart from having the good common sense to leave National Party—is what they did to veterans affairs when they were in government in terms of budget. When we came to government, we inherited a backlog of almost 42,000 veteran compensation claims that hadn't even been looked at by someone. This had real-life consequences for veterans and their families. We invested in DVA, and, as a result, now when a veteran makes a claim it's in front of someone within 14 days. DVA is processing claims at record levels. This is the most critical thing—as well as the hubs that we've created providing services for veterans. I'll ask the minister if he wants to add something.

Matt Keogh

Thank you, Prime Minister. The budget contained an additional $169.7 million to increase the fees going to allied health providers to support our veterans. This is the biggest increase in two decades and will kick in in July 2027. It's going to see physiotherapy services go from being paid $75.10 to $110 so veterans can access better services. The previous government had implemented their treatment cycle to constrain access to allied health services, so veterans had to keep going back to a GP after every 12 sessions. We're changing that to the $5,000 limit to make it easier for veterans, and, importantly, we're ensuring that veterans that have a genuine clinical need to go over it will continue to have access to the allied health services that they require.

Milton Dick

Has the minister concluded his answer?

Matt Keogh

No.

Milton Dick

Resume your seat so I can hear from the member for Herbert on his point of order.

Phillip Thompson

I seek leave to table the recommendation from the royal commission. Veterans deserve better than these Albanese Labor lies. These are lies that you are peddling. It is ridiculous.

Milton Dick

Before we go any further, we'll get the Leader of the House to pause a moment, and we're going to get the member for Herbert to withdraw that last comment.

Phillip Thompson

I'm not withdrawing at all. People will die because of this legislation. It is disgusting.

Milton Dick

Order! No. The Leader of the Opposition has followed my direction on two occasions. I'm going to ask the member for Herbert to withdraw to follow the forms of the House.

Phillip Thompson

I'm not withdrawing.

Milton Dick

I'll have to deal with this matter. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Dan Tehan

Speaker, to help with this matter, in your ruling last week you said:

I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term.

There is precedent where the now minister for health—I think he was the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business at the time—referred to 'government lies'. As I was listening to the member for Herbert, he referred to the 'Albanese Labor government's lies'. At the time, the now minister for home affairs, then the Manager of Opposition Business, said this in defence of what the now minister for health said: 'On that point—

Government members interjecting—

I'm just trying to do my best to help here. The then manager of opposition business said:

On that point, the phrase, with respect to Labor, has been used many times …

Speaker, I'm just trying to help. I think the member for Herbert was referring to the Albanese Labor government.

Milton Dick

Yes, and Speaker Snedden in 1980 ruled that such a remark was out of order. We can dance around this all we want. The Leader of the Opposition did follow my direction and assisted the House, as every other member has done. I know the member for Herbert is taking a different position here, but we need to be consistent, as all speakers have done, regarding that word. There are countless examples that I can talk about of individuals or people, but we're not going down that path with me as Speaker. We're simply not going to travel that path. I'll give the member for Herbert one more chance to assist the House and withdraw. The Prime Minister.

Anthony Albanese

Perhaps I can help. I have every respect for the member for Herbert as a former veteran, as we all do. But I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his member to withdraw in accordance with—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

We're going to deal with this one at a time. The Prime Minister.

Anthony Albanese

I am trying to find a way through here in the interests of the decorum of the House. It is very important, and it is in the interests of the member for Herbert as well. I have visited his electorate with him, and I know that he's passionate about these issues. But it really is in the interests of the decorum of the House. You cannot reach a point where you have the Speaker's ruling be defied.

Milton Dick

The member for Herbert is refusing to withdraw that comment. That leaves me with no other choice but to name the member for Herbert.

Tony Burke

I move:

That the Member for Herbert be suspended from the service of the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the member for Herbert be suspended from the service of the House.

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.

Carol Berry

Reliable telephone and internet services are key to all aspects of life in today's world. Telecommunications is an essential service as critical as other core utilities like power and water, and, at its best, it enables Australians to fully participate in and contribute to society. Modern telecommunications allows people to stay connected with friends and family, and, importantly, this includes overcoming barriers that may be created by age and distance. It provides access to important government services, including vital health services as well as banking and retail shopping services. It empowers us to stay informed about what's happening in the world, and it assists businesses to become more productive and competitive.

Modern telecommunications enables remote study and work, revolutionising both education and labour—a shift that has accelerated and become entrenched since the COVID-19 pandemic. This change in the way we live and work has placed even greater importance and reliance on telecommunications. Telecommunications is fundamental to our private and public lives, and that is why the Albanese government is committed to keeping Australians connected no matter where they live. This government also believes that Australians deserve a telecommunications system that is fair, accountable and built on trust. That is why we introduced the telecommunications financial hardship industry standard, which requires telecommunications providers to take all reasonable steps to proactively identify customers who may be experiencing financial hardship, to ensure they provide appropriate support and to prioritise keeping customers connected. Importantly, the standard provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, with strong enforcement powers to ensure telecommunications companies are following through on their obligations.

The Albanese government also established a mandatory telecommunications industry standard to further protect Australians impacted by domestic and family violence. The domestic, family and sexual violence industry standard, which came into effect on 1 July last year, ensures victims-survivors receive better support from their telecommunications provider and removes barriers faced when seeking help. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 was amended last year to establish a scams prevention framework that places consistent obligations on the telecommunications, banking and digital platform sectors to prevent, detect and disrupt scams.

The Albanese government recently took action to strengthen our triple zero system following two Optus outages that affected these vital services in September 2025. The first outage resulted in the failure of over 600 triple zero calls, mostly in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Tragically, three failed calls may be linked to deaths. The second outage resulted in at least nine triple zero calls from the Dapto area—which is in my electorate of Whitlam—failing to reach emergency services. Thankfully, welfare checks confirmed all those who called triple zero during this second outage were okay. These unacceptable outages are being investigated by the independent regulator, and the Albanese government has taken action to strengthen oversight of the triple zero system through legislation.

The new laws give the triple zero custodian the power to demand information from telecommunications providers through ACMA so it can monitor triple zero performance, identify risks, respond more quickly to outages and make improvements. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty faced by telcos to $30 million for failing to follow the triple zero rules. Other actions taken by the Albanese government to strengthen the triple zero system include real-time reporting of outages to ACMA and emergency services; new rules forcing telcos to test triple zero during upgrades and maintenance; new requirements for providers to ensure triple zero calls fall back to other networks; mandatory improvement after triple zero outages; additional performance requirements, to be issued by the custodian, through ACMA, to telcos within six months of the commencement of the laws to assure Australians of best practice; and a public register of network outages, to be maintained by telcos.

The Albanese government's implementation of the legislative amendments and new standards that I've outlined confirm that we understand the critical role telecommunications plays in today's world and that consumers must be protected. The bill currently before the House, the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill, continues this positive work by equipping ACMA with the tools and powers it needs to protect Australian consumers from poor and harmful telecommunications practices.

This bill will result in several important changes. First, it increases the civil penalties the Federal Court can issue for breaches of industry codes and industry standards by 40 times. Currently, civil penalties for breaches of industry codes and industry standards are not in line with the harm that can be caused or high enough to deter noncompliance.

The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to increase the maximum general civil penalty for breaches of industry codes and industry standards from $250,000 to 30,300 penalty units—which is currently equivalent to just under $10 million—to align with penalties currently available for breaches of service provider determinations. The amendments also modernise the penalty framework for industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations to allow for penalties based on the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct or the turnover of the relevant provider, allowing for penalties greater than $10 million. The Federal Court will now have the option to issue fines for regulatory breaches, which can include $10 million fines, three times the benefit gained from the regulatory breach, or 30 per cent of turnover. This penalty framework better aligns with those in other relevant sectors like energy and banking, and, under Australian Consumer Law, it more adequately reflects the telecommunications market and the varying size of the entities engaged in the market, ranging from small to medium businesses to very large companies, allowing the Federal Court to determine the appropriate penalty imposed on an entity for a breach. The bill also expands and clarifies the Minister for Communications' authority to increase infringement notice penalties that ACMA can issue for breaches of industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations.

This bill establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme. Under the Telecommunications Act, there is a distinction between carriers, which operate telecommunication networks and infrastructure, and carriage service providers, or CSPs, which provide a range of telecommunications services such as phone or internet access. Currently, only carriers are required to be licensed and registered with ACMA, and there is no comprehensive list of carriage service providers operating in the market. This omission hampers ACMA's efforts to proactively educate carriage service providers about their obligations and target compliance and enforcement activity.

In September 2023, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts released a discussion paper concerning whether a CSP registration or licensing scheme should be developed for the telecommunications industry. The paper noted:

… there has traditionally been a low barrier to enter the telecommunications market as a CSP. This low barrier has enabled a large and diverse market for the supply of telecommunications services. However, some stakeholders have argued it has also allowed some providers to operate in a manner that causes significant consumer detriment … The market is open and competitive, with a significant number of CSPs—with estimates there may be approximately 1,500 'eligible CSPs' and a much larger number of general CSPs. Telecommunications have become firmly entrenched as an essential service in general life and commerce. Against this backdrop, it is appropriate to revisit fundamental aspects of the framework, including whether CSPs should be covered by a registration or licensing scheme.

The discussion paper noted that both Canada and Singapore operate telecommunications service provider registers or licence systems, and it outlined arguments in favour of a CSP registration/licensing scheme that included 'increasing visibility of CSPs operating in the market', which would assist regulatory agencies such as ACMA to provide education on CSP obligations, and 'facilitating an effective mechanism' for ACMA to stop CSPs that 'pose unacceptable risk to consumers, or cause significant consumer harm' operating in the market.

Establishing a CSP registration scheme will increase visibility of the market and stop the operation of dodgy CSPs who pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or cause significant consumer harm. It will also give ACMA and other government agencies the ability to educate providers, streamline complaints and compliance process, and create better overall market accountability. In the energy sector, the Australian Energy Regulator has the power to exclude energy retailers from the market, and it has used this power to quickly prevent and stop consumer harm. ACMA's power to exclude CSPs from the market is expected to be used as a measure of last resort, with suitable arrangements for a review of decisions, avenues for reregistration and maintaining connectivity for impacted consumers. Importantly, this reform means CSPs that are doing the wrong thing will face consequences, and consumers will be better protected.

Another amendment in this bill will make telecommunications industry codes directly enforceable by ACMA. This will incentivise industry compliance and enable the regulator to take swift action to address consumer harm. ACMA currently cannot take direct enforcement action for breaches of the industry codes it has registered under the act. Compliance is, initially, technically voluntary. If a breach is found, ACMA can direct a provider to comply with the code or issue a formal warning. ACMA can only take stronger enforcement action if the provider continues its noncompliance—that is, it fails to observe ACMA's direction to comply.

The bill introduces amendments to part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to make compliance with industry codes mandatory and remove the need for ACMA to direct a particular participant to comply with the code in the first instance. These reforms will ensure ACMA is an empowered and effective regulator and that appropriate structures are in place to drive better behaviour by telecommunications companies.

In supporting this bill, I believe that it is important to note that the Albanese government is delivering on a more connected Australia by investing in regional connectivity. This includes $50 million for Regional Roads Australia Mobile Program pilot programs, with $10 million invested in my home state of New South Wales. These pilot programs test new and innovative solutions to increase mobile communications coverage on regional highways and major roads.

Round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program awarded over $115 million towards 74 projects that respond to local priorities, with the objective of maximising economic opportunities and social benefits for regional, rural and remote communities. This includes $7.4 million towards seven projects targeting improved connectivity for First Nations communities in central Australia from a dedicated central Australia stream.

Two successful rounds of the On Farm Connectivity Program have provided over $30 million in rebates, delivering thousands of connectivity solutions for primary producers, and $20 million has been committed to round 3 of this program. In addition, the $55 million round 8 of the Mobile Black Spot Program is under assessment.

It is essential that all Australians, regardless of their individual circumstances, are able to access and use telecommunications services. Contemporary consumer safeguards and industry obligations should reflect the role of telecommunications as an essential service, especially as businesses, governments and other organisations increasingly shift to online interaction platforms. This bill strengthens the safeguards that protect consumers and cracks down on telecommunications providers who mistreat customers. It ensures telecommunications providers meet community expectations by acting in good faith, providing reliable services and supporting customers. If they don't do these things, they will be accountable to the regulator. These are important reforms, and I commend this bill to the House.

Long debate text truncated.

Kate Chaney

by leave—I move amendments 1 to 3 as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 122.4(1)(d), substitute:

(d) the communication of the information harms, or the person intends or is reckless as to whether the communication harms, an essential public interest.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A After section 122.4 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

122.4AA Meaning of essential public interest

(1) For the purposes of section 122.4, each of the following is an essential public interest:

(a) the security or defence of Australia;

(b) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of a criminal offence against a law of the Commonwealth;

(c) the health or safety of the Australian public or a significant section of the Australian public;

(d) the effective functioning of the Australian financial system or a significant part of it;

(e) the protection of individual privacy or personal information held by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity.

Note: This list is not exhaustive. A court may find that a communication harms an essential public interest in other circumstances having regard to the nature and importance of the interest affected and the gravity of the harm caused or intended.

(2) For the purposes of this section, harms an essential public interest includes:

(a) actual damage to that interest; and

(b) damage that is reasonably likely to result from the communication.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 122.4(d):

(a) a person intends to harm an essential public interest if the person means to bring about harm to that interest, or knows that harm to that interest will occur in the ordinary course of events; and

(b) a person is reckless as to whether the communication harms an essential public interest if the person is aware of a substantial risk that the communication will harm such an interest, and it is unjustifiable in the circumstances to take that risk.

Note: The fault elements in subsection (3) are consistent with the definitions of intention and recklessness in sections 5.2 and 5.4 of the Criminal Code. Those provisions apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this section.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it:

(a) reveals wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability by a Commonwealth entity or official; or

(b) is made in the course of, or for the purposes of, journalism in the public interest.

(3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 21 (after line 26), after section 123.6, insert:

123.6A Review of section 123.6 (Attorney-General consent to prosecution of journalists)

(1) The Attorney-General must cause an independent review of the operation of section 123.6 to be conducted:

(a) within 5 years after the commencement of section 123.6; and

(b) within 5 years after the completion of each preceding review under this section.

(2) The review must consider:

(a) the effectiveness of section 123.6 in protecting press freedom and safeguarding the prosecution of journalists for secrecy offences; and

(b) the number of applications for consent received under section 123.6 during the review period, and the outcome of each such application; and

(c) whether the consent requirement adequately balances the public interest in protecting national security and other sensitive information with the public interest in press freedom and the free flow of information; and

(d) any developments in Australian or international law relevant to the protection of journalists in the context of secrecy and national security legislation; and

(e) whether any amendments to section 123.6 or the broader secrecy framework are necessary or desirable.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person or body that:

(a) is independent of the Commonwealth; and

(b) has appropriate expertise in matters of press freedom, criminal law, and national security.

The new secrecy offence in this bill turns on whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a use or communication of information was improper, a concept that's undefined and dangerously vague. 'Improper' is not a harm but a broad, uncertain standard of conduct that no independent reviewer recommended. The government's own independent reviewer, the INSLM, has been clear: any new general offence should be harm based and directed to essential public interests, with criminal sanctions reserved for disclosures that cannot be adequately addressed through administrative or contractual means. The government agreed in principle with the INSLM's harm based approach, and this provision doesn't reflect that agreement.

My amendments (1) and (2) will address this. They replace the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends to harm or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendments define essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that courts may recognise others as well. Critically, the amendments also make clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence.

Amendment (3) addresses the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as the final safeguard at all. Amendment (3), therefore, requires a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remains necessary, with findings reported to parliament and a required government response to any recommendations.

Open government is a condition of democratic accountability. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it must remain the exception and it must be justified by reference to real harm to real public interests. I urge the government to consider my amendments: making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests, and including a five-year review to make sure that the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and I commend these amendments to the House.

Michelle Rowland

I thank the member for Curtin. I acknowledge the constructive approach she has taken to moving these amendments and note her long advocacy for reform in this area.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. First, the proposed amendment to change the harm threshold is inconsistent with the recommendations of the AGD secrecy review, which recommended a broader offence that captured disclosures prejudicial to the working of government, including scenarios akin to the PwC incident. The proposed amendment would not sufficiently close gaps in secrecy laws that were identified following the PwC incident. The essential public interests in the list contained in the proposed amendments are matters covered by other general secrecy offences in the Criminal Code and in specific secrecy offences in other legislation.

Secondly, notwithstanding the importance of establishing clear and robust safeguards around the prosecution of journalists, the government is not convinced that a periodic review as contemplated by the amendment is necessary given the infrequency with which secrecy offences are prosecuted. An independent statutory review is costly, and a five-yearly review may not present particularly useful insights for the parliament.

The government remains committed to improving protections for press freedom and will consider whether further amendments are necessary in the future.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.

Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment of the motion moved for the second reading of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question we're dealing with is whether the amendment moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.

Michelle Rowland

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.

Jason Clare

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This bill establishes the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the ATEC, which is a key recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord. In supporting the amendments that have been made to the bill by the Senate, I acknowledge in particular Senator Faruqi and Senator Pocock in the other place, as well as the member for Curtin and the member for Kooyong in the House of Representatives, for the work that they have done and their engagement in the development of this bill.

The amendments that we will now consider that were made in the Senate will allow the ATEC to initiate its own advice to ministers. They'll strengthen the ATEC's role in providing advice on research and research training. They'll allow the minister to appoint at least one and up to three commissioners on a part-time basis, in addition to the chief commissioner and the First Nations commissioner. They recognise the public good of higher education to Australia and the importance of academic freedom in the objects of the bill. They require the ATEC to establish a committee to provide advice and recommendations to the minister in relation to the Higher Education Standards Framework and ensure that the committee have appropriate expertise in higher education. All of these amendments are sensible, and I commend them to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Tim Wilson

We're very happy to see that this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, is being debated, though we're very disappointed that the government has gone through a shambled process, to introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 this morning. They have tried to force it through the parliament before anyone in the entire country has read it. The Leader of the House understands full well the scale of the legislation he is trying to introduce, and he is now trying to ram it through the parliament on the basis that he has no interest in the opposition or anyone outside this parliament scrutinising it. It's a very dangerous precedent.

This is in comparison to the schedules that are being updated in the context of the Competition and Consumer Act which are focused very squarely on making sure penalties are imposed on those who seek to price gouge or harm Australians. It's a straightforward exercise that they have dawdled on every step of the way. The response from the minister has been to not bring the legislation to the House, to bring it to a vote to resolve the matter and to up the penalties, but instead he has allowed time to drift. We are simply asking that that matter, which is simple, straightforward and clear, be resolved. Instead, what the government is now doing is a shambolic process to try and shut down parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. I'll remind the House this Fair Work legislation was introduced this morning. A copy has not even, as far as I am aware, been made available to the opposition—or, if it has, we certainly haven't had the chance to read it yet. When you're making such substantial changes to industrial relations legislation—and I know the Labor Party works for the trade union movement; it doesn't work for Australians—at some point you actually have to factor Australians into the conversation.

We hope and pray sanity prevails and that the government is proportionate and reasonable. They announced the changes in the ACCC bill well over a week ago. There was a lot of fanfare from the Treasurer. I understand why there was a lot of fanfare from the Treasurer, because they need to be seen to be taking action given the context and time. We have been waiting patiently for the legislation. It finally arrived, it is straightforward and simple, and that's why we have no issue debating it. We do have a problem when the government announces legislation and essentially gives no real insight into its detail—and its detail matters. They have stapled it on to the motion for another bill and forced the debate on it, and the consequence is that it's not just that the opposition who will not have the chance to scrutinise it; the Australian people won't have the chance to scrutinise it. Of course, there will be no chance for those people who understand this legislation to step through it one by one.

But let's deal with the legislation now at hand, particularly the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. There is a simple reality out there in Australia: Australians are desperately trying to find a pathway forward to be able to afford fuel. In this House we have gone through multiple stages of crisis, from complete denial, by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on Monday, that there is a problem to on Thursday declaring a national crisis in this nation's parliament. As a consequence, Australians are now living the full consequences of a fuel crisis that stems from government denial. If they had taken it more seriously with a sense of urgency and prudence, we wouldn't be in a situation where residents in the electorate are now paying somewhere around $2.50 for unleaded and up to $3.50 for diesel. This is a huge problem that Australians are living with now, in the lead-up to Easter and over Saturday with sport, in being able to drive around the electorates of the country. The challenge for Australian households right now is they do not want to see price gouging impacting them.

In the lead-up to the bill being presented before the parliament, I understand that we unintentionally misled the House, because I understand that the Treasurer did offer a briefing to the office, but it was not relayed to me. This is a simple error, and so I want to correct the record.

Jo Briskey

What we have just heard from those opposite is not a genuine attempt to help struggling Australians. It is a blatant political tactic dressed up as concern. The coalition comes into this place claiming to stand for households under pressure and to speak for families doing it tough, but, when it has mattered, where have they been over the last three years? They have consistently voted against every single cost-of-living relief measure that we have put through this parliament. When there is real opportunity to act in the national interest, they always abandon responsibility and reach straight for fear, distortion and political gain.

They want Australians to believe that they're on their side, but Australians can see right through it. Instead, what we see is that the opposition are more interested in the headlines than in outcomes—more interested in exploiting a global crisis than in responding to it responsibly. We see that plainly in the way that they have approached this very debate. There is a well-established convention in this place: government legislation is introduced and then time is provided—typically around a week—before the second reading debate proceeds. That time exists for a reason. It allows the opposition to properly scrutinise legislation, to consult stakeholders and to engage in good-faith consideration of the detail. That is how this parliament is supposed to work. They have rushed into this debate to manufacture outrage and urgency rather than to do the work responsibly. This is just a stunt. It is not about helping Australians; it is about politics, plain and simple.

At a time when there is conflict unfolding in the Middle East, when global energy markets are under pressure and when Australians are, understandably, watching closely, leadership matters. Australians deserve calm, clear, factual information. They do not deserve an opposition trying to manufacture fear for their own political gain.

The Albanese government has introduced this legislation—to up penalties at the petrol pump, as well as making it better, easier and fairer for our trucking industry—for a very clear reason: to help consumers get a fair go and to support our trucking industry. The conflict overseas should never be used as an excuse to profit from Australians. That is why we are putting petrol companies on notice. We will not let big corporations treat Australian consumers like mugs. We are calling on the opposition to support this bill because this is about holding companies to account when they do the wrong thing.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 doubles the maximum penalties for serious breaches of competition and consumer law from $50 million to $100 million per offence for false or misleading conduct or cartel behaviour across the country. We have already acted in this space. We increased penalties fivefold to up to $50 million and strengthened the powers of the ACCC, including extending petrol price monitoring enabling on-the-spot fines. But this legislation goes further. It ensures even bigger penalties for servos and suppliers who are ripping off Australian motorists.

It sits alongside a broader package of action we are taking to address fuel affordability and security. We are boosting fuel supply by releasing 20 per cent of the baseline minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel. We are getting more fuel into the market by temporarily amending fuel standards. We are working with the ACCC to ensure fuel gets to where it is needed, particularly in regional communities, and ramping up fuel price monitoring. And we are engaging with our international partners to strengthen supply chains and fuel security. This is a comprehensive, practical response to a challenging global environment.

The recent conflict in the Middle East has increased uncertainty. Australians are not immune to it. Our job, though, is to respond responsibly, to protect consumers, to ensure that volatility is not used as a cover for misconduct. That's what this legislation does. The government's priorities are clear. We are focused on addressing inflation, lifting productivity and navigating global uncertainty. Ensuring fairer petrol prices, stronger fuel supply chains and fairer deals for our trucking industry is a key part of this work.

These bills are about fairness. They are about accountability and making sure Australians get a fair go. Those opposite can continue their political games, but this government will continue doing what Australians expect: acting in the national interest, protecting consumers and delivering real practical outcomes. I commend the bills to the House.

Dan Tehan

Well, we've seen this morning what this government is all about when it comes to dealing with the national fuel crisis. It is all about politics; it's not about real solutions for the Australian people. We put forward a motion this morning about bringing forward the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026. The government has been saying, for over two weeks, that they wanted that bill passed and passed quickly. So we offered true bipartisanship to get that bill on the papers, get it debated and passed through this House today. What did the government do in response? It attached another bill to this motion, a bill which was only introduced into the parliament this morning—that is, they do not want any scrutiny of it whatsoever. It's pure political game scoring, pure political game playing. This is the problem with this government in a national fuel crisis. It's all about the politics. It's not about what's happening out in the community at the moment.

Why did we want to bring on the ACCC bill? It is because we saw the bill introduced—the shadow Treasurer spent all of last night looking at it. It is a very simple bill. It increases fines. We checked it, we double-checked it, and we thought: 'Okay, there's nothing complex about this bill. It's a very simple bill—'

Phillip Thompson

Nothing sneaky in it.

Dan Tehan

'There's nothing sneaky in it. Let's just get it through the parliament.' But the government just cannot operate in a bipartisan way. It always has to play politics. So what does it do? You get the Leader of the House coming in and saying, 'I'm going to attach this very complex bill to it as well.' It was introduced this morning—no briefings, no nothing. Why is it that you want to play politics during a national fuel crisis?

I say this, and I'm sure the people in the gallery will understand this: people in the community at the moment are deeply, deeply concerned with what is happening with this national fuel crisis. They're seeing bombs being dropped. They're seeing energy infrastructure being damaged. They've seen the price of diesel in this country hit $3.20. They've seen the price of petrol hit $2.60. They've seen the government say there's more fuel in the Australian economy than there was before the start of the war, and they just want to know: why, then, isn't the fuel getting to where it needs to get to, and why has the fuel price gone through the roof?

One of the things that's a really important part of this process is that, if people are price gouging, if people are hoarding fuel, then we need the ACCC to be able to look at it. If there are increased penalties to stop those things from happening, that's critically important, because mums and dads then won't be facing choices like, 'Okay, how many Easter eggs do I get?' versus, 'Can I afford that roast lamb to have for Easter Sunday?' This is what we're talking about here.

We made an offer of bipartisanship to say: 'The ACCC bill is very simple. Let's get it through the House into the Senate.' Yet what do we get? Once again, all you want to do is play politics. I ask you to please remember what is happening out there in the community. People are hurting. People are concerned. People are worried. They're worried about the secondary impacts of this fuel crisis. They're wondering about what it's going to mean for when they go into the supermarket—what it's going to mean for vegetable prices and what it's going to mean for meat prices. They worry every time they go and fill the car up: 'That $100 note or that $50 note—how many litres is it now going to get me? It won't get me enough.'

You have the Leader of the House come in here and say: 'Aren't I clever! I'll attach this bill I've introduced today to yours, and we won't let anyone be able to scrutinise it. That's clever, politically, isn't it! Ha-ha! Aren't I great!' Well, I say this to the government: that's not what the Australian people want to see at this time. There's a simple bill which will make a difference. Let's pass that, then let's look at the other bill. Let's have briefings. Let's look at that one properly. This game playing is treating the Australian people with contempt, and you should be ashamed.

Long debate text truncated.