Tim Ayres

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Jonathon Duniam

I would like to speak on the motion to exempt the legislation entitled the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 from the cut-off order. Obviously, there are serious issues that our country faces when it comes to matters relating to this fuel crisis, which, let's not forget, the government told us just a couple of months ago wasn't happening—there was nothing to see here; we didn't need to worry about it—and urgent responses are always needed. But it is important when, as a country, trying to deal with matters in the national interest, we have a bipartisan approach to any solution to those issues, especially when it comes to significant changes to legislation.

As far as I'm aware, the opposition has not been given a huge amount of insight or forewarning or indeed detailed briefings around what this legislation is and the urgency for such legislation. If the legislation is to empower ministers to make decisions in certain circumstances to do things, then one only has to turn one's mind back to the issues confronted by our country during the COVID period. At that time, we had a minister who was able to authorise certain actions that enabled the government to do certain things with regard to AdBlue in this country. That did not require legislative change. The powers existed to enable the minister to do that.

The opposition does support appropriate measures to ensure that we have in place the right measures to deal with any issue confronted by this country, to ensure that Australian households and businesses are not unfairly hit. We will always support those measures, but proper process and scrutiny is necessary here. We have indicated to the government that we would be very willing to support, as I said, appropriate measures that are well thought through and appropriately designed. I understand we have an amendment relating to an inquiry into the legislation that we're talking about here.

We're not talking about delaying this. This is not about some unduly long process to send this off into the never-never. We could do this a very short period of time. It is to understand what the powers in this legislation that we have barely had a moment to look at actually do and what solutions will be provided to the Australian people. To enable a parliament to do its job and properly scrutinise this legislation is the appropriate course of action, I think. I would very much welcome any indication from the government whether they are open to such an approach—to allow the parliament, while we're sitting this week, to undertake such scrutiny. We could properly interrogate this legislation. It is my understanding that Senator Canavan does have a second reading amendment relating to an inquiry. Obviously, the Senate will divide on this question of whether we do exempt from the cut-off. The opposition's position on that will be to oppose that on the basis that, at this point in time, we have not been provided with clarity around the necessity, the scope, the implications. We do not want to delete things unnecessarily; we are just asking for proper process to be followed here. We are willing to cooperate, and please give us those elements of information and supports we need to be able to cooperate properly for a good outcome.

Tim Ayres

I might just set out the rationale for this procedure. The first thing to say is, in a substantial sense, this must be dealt with and finalised today or tomorrow. That is the nature of the relationship between the sitting calendar and this set of issues. The rationale for that and the offer of briefings in this set of circumstances have been made to the opposition.

I want to set out what this bill does in order to, I hope, get people in this place to lift a little bit above the partisanship and politics which have characterised the opposition's approach to this set of questions since 2022. This bill supports the government's response to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which is of course impacting fuel prices, affecting Australian businesses in logistics, in the mining industry, and it is affecting ordinary Australians.

Schedule (1) to the bill creates new powers for the Treasurer and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to permit coordinated action during a crisis. In short form, our competition regulatory environment is designed to support maximum competition. What we require is the capacity, should the circumstances arise in those extraordinary circumstances, to make a declaration that those risks to the Australian economy, businesses and consumers, but which fall short of a declared national emergency, require the ACCC to be able to exercise new and streamlined powers to enable those kinds of coordinated responses which will be so important to providing for supply, particularly to regional Australia—particularly to regional Australia.

I think it is extraordinary, having explained that to the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation, that they would contemplate some inquiry process that potentially means that that approach cannot be taken today or tomorrow. That is what is required here. I heard the reference to some of the challenges the previous government dealt with in the COVID context. We can't be prisoners of the past here. What is required here is for a very different set of circumstances.

While the ACCC can make some interim decisions quickly, the legislative requirements, particularly those in relation to consultation and very high thresholds for satisfaction of the ACCC, make the existing class exemption and authorisation powers too slow and inflexible for fast-evolving situations inside the economy that are the result of nothing that Australians, Australian businesses or the Australian government have done but external impacts on the Australian economy. It is too challenging for the ACCC to do what is required to authorise conduct and to respond to economy-wide shocks in a timely manner. It is too difficult. It is too high a threshold. For example, it took more than six months for the ACCC to deliver a final authorisation for supermarkets to coordinate grocery supplies in 2020.

We should actually have a little bit of an adult approach to this set of issues. It has been explained to the coalition. Now is the time to drop the partisanship, the ideology and the resorting to anger and oppositionalism that has got them into the mess that they are in in political terms. They have been the authors of their own destruction.

Matthew Canavan

Drop the partisanship? I'm going to be really partisan!

Tim Ayres

I'm trying to help you understand. You are burying leader after leader. You are doing it again. You got yourselves into the pickle that you were in last Saturday by continuing to take the partisanship approach that you have taken. I'm just saying to you that Australians reward oppositions that act in the national interest. That's what they want to see in their politics. That's what they want to see in their parliament. It's about time you got the message. I urge the Senate to support the motion that I outlined before.

Matthew Canavan

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Maria Kovacic

Leave is granted for one minute.

Matthew Canavan

I will quickly make the point to the Senate that the minister's argument is completely undermined by the fact that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 is retrospective. The minister just got up and said that they need this bill to take action in the next few weeks to secure fuel supply. If it is the case that that's the reason for this bill, why is it retrospective to 1 April? Those things have already happened. There is no urgency to exempt potentially anticompetitive conduct that happened over the past couple of months with a bill that rushes through and completely exempts a major change from the normal review practices of this place. We are happy to work with the government to fix something in the future. We are less happy to absolve the government or any other major corporation from bad behaviour they might have had in the last few weeks. We can consider that with more time. We should have more time. I'm happy to. I've even suggested the government have a quick snap inquiry today. Let's get the ACCC in. We deserve to hear from them, because these powers are very extraordinary and much broader than just the fuel situation we face today.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Ayres be agreed to.

Ross Cadell

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27, relating to Treasury advice concerning first home buyers, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025,

(ii) on 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 119, relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025,

(iii) since those orders were agreed to, the Senate has agreed to a further 8 motions concerning the minister's failure to comply with the orders, rejected a public interest immunity claim raised by the Minister for Housing and required a minister to attend the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders on 4 separate occasions,

(iv) most recently, on 25 March 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attended the Senate to provide a second explanation of the failure to comply with order for the production of documents no. 119 or to respond in full to the order,

(v) the additional explanation provided by the minister was not satisfactory and did not address the minister's failure to comply with the order, and

(vi) the orders have still not been fully complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate immediately following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75 on Tuesday, 12 May 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the orders or to respond in full to the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 476, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

I will now put the suspension motion. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Migration Amendment (Combating Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

Long debate text truncated.

Larissa Waters

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3767, which has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander translating and interpreting services industry must be independently recognised and strengthened as well as led, developed and delivered by First Nations Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and practitioners, as enshrined in the upcoming new National Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interpreting and Translating".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3767 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander translating and interpreting services industry must be independently recognised and strengthened as well as led, developed and delivered by First Nations Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and practitioners, as enshrined in the upcoming new National Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interpreting and Translating".

Sue Lines

We'll now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Australia's Voice. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3724 be agreed to.

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) access to qualified interpreters is essential to equitable access to healthcare, justice and government services,

(ii) gaps in interpreter services contribute to adverse health outcomes, reduced access to justice and reduced access to government services,

(iii) the translating and interpreting workforce is largely migrant and feminised and experiences insecure work arrangements,

(iv) government procurement practices may contribute to downward pressure on interpreter pay and conditions, and

(v) interpreter workforce sustainability is critical to the delivery of essential government services; and

(b) calls on the Government to develop a national framework for language access and workforce sustainability in the translating and interpreting sector".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3636 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) translation should be an essential service in a multicultural society, and

(ii) the Albanese Government has committed to the principles of the Multicultural Framework Review; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement the findings of the Multicultural Framework Review, released in 2024, as it relates to translation services, including:

(i) establishing a fully funded capacity within the existing Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) national business unit to deliver general interpreting and translation services with a core workforce of Australian Public Service staff, and

(ii) providing additional funding to the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) to address critical workforce quality and gaps, including within the TIS".

David Pocock

by leave—I note my support for sheet 3704 of the opposition's amendments.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Tyrrell. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3627 and 3628, in the name of Senator Tyrrell, be agreed to.

Senator Tyrrell's circulated amendments

SHEET 3627

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 19), omit subsection 19AABC(1), substitute:

Indefinite freeze in indexation

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies in relation to each CPI indexed draught beer rate as if the indexation factor were 1 for 1 August 2025 and each later indexation day.

Note: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged indefinitely.

_____

SHEET 3628

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 19), omit subsection 6L(1), substitute:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies in relation to each CPI indexed draught beer rate as if the indexation factor were 1 for 1 August 2025 and each later indexation day.

Note: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged indefinitely.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3660 ,_ _in the name of Senator David Pocock , be agreed to__.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert:

6M Temporary freeze in indexation for craft beer

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to craft beer and each CPI indexed non-draught beer rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2025;

(b) 1 February 2026;

(c) 1 August 2026;

(d) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged for the next 2 years.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed non-draught beer rate means a rate of duty set out in subitem 1.1, 1.5 or 1.10 of the Schedule.

craft beer means beer brewed by a member of the Independent Brewers Association or a similar not-for-profit organisation representing independent, local brewers with appropriate governance of member eligibility and conduct.

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3656 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the last Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimates that the beer excise will generate $2.7 billion in revenue over the 2025-26 financial year, while the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) is estimated to generate just $1.5 billion in revenue over the same period; and

(b) calls on the Government to get a fair deal on the sale and export of Australian gas by instituting a 25 per cent tax on LNG export revenue, which is estimated to generate $17 billion a year".