Shadow Portfolio — 13 May 2026

Senator Susan McDonald used two consecutive days of Senate debate to prosecute a coordinated defence of Australia's resource and business regulatory settings, targeting both proposed gas tax increases and the competition powers framework embedded in the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. The through-line across both days is a consistent opposition posture: resist executive overreach, protect small businesses and regional communities, and challenge the credentials of those pushing for policy change [TA-260512-senate-e62ae0e7f193:s085].

On 12 May, McDonald focused on the gas sector, arguing that higher gas taxes risk shrinking Australia's share of global LNG investment from 40 percent to 15 percent — a decline she said would cost jobs and royalty revenue. She rejected activist claims that Australia imports gas, stating the country imports none, and named the Sunrise Project and KR Foundation as foreign-funded organisations pursuing an agenda to shut down fossil-fuel investment [TA-260512-senate-e62ae0e7f193:s085].

The attack on activist funding sources is a distinct messaging element, framing the opposition to gas not as domestic policy debate but as externally financed disruption.

On 13 May, McDonald shifted to competition law, opposing the bill's removal of Senate review rights over ACCC authorisations. Her core argument was that the bill concentrates non-disallowable power in the Treasurer, bypassing parliamentary oversight entirely [TA-260513-senate-d4ffca432415:s017]. She used the 2022 Cairns flood as a concrete illustration: competition exemptions granted during that crisis benefited large retailers while local small businesses were cut off from supply — a precedent she argued should make the Senate more cautious, not less.

She questioned the government's urgency claim by pointing to ACCC data showing interim authorisations were processed within one business day during COVID, undercutting the case that streamlined executive powers are operationally necessary [TA-260513-senate-d4ffca432415:s017].

The two interventions are strategically linked. Both attack what McDonald characterises as the removal of checks — Senate oversight in one case, competitive market discipline in the other — while positioning the opposition as the defender of small and regional businesses against decisions made by large institutions with insufficient accountability. The cross-portfolio dimension is notable: the competition bill objection is not framed purely as a consumer or market issue but explicitly as a Treasury overreach problem, with the non-disallowable Treasurer power treated as the bill's central defect.

Policy staff should note that neither intervention advances a specific alternative legislative instrument; both are scrutiny-and-delay postures rather than affirmative policy proposals.