Shadow Portfolio — 26 March 2026

Senator Chandler used the Senate's second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 to prosecute a dual argument: that the Coalition will not block tougher enforcement, but that the bill misdiagnoses the problem it purports to solve [TA-260326-senate-fe3f4b93a2a8:s087]. The central claim is that the legislation is a reactive measure dressed as reform — the government acted too late, and doubling penalties will neither increase fuel supply nor bring down prices that Senator Chandler placed at around $2.50 a litre for petrol and over $3 a litre for diesel in many regions [TA-260326-senate-fe3f4b93a2a8:s087].

The Coalition's penalty-design critique carries specific content. Senator Chandler argued that penalties must be targeted, proportionate, and backed by evidence rather than simply scaled upward, and raised the retrospective character of the measure as a design flaw rather than a feature. The Senator noted that the ACCC already held significant enforcement powers before this bill, and that courts already impose serious penalties where misconduct is proven — framing the legislation as redundant to existing capacity rather than genuinely additive [TA-260326-senate-fe3f4b93a2a8:s087].

The strategic positioning is deliberate. By not opposing the bill outright, the Coalition avoids being characterised as soft on price gouging. The attack lands instead on government timing and policy sequencing: the argument is that enforcement amplification cannot substitute for early supply-side action, and that the bill represents the government legislating after the fact on a crisis it failed to prevent.

This framing — enforcement used to mask policy failure — gives the Coalition a vehicle to sustain accountability pressure on fuel costs without taking a position that complicates its own deregulatory instincts.