To be precise they "warned suppliers that false claims governments are seizing the tests could result in substantial penalties". If the claims are not false then there is no issue.
To put things in perspective: Outside the government, such as in community settings, making false claims can lead to legal problems. It is not a concern only for governments.
“Either the Morrison Government has commandeered the stock using emergency powers, or they’ve swooped in late with a big money procurement offer of $26.29 million that a supplier couldn’t refuse, given the massive profit margin offered." - Mr Bailey I watched the press conference where Greg Hunt directly called those claims lies when asked about it, however it did not rule out Option B being a possibility. I think the supplier (Motion One) accepted the offer knowing that they would need to delay existing orders.
The main issue with the discussion around the supply of RATs is that each side is potentially leveraging semantics. To be clear, the article and Morrison use the word "seize", the supplier uses the word "requisition", Mr Bailey uses the world "commandeered" and the unnamed supplier down the chain allegedly used the word "recall". I can imagine that dishonest people are using the word "stolen".
All these words mean something very specific. If Motion One postponed orders for their other customers to fulfill an order placed by the government, then due to technicalities, it cannot be described accurately using any of the words above. How a supplier chooses to manage their orders and stock is on them. We can expect that the supply contracts allow Motion One flexibility, meaning that the move is "above board".
