Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to raise tonight, for the second time in just over a week—because last Monday I drew the House's attention to competition policy—a critical issue for the future of our nation, the shape of our nation and the sort of country we want to live in. I made reference last week to the need for innovation and entrepreneurship. But I want to add to that tonight, diversity.

I also want to take everyone back, because it was in 1974 that the Trade Practices Act was introduced into this parliament by the Labor Party. The following year a very famous Australian, one John Howard, was the minister, and he amended that act. In doing so, he introduced into the act the object of the act, which is critical to the way in which it is interpreted by people today, such as the ACCC or the courts.

I would like to read to the parliament what the object of the act is. For those in House, you can see what a very large document this is. These are the words that describe the meaning and the purpose behind all of the individual components of the act:

The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection.

Those words have not changed in 39 years; yet consider just how much the economy has changed. Think about the concentration of market share we have seen develop in so many aspects of society. I would then pose the question, 'Has this act really met its goal, its lofty ideal, its objective of promoting competition?' I would argue that in many fields it has failed that test.

Minister Billson, who is doing a fantastic job, who is pointing to the need for us to have a diverse, innovative and entrepreneur-driven economy, has the Harper review out. The Harper review has had many people come to it with suggestions on how we can strengthen this act. But if I take you back over the last 39 years, there have been many attempts, including the Hilmer report, to strengthen this act; yet we have seen further and further concentrations of market share. That diminishes the opportunity for diversity. It diminishes the opportunity for the fair go and for the entrepreneur in Australia to get a start, and it certainly does nothing for innovation.

I am proposing tonight the first change in 39 years to the object of the act, to read: 'The object of this act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of innovation, entrepreneurship, diversity, competition, fair trading and the provision for consumer protection.'

Something as small as that, as few words as that, can say so much about the way in which our courts interpret the meaning of what this parliament and this government would want to see for the future, because quite clearly the object of the act to date has not met what we would all have hoped, that is, to maintain the diversity that we so strive for.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

My apologies, Madam Speaker—thank you for pulling me up, member opposite. That is not a good way to finish the night, is it?

Madam Speaker, this is not just about the grocery industry. I was speaking today to medical experts, who have seen the power of big business inordinately drive out their innovative drive, taking it away from them; in fact using that power to deny them the opportunity to bring products to market. This is not what we want for Australia. Whether it is medical, manufacturing, primary industries, services or retail, it is important that all aspects of Australian society have a go.

So not only do I suggest that we look at changing the object of the act to bring it in line with a modern society but that we make it clear throughout the act, as is done in other acts of parliament, what our objects are. Make it clear so that the definitions and the detail, the minutiae of it, can be brought into a context which says, 'This is the sort of Australia that we strive to achieve.'

This is no small matter. There will be those who will say that we should do nothing. To do nothing will take us back 39 years to a time where there was greater diversity, where more people had a chance to have a go. I want to see those opportunities flourish again. It is up to us and this parliament to make sure that we make these small changes that can make such a large difference.

House adjourned at 21:30