Debate resumed from 8 December 2005, on motion by Mr Pearce:

That this bill be now read a second time.

upon which Mr Fitzgibbon moved by way of amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:

(1)

delaying the introduction of this bill for almost 3 years since the Productivity Commission report was released;

(2)

failing to amend Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act to include the pricing principles in the bill;

(3)

failing to properly indicate the relationship of this bill to the report of the infrastructure Taskforce;

(4)

failing to produce a single, clear and pro-competitive legislative framework for infrastructure regulation; and

(5)

adding to the complexities of the regime and posing further time delays by providing for a merit-based appeal against declaration arbitration outcomes”.

See this item in context