David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly was not seeking to make any such implication. What I was merely attempting to draw the House’s attention to was the ill-conceived nature of these proposals. I think it is demonstrative of the fact that the National Party are now increasingly driving the economic policy of the coalition. I can understand why they might have given in to Senator Joyce back in the previous parliament, where they really needed his vote in the Senate, but what absolutely bewilders me is why they continue to pay homage to this amendment, which I note has been criticised roundly in many circles.

I note that Australian Industry Group spokesman Peter Burns said of the Birdsville amendments:

They were silly. It is sensible to get rid of them. They have created a lot of uncertainty.

I note that Professor Alan Fels, who was the previous chairperson of the ACCC, said in the Australian Financial Review on 25 September 2007:

The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction.

These are eminent and respected commentators criticising the outcome of that particular ill-conceived thought, the result of an ill-conceived process which occurred in the Birdsville Hotel. We are all familiar with the term DUI, driving under the influence. It seems to me as though—and I say this without casting any aspersions on Senator Joyce—this is LUI, legislating under the influence of the National Party. We have seen the once-great Liberal Party caving in, when it comes to key economic policy decisions, to the demands of the National Party—in the same way as the then Treasurer, who, when the previous amendments were introduced, was not from the outset prepared to countenance these proposals, ended up having to give in. The shadow minister for small business was not able, unfortunately, to get his policy through the opposition party room, and we can only speculate that that may be the reason he has chosen not to speak on this particular debate, which those on the other side have consistently reminded us is on a critical set of amendments affecting small business.

In relation to recoupment, it is critical that these amendments be passed. They ensure that the case law that has developed, which runs counter to the intention of the parliament—or certainly counter to what this parliament believes was the intention of the law at the time—will be rectified and there will be no such requirement to prove recoupment in order to make out a case under these provisions.

In relation to the definition of ‘take advantage of’, it is critical that these proposals are adopted. The courts have been left with the expression ‘take advantage of’, and they have interpreted it in a certain way. It is imperative that, if the parliament believes that that is not the correct interpretation or that the courts have not always ended up with the correct interpretation, there be rectification of the statute to ensure that greater guidance is given to the judiciary when these matters come before them.

Importantly, these proposals ensure that a very strong voice is always present for small business within the institutional arrangements of the ACCC. I think ensuring that a deputy chairperson of the ACCC is someone that has knowledge and experience from a small business perspective will ensure that, in the continued deliberations of the ACCC, the needs of small business will be taken into account to a greater extent. Once again, it strikes me as strange that the shadow minister for small business has chosen not to make a contribution to this debate.

There are a range of other amendments contained within this bill, but, to summarise, what we have seen with this bill is in large part a consolidation of the great commitment of those within the government, the great commitment of the Australian Labor Party, to ensuring greater competition within the marketplace. Greater competition is not something that we pursue as a goal in its own right; it is something we pursue to get a better deal for consumers. There are many consumers, I am certain, within electorates such as mine that will benefit greatly from these amendments when they are passed by the parliament. I commend the bill.

See this speech in context