Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. In doing so, I too commend the work of the assistant minister in the lead-up to and preparation of this bill and also for the way that he has handled this bill through the parliament and through the Labor Party processes as well. I don't think the community could ask for a better assistant minister at this time than the assistant minister we have. He's somebody who lives and breathes this sort of work. It's a privilege to be able to serve in this parliament alongside him. I also pay due credit to the leader of our economic team and my neighbour, the Treasurer, who is leading an economic policy focused on the cost of living. The competition policy sits very much within that general approach to tackling the cost of living.

The measures in this bill are about improving competition for our economy, which sits not only within this government's mission but also within the Labor Party's historic mission. We're now 52 years on from the introduction of the Trade Practices Act, which was introduced by another great reforming government, the Whitlam Labor government, and by another great reforming Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy.

The Trade Practices Act 1974, on which this work is built, sat squarely then in the government's approach to tackling inflation and the cost of living, just as ours does today. In fact, it gave me an opportunity while preparing for this speech to look at what Lionel Murphy said at the time. It's interesting that history rhymes, as the saying goes. He said:

The Bill … is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels higher than would otherwise prevail. This contributes to the inflationary trend.

He went on to say:

Consumer protection also assists in the fight against inflation. It is the consumer who has to bear the burden of higher prices and of unfair methods of dealing.

I half quoted Mark Twain's quote that history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes—and just as it was with the Trade Practices Bill in 1974, so it is with the mutterings we hear from the opposition. Are they supporting this bill? Are they not supporting this bill? I'm not 100 per cent clear on what their position is, and that's because I don't think they're 100 per cent clear on what their position is. There is a rhyme from history here as well. In introducing this bill back in 1973, Lionel Murphy said:

Regrettably Opposition senators refused to debate that Bill—

because—

… there had been insufficient time to consider its provisions.

Some things are just hard to get out of your DNA when you're a political party. It ultimately tries to parade itself these days as looking after the battler, but it has always been the party for the big corporations and big businesses. It is only the Labor Party that has stood up for small businesses, stood up for consumers and stood up for farmers. When you look at the results the opposition got in Farrer, I'm not sure they're drawing the right lessons. They would certainly do well to do a little bit of private introspection rather than trying to litigate that in public. This is in the DNA of those opposite. They were defending an act in 1974—just as they're equivocating about supporting this one—that Lionel Murphy described as having been proved to be one of the most ineffectual pieces of legislation ever passed by that parliament. Even in 1974, that would have had some stiff competition. He said:

In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still founded on the principle known as caveat emptor—meaning 'let the buyer beware'. That principle may have been appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets. It has ceased to be appropriate as a general rule. Now the marketing of goods and services is conducted on an organised basis and by trained business executives.

As insightful as and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, I don't think even he could have been quite as—

See this speech in context