Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really pleased to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 and to support this bill. This bill will require the Australian Competition Consumer Commission to respond to designated complaints lodged by designated complainants. A designated complainant may be approved to lodge the complaint on behalf of consumers and/or small businesses against another party they believe is acting systematically in a manner that causes detriment to consumers or small businesses.

So what does that mean? This opens up the way for consumer groups, such as CHOICE, and our own food growers or farmers to have better, faster mechanisms to access the ACCC's enforcement functions in case of significant or systemic market issues. If accepted by the minister, the ACCC must determine a designated complaint within 90 days and act on it as soon as possible or within six months. This seems to be a start to providing the ACCC with some teeth—I would say a badly needed set of molars—but this does not go far enough.

One concern is that no additional funding has been provided to the ACCC to implement this additional vital function, and that, I believe, is utterly crucial. We can't empower bodies such as the ACCC and then not put the funding in behind them that is required to ensure what we in the parliament and the consumers want: a robust ACCC that has the financial capacity to actually deal with complaints and deal with them thoroughly. Further, the minister can refuse to designate a complaint or decide to limit the number of designated complainants in a year without having to give reasons for that decision. I believe reasons should be given for that decision, and that is a transparency issue that just makes good sense.

Moreover, it's not just grocery retailers and the price that consumers are paying that are common knowledge and hot talking points in this place at the moment. But, aside from the fact that many people are spending $60 or $80 on just two bags of shopping, it's the fact that many famers are not getting a fair deal at the farm gate. I have a rural electorate. I have many farmers who are very reliant on having a relationship with one of the two major supermarket chains, and it is an incredibly imbalanced relationship. Once at the farm gate, the supermarket chains push prices paid to producers down, and we know that farmers are on the brink.

We also know that, when these supermarket giants decide that they're going to have specials, they don't wear the margin in between; they push that back to the producer as well. Consumers are also not benefiting from this, because consumers are paying massively higher margins on produce. Why are they doing that? Well, because we just don't have competition in this country. We are a country of duopolies, and I think there is no worse duopoly than that of the supermarkets.

This is not news. I've been talking about this in this place for years. Going back to 3 December, I mentioned a fantastic book called Supermarket Monsters, and I think every member in this place should read that book. It's by an author called Malcolm Knox. In fact, I think it's even available in the library, so we could all take turns and share it from the library. It goes into a really deep study on the practices of our major supermarkets and how they affect our growers and how they affect us as consumers—it goes right the way across. We're not just talking about horticulture, and we're not just talking about dairy. It even goes into viticulture. I have six wine regions in my electorate, and I think most consumers would be really surprised to know how many labels are actually owned by the supermarket chains.

We need to refresh the ACCC. We need to make sure that the ACCC has funding behind it, but I would also like to see it have divestiture powers to break up uncompetitive market-power-abusing monopolies and duopolies. I think that we could do this through the Federal Court. The Federal Court should be given the power to be able to break up bad-behaving duopolies.

In November 2022, I discussed the need for us to support producers, given the pronounced influential power of the supermarkets. This is particularly challenging for the horticultural industry because they can only sell products that are of a very specific size, and so much of their product can be turned away. They can sell to a supermarket and then be told that their product didn't meet a certain criteria and be downgraded. This is crushing and, when you're working on such tiny margins, it can mean many farmers going to the wall. The question we need to ask here is: do we want to have Australian-made produce? If we look at what brands are on our supermarket shelves now and what were on our supermarket shelves decades ago, it's a very limited number of brands. If you're a producer and one of the major two decide that they're no longer going to stock your product, or in the case—which might seem like a good contract to begin with—where one of the major two decides they want to have your product exclusively, you are actually then incredibly beholden to them. You've really put all of your eggs in one basket, as a producer.

As well as talking about this in relation to ACCC monitoring back in June 2023, just yesterday I talked about the overarching need to break up anticompetitive concentrations in our Australian supermarkets. I know that some have said, 'That's the kind of thing that happens in Russia.' Actually, it happens in America too. America has far greater protection laws for consumers and for producers. They have antitrust laws, and we need to have them here. This bill from the government is good. It's small; it's a start. I do support this legislation, but it really does need to have some financial backing behind it. If there's no extra money behind it, I think that it's really quite worthless, because we're asking the ACCC to do more with less when we know there are some serious issues.

As I said yesterday, it's not socialism to look at this. We actually need to look at the Sherman Antitrust Act in the United States. The US looked at this as an issue in 1890 and said that they needed to have free competition to ensure much less chance of monopolies and duopolies forming. Their Clayton Act of 1914 prohibits price discrimination. This is an act about selling the same product to different buyers and charging different prices based on who is purchasing the goods. The law prohibits such practices if they substantially lessen competition, as the practice may incidentally create a monopoly. These antitrust laws have been going in the United States for more than a century. We need to empower the Federal Court here and we need to make sure that we give the ACCC the money to investigate properly, and not just put legislation through this place with no money behind it.

There is an inherent power imbalance, and that power imbalance is between consumers and the duopoly supermarkets, and also between the duopoly supermarkets and the growers. As I said, this goes across everything that we can buy in the supermarket.

So, in closing, I do commend this bill, but I think the government could go much further. I would like to see the government look at what the rest of the word does. As I said, we can learn a lot about this from what many people consider to be the greatest nation on earth, with respect to commerce, the United States. We, as consumers, need to rise up, because the duopolies are hurting all of us. And this isn't just supermarkets; it's airlines and it's right the way across—there's the fact that we only have four big banks in this nation. We need to do better in this place to ensure that we're protecting the needs of consumers over these duopolies.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, and I thank the previous member for her contribution; she had some very salient points in her speech. We have seen and heard far too many examples in Australia for many years of consumers not getting a fair go from big business. These include airlines, telecommunications companies and, of course, supermarkets. All, at various times, have been accused of price gouging while announcing big profits, and, all the while, everyday Australians struggle with the uncontrollable price increases that have been due to global interest rates. We have seen farmers and suppliers unfairly treated by the supermarkets, with prices rising on the shelves while remaining stagnant or indeed dropping at the farm gate. We have seen franchisees getting an unfair deal and small businesses' cash flows suffering due to slow payments.

In my own electorate, I'm aware of a small family business that waited more than 90 days for a $700 invoice to be paid by a multimillion dollar national company. Indeed, the former leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, and I were on a committee some years ago where we were talking to mining companies and small and medium-sized enterprises with big contracts with big mining companies, and they were pleading for action from the parliament to get these invoices under control, these 90-day invoices, which were crippling them for cash flow. There was an agreement made at the time that, if they didn't do it voluntarily, then the parliament would act to bring in legislation for 60-day payments. I should really catch up on where that is. My understanding is that there was some agreement made at the time, and I hope that that has come to pass. It was crippling those businesses. Family businesses of many decades standing were being driven to the wall by big business who were simply not paying their bills on time and all because of the market power that they had.

The amount of that $700 invoice for that small business in my electorate might be a drop in the ocean to a corporate giant. Indeed, it's an accounting error! But, for a small business, that cash flow is so vital, and it's not good enough for small businesses to be waiting so long for the money they are owed for the services they provide. It's just a fact that the duopolies, the big businesses and the multinationals dominate these markets, particularly in Australia. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, talk about how the United States, the home of capitalism itself, is aware of these issues and has in place laws to deal with the dominance and to prevent the overdominance of any one, two or three players in the market. It's no secret that Australia is one of the places in the world where the fewest big players exist, and that dominance unfortunately has been increasing. We need to address it, and our government is addressing it. The fact is that duopolies work together to keep smaller competition out. Prices get higher, and service expectations fall. It's unfair to consumers and to small businesses. We need complaint structures in place that protect people from the power that the large corporates have over them.

Since coming to office, the Albanese government has been hard at work examining Australia's competition law and policies, and we want to get the balance right. We don't want to stifle innovation, and we don't want to stifle business. But we want to protect consumers, and there is a balance to be played. We have increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. It is harder for small businesses to compete if larger companies use sneaky tactics to try to dominate the market. We've strengthened protections against unfair contract terms to help level the playing field in negotiations between big corporations and both small businesses and consumers. We have appointed former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to ensure that the supermarket sector is working as it should, and, if it's not, he'll find out why it's not and make recommendations about how to fix it. We have directed the ACCC to investigate pricing and competition in the supermarket sector to ensure that Australians are paying a fair price for their groceries. The ACCC will investigate the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector.

It's an important part of the government's broader efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on the price of essentials for Australians. We will fund the respected consumer group CHOICE to provide quarterly price transparency and comparison reports for three years. We've established a competition taskforce to foster greater dynamism in the economy, and one of the taskforce's first priorities is to look at Australia's merger laws. When big firms join forces, the resulting entity has better economies of scale, which gives it the potential to benefit consumers. But, if it wields significant market power, it can also drive up prices and reduce quality. At a time when many other countries are reviewing their merger codes, it's only sensible to consider whether Australia's laws need an update.

More competition should mean better prices, which is why Labor committed at the last election to establishing a designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 before the House today delivers on this commitment, with designated complainants being able to raise significant or systemic complaints with the ACCC from July this year.

Consumer and small-business advocates have expressed the need for a consumer complaints framework that allows certain designated entities to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the ACCC for consideration. This bill provides the framework to empower designated consumer and small-business advocates to bring forward evidence of significant or systemic market issues in a timely and transparent way.

Certain consumer and business advocacy groups will be approved by the minister to make designated complaints to the ACCC. There'll be nothing vexatious about this. There'll be nothing petty. There'll be no way for people with an axe to grind to get in on the act. This is serious business. Consumer and business advocacy group will be approved by the minister to make designated complaints. We are treating it seriously, and it deserves to be treated seriously. Complaints will need to meet certain criteria, including that they relate to a significant or systemic market issue affecting consumers or small businesses in Australia and that they relate to a breach of the Competition and Consumer Act or to the ACCC's powers or functions under the act.

A range of entities may apply to the minister to be approved as a designated complainant, including a corporation, an individual or an unincorporated association. I can think of a few off the top of my head that I imagine would seek approval to be a designated complainant. This provides an opportunity for entities that represent the interests of consumers or small businesses in Australia to become designated complainants regardless of the entity type.

Upon receiving a designated complaint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of any action it intends to take. If the ACCC proposes to act on a designated complaint, it must commence that action as soon as practicable and within six months. Any response by the ACCC will be based on its existing powers and functions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and may include education, research, compliance and enforcement functions, or a combination of any of this.

The ACCC has welcomed the introduction of this bill, with ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb saying:

"The proposed new designated complaints function will reinforce the importance of key issues impacting consumers and small business to the ACCC's work, as well as the role of advocate organisations in detecting and highlighting emerging issues," …

She continued:

"… it will reinforce public confidence in the responsiveness of the ACCC to the competition, consumer and fair trading issues significantly impacting the community," …

The designated complaints function this bill brings will promote transparency and accountability, with the minister and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission being required to publish certain information on the Department of the Treasury or ACCC website. The bill will empower consumers and small businesses to fast-track complaints through the ACCC, who will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of the action it intends to take.

We can't control everything large corporations do. We're not that sort of society. We don't want to be that sort of society, where government has its finger in every single pie of what the private market says and does. But we can and should be able to give the powers to be able to hold those businesses to account, to protect consumers and small businesses from unfair and indeed perhaps illegal business practices.

Our government is committed to action on this. We have been since before the election. We've put in place a number of measures since the election. This is just one of a raft of measures that we are taking.

The fact is that Australian consumers should be able to go to the shops, and, when they go to the shops and see products on the shelves, they should be paying a fair price for those products, knowing that the farmer who has produced those products and the processor who has processed them have also been given a fair price down the line. It should not be the case in this country that farmers get ripped off at the start of the farm gate, that everybody gets ripped off along the line and that the shopper then gets ripped off at the check-out whilst, meanwhile, the supermarkets take the money and run. We've seen far too many incidents of that over the last year or so, where larger than required price increases have come through the check-out.

We all understand that, when inflation is higher than usual, prices go up and costs in the supply chain go up—we all understand those price pressures—but, if those supermarkets are increasing their profits in a higher than usual inflation environment, that means they are gouging customers and they are contributing to inflation being higher than it needs to be. That's where we need to focus our attention. Supermarkets should not be hiding in a higher than usual inflation environment. That's not when they should be looking to increase their profits, on the back of price increases that don't need to be as high as they should be in order to take account of supply chain pressures.

Our government is committed to justice for consumers. I don't think you'll see any Labor Party members wearing costumes, running around the halls of parliament, as we saw from a couple of Independent members—the member for Clark and the member for Kennedy. Good luck to them if that's what they need to do to get a headline and a photo in the paper. But the fact is that this is a serious issue. We're taking it seriously and we're taking action. I commend the bill to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many members speak about how rewarding it is to help constituents who are struggling with some issue of government administration: managing an NDIS plan, resolving a dispute over Centrelink payments or ensuring that passports and visas are processed. It is deeply rewarding to be able to help people and solve a problem that is causing them stress and strain, but I find it also deeply frustrating. It is frustrating that our government has so many issues and so few opportunities for resolution that constituents have to come to their local MP to be the hero. It's frustrating that government agencies aren't responsive to these issues or accountable to their shortcomings, and it's frustrating when these agencies create special workarounds, like hotlines for MPs, rather than fixing the underlying problem so that every person who applies to them can get the answer that that they need in the time frame that is reasonable.

Good government isn't just about leaders being honest, public money being used soundly and donations being transparent. It's also about agencies. It's about the mechanisms of government being responsive to the people they serve and accountable when they fall short of expectations and about having a pursuit of excellence to make sure that Australians get the services they deserve.

The ACCC is a prime example. When it comes to competition complaints, they're supposed to complete an initial investigation within three months. Their performance target is to do that 60 per cent of the time, which seems a relatively low bar, but last financial year only 34 per cent of those investigations were completed on time. Their performance in the previous year wasn't much better. In-depth investigations are supposed to be completed in 12 months. Their target is to do that 70 per cent of the time, but they only managed to do that for 42 per cent of complaints. So we have a regulator with seemingly lenient targets who is nonetheless failing to meet this. If the targets are wrong, let's talk about this, but these are their own targets and they're consistently failing on them.

What is the government's response? As far as I can tell, there's no additional resourcing, there's no internal process change and there are no executives leaving for underperformance or, really, focused on this performance. Instead, I feel the government is taking the easy way out, by creating a workaround—a special pathway for certain consumer groups to make complaints that will supposedly be fast tracked. It's a pretty underwhelming response and one that I think lacks genuine accountability.

ACCC underperformance isn't just a passing frustration. These complaints are often made by small businesses who have experienced some sort of misconduct and don't have other practical forms of recourse. I talked earlier about the ACCC's performance guidelines, three months and 12 months being some of the guidelines. If you're a business and this issue of competition is fundamentally affecting your business's chance of survival, you don't have three months, six months or 12 months to get that sorted out and hope that you'll get a response, because the issue ahead of you might be absolutely fundamental. And what are your other recourses? You can go to the Federal Court, which is in itself expensive and slow. An example shared with me was a franchisor who was mistreated and sought to sue the franchisee. The franchisee then sought a court order that required the small business to show that it could pay $1 million worth of costs if it lost. The action was discontinued, justice was denied and the misconduct lives on. Frankly, I don't think this piece of legislation does anything to address this and I don't think there's an agenda to address these fundamental issues.

There are 1½ million people who own a small business in Australia. Many experience misconduct, but the majority don't take it to the ACCC because they don't have the confidence it will lead to a useful resolution. This is one reason why small businesses feel disconnected from and not supported by this government—and by previous governments. I do believe that many businesses welcomed the change of government, particularly in relation to climate action and having a stronger and more stable investment framework for climate action. They were hoping for reforms. But at this stage I don't think the government has a proper agenda to make this place the best place in the world to grow and start a business. And if it doesn't have that agenda, then it isn't looking after the long-term prosperity of this nation. This is a government that in various instances has piled on additional regulation but hasn't done the other side of the work, which would be to ease the regulatory burden—or at least to make sure that government services are there to support businesses when they need support.

Let's look at industrial relations. Businesses were working; they turned up to the Jobs and Skills Summit to try and work with government, unions another players to come up with priorities that would fit needs across the community and to provide a pathway to higher pay for workers; more security and opportunities for casuals; and to better support those experiencing domestic violence. But I don't think the government came to the other side by engaging with business to find solutions that worked for them. Instead, the government proposed sweeping reforms that were going to be costly to implement, difficult to administer and wouldn't provide long-term growth in wages or conditions. Frankly, if you talk to small business owners about the conditions in the legislation they're just not across them, because they're complex and it's not their day job. But, again, the government doesn't have the perspective on how to make this workable in the real world.

I don't think the government has offered trade-offs, or said: 'We'll ask you to do something and it will be difficult on this side. But let us give you something that's actually going to make a real difference on the other side.' I'd say that awards are a prime example of this, and I've had this conversation time and time again with the minister for industrial relations. The awards are complex, unworkable instruments that create confusion and division. A young person can't pick up the retail award, which I think goes to over 70 pages, to work out how much they should be paid. Why not? It should be a fundamental requirement that it's understandable for someone who isn't an employment lawyer. But that doesn't happen. Award simplification could make a huge difference, enabling productivity gains, wage gains and job creation. It could help avoid the wage theft issues which have plagued so many businesses across the country. And while we're absolutely appalled by those people who seek to deliberately underpay their workers, it's absolutely ironic to see government agencies—or agencies under government, such as universities, the ABC and the government's own Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—being caught underpaying their own wages because of the complexity of the awards. It is written in black and white and it is a problem, but the government isn't doing this because it doesn't have an agenda for how to make it easier for businesses to run and build businesses in this country.

The government does talk a big talk when it comes to growth, business investment and productivity, but in many areas the walk just doesn't match the talk. I want to call the government out. There are some areas where I feel the government has moved forward, including some of the migration reform to make it simpler. Some of the work they're doing in trade is also important, as is investment in education. Those are really important in driving productivity, and I want to give credit where credit's due. There is also the work on competition. All those things can help drive productivity, but they are not enough, and the government is missing in action on some of the most important drivers of productivity, including tax reform and industrial relations reform, through a productivity lens but also just in the fundamentals of how to make it easier to start and grow a business in Australia. I don't think the government is making enough effort for the thousands of businesses struggling with interest rate rises, surging input costs and the labour shortage.

In fairness to the government, I don't think the previous government was doing a much better job. I feel there's a movement across this place to have a go at business and to take pot shots. I, like anybody in this country, believe that business needs to behave in an ethical manner and look after its customers, its suppliers and its people. But I think there's this rhetoric at the moment where it's easy to blame business but government is not on side in terms of actually making a difference to make it easier for business.

I have two questions and two challenges that I want to put to the government of the day but also to the whole parliament. I think we need two different visions in this country to the ones that we have. Firstly, we need a vision for what it takes for Australia to be the best place to build and grow a business, because, if we don't have that, our prosperity is not assured. Secondly, I want a vision of a government which is genuinely there to serve the community and has an attitude of accountability for its service.

Let me start with the first point. We talk a lot about productivity in this place. Why do we talk about it? Because productivity growth is the only sustainable source of wage growth that we have, so, if we're not growing productivity, we will not grow real wages. Many people in this place, I think, treat business as if it is constantly doing the wrong thing. If we do not have a business sector that is growing and thriving, we cannot pay for any of the public services that people are passionate about. Australia's prosperity—and we are an incredibly prosperous country—is built on the success of our businesses, but that prosperity is not assured into the future. I am concerned about our falling foreign investment rates. I am concerned about our productivity lagging. I am concerned about the fact that we're not investing in research and development as we should be to stay on the curve. I'm concerned when I talk to small and growing businesses in this country who tell me that government is the hardest customer to deal with and that they do not get backing even at the procurement end. At the same time, government is constantly imposing barriers and obligations on them without having an agenda to make their lives easier. So the vision I am seeking is that this country be the best place to start and grow businesses and the most attractive place for other countries to invest, because we should be trying to attract foreign capital. If we do this well, we have the greatest opportunity to provide wonderful jobs, growth and prosperity of the kinds that underline this country and have built the success of this country to date.

The second vision I am seeking from this government and have sought from previous governments and that I believe this House should be focused on is how to make government truly accountable, truly serving the community and adopting an attitude of service—one that is engaged with those it serves and responsive to their concerns and challenges. When I look across the country and say, 'Where do we have this?' I see this in Service NSW, which is one of the best government agencies in the country if not the world, because it is run with the customer, who is the citizen, in mind. It has identified what the customer, who is the citizen, is looking for from government services, and it does its best. It adapts the best from the private sector and from around the world to provide excellence in service. It is accountable to its performance metrics, and that is absolutely critical. Its mission is to provide excellent service and quality at optimal cost. Anyone who has dealt with Service NSW will know that it truly delivers on its mission and understand why it is so highly regarded.

I was speaking yesterday to Richard White, who is the founder of WiseTech, one of the great Australian tech stories and an incredibly successful company. We were talking about government services, and he said, 'Service NSW have been transformational.' So we know we can do it. We know that we can provide government services that truly exceed expectations, but we do not pursue it across enough areas. The ACCC is one of those areas. I feel like we need to make sure that the ACCC knows that its job is to be responsive to the citizens and small businesses that rely on its work, to make sure that they get justice in terms of the issues that affect them.

I believe that good government is about genuinely dealing with the problems that people and businesses are facing. It's about being accountable and responsive. I am supporting this bill, not because I particularly love this workaround—and I see this particularly as a workaround; I'm supporting this bill because it will help consumers and businesses. But I think that this is actually a symptom of the problems in government and the lack of accountability, rather than anything that should be applauded. We need to rethink this so that everybody who has an issue with the ACCC can get justice and at least a response, rather than just those people who get a fast-tracked workaround to the problems the agency has.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024. The purpose of this bill, as evidenced by its name, is simple: it's about ensuring that Australians, whether they are consumers or small-business owners, are treated fairly in the market. Buying an airline ticket for a holiday, finding a better phone or internet plan, shopping for groceries, a small-business owner signing a contract with a large corporation—all of these activities should be underpinned by the simple principle of competition.

It's simple: competition between firms lowers prices and provides Australians with the best possible prices and services. However, this is not the reality that Australians have been experiencing, especially over the last few years. Every day they are feeling the effects of anticompetitive behaviour. Both consumers and small businesses are feeling it. Unfortunately, that feeling is justified. There are too many examples of anticompetitive behaviour by large firms, and there's been a marked decline in competition over the past few decades.

This rise in anticompetitive behaviour has coincided with an increase in the concentration of market power across Australia. In October 2022, the Treasury Round Up article 'Competition in Australia and its impact on productivity growth' highlighted the declining competition in the economy. In 2001-02, the largest four firms in each industry made up a total of 41 per cent of the average industry sales. In 2018-19, that had increased by two per cent to 42 per cent.

Another metric that confirms the rise of market power is the concentration of incumbency. Incumbency is the percentage of the four largest firms in an industry that have maintained their market share after two years. This metric also increased, with approximately 75 per cent of those four largest firms in each industry still leading in 2018-19 when compared to 2016-17. The two-year comparison rate increased from 2001 to levels of around 71 per cent, and the four-year incumbency rate also increased over a similar period.

Another measure of market concentration is one that will sound incredibly familiar to most Australians: mark-ups—that is, the difference between the price of a product and a corporation's production cost. This increased by six per cent between 2003-04 and 2016-17. This all points to an increase in market concentration, which in turn affects competition, drives inequality, hurting the vast majority of Australians.

The 2016 paper on the subject by the now Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, and Adam Triggs noted that over half of Australia's industries are concentrated markets. It stated:

Concentrated markets are not solely responsible for rising inequality, but it seems likely that they have played a part in the steady rise in inequality over the course of the past generation.

Government has a responsibility to ensure the rules and regulations that govern markets create competition for the benefit of all Australians. Since the 2022 election, we've been working to ensure that Australia's competition laws and policies create that environment. We've increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer laws, so that fines are not just seen as a cost of doing business but are a legitimate deterrent; established a competition task force to foster greater dynamism in the economy; and strengthened protections against unfair contract terms, to help small businesses and consumers when they negotiate with big businesses.

Recently, the Albanese government has commenced several inquiries into the supermarket sector. We appointed the former competition minister, Dr Craig Emerson, to lead the review into the food and grocery code of conduct, to ensure that the supermarket sector is working the way that it should. We have directed the ACCC to monitor and investigate pricing and competition in the sector. The Albanese government has been clear: Australians should not have to pay any more than they should for their groceries, especially when supermarkets are getting cheaper prices from farmers. The government has also taken further measures to increase transparency, not only in the supermarket sector but across the economy, by funding consumer group CHOICE to provide quarterly price transparency and comparison reports for three years.

The bill being debated today will add to the list of measures that our government has taken to strengthen the framework of Australian competition laws. Currently, anyone can make a complaint to the ACCC, and each year the ACCC receives a large number of complaints which require it to prioritise and be selective in what matters it investigates. That process is reviewed each year to ensure the ACCC is functioning effectively. However, advocates have long called for a system that allowed designated complainants to bring matters to the attention of the ACCC.

In the last election the Albanese government promised to establish such a function, as part of our commitment to improve competition. This bill delivers on that promise and establishes a designated complaints function within the ACCC. The bill will empower the minister to designate entities as designated complainants. They can be individuals, corporations or incorporated associations, allowing for a broad range of entities and an opportunity to advocate for and represent the interests of consumers and small businesses. There will be requirements that applicants must meet to become a designated complainant, and there are certain compulsory criteria that the minister must take into consideration, ensuring that only those that will genuinely represent the interests of consumers and small businesses and those that will act with integrity are approved.

The minister may also prescribe additional discretionary approval criteria to ensure flexibility and high standards when determining an entity's application. Once approved, designated complainants can bring to the attention of the ACCC evidence of significant or systematic market issues that will require the ACCC to issue a public response. The ACCC will be required to respond to the designated complainant within 90 days and inform the designated complainant if they will or won't take any action. If the ACCC issue a further notice, they must endeavour to commence action within a maximum of six months. Any actions taken by the ACCC will be based on their existing powers and may include education, research, compliance, enforcement action or a combination of all of them.

Importantly, this bill will include several transparency and accountability measures around the designated complaint mechanism. Both the minister and the ACCC will be required to publish information on either the department or the ACCC's website. That includes the minister's determination of an entity's application to become a designated complainant, a revocation of an application, publication of an action or no further action notices, and details of the proposed action in relation to the complaint.

Since the early 2000s, Australia has had a growing crisis. Throughout the economy, there have been increases in market concentration, increases inequality and a decrease in competition. The Albanese government are committed to reversing these trends and we are committed to ensuring that we have a more dynamic economy, one that allows for new entrants into the market, allows for competition, and one that benefits all Australians. This designated complaints mechanism detailed in this bill is another step in fixing the issues of our competition laws and policies. It will help the ACCC and the government identify significant and systematic issues within the economy so that action can be taken and the market operates as it should. I acknowledge the work of the assistant minister in this area. He has written extensively on the issues of competition in Australia and has worked tirelessly on policy solutions to fix these issues. I commend the bill to the House.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024. Consumer choice is incredibly important—essential, I would say. Markets work best when there is competition and choice. Markets also work best when everyone plays by the same rule. This is especially true for small business.

Small businesses make up 97.5 per cent of businesses in Australia. They are facing, at the moment, a perfect storm of ongoing high interest rates, high energy prices, staff shortages and a downturn in consumer confidence due to successive Reserve Bank interest rate rises. I know, from talking to many small businesses in Warringah, that, right now, many business owners wonder what the government is actually doing for them. The government needs to proactively support small businesses in adapting, innovating and maintaining productivity to survive these ongoing pressures and headwinds. The government need to support small businesses as they do large businesses and multinationals.

The figures are stark. Only 43 per cent of small businesses are breaking even. On this front, the government has been slow to give small businesses as much support as they could, given the current economic headwinds. For example, the instant asset write-off and decarbonisation grants legislation for small businesses was first debated in this place in October last year, but is yet to pass the other place and so has not become law. Yet the provisions in that legislation end in this current financial year. I have moved amendments and sought for the government to extend it—that is the stupidity of the situation. I urge the government, again, to consider extending those provisions. We only have three months to go in the current financial year.

I call on the government to think about its approach to small business. The policy process has been all over the place and, really, a bit piecemeal. The industrial relations reforms have added more uncertainty and complexity for business owners, and this includes amendments put in the legislation, such as the right to disconnect. I repeat that this is not how we want to make good, sober public policy.

The problem before the government is this: there are currently extensive delays in considering and resolving complaints made by consumers to the ACCC. The ACCC's latest annual report notes that it's not hitting its own targets for initial competition investigations to be completed within three months and for in-depth competition investigations to be completed within 12 months. It's failing on its own metrics, which begs the question: why is the government not looking at providing greater resources to the ACCC or auditing to ensure efficiencies as to why we are not meeting those metrics for investigating and resolving complaints? To me, ensuring there is sufficient resources to the ACCC—if that is where the problem is, in relation to dealing with the case load—would be logical. But, instead, the government is choosing a fairly different path to improving the complaints resolution process, essentially creating a priority triage process for complaints.

What this bill before us does is set out a complaints framework that allows designated entities and consumer and small business advocates to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for consideration. Then, the ACCC, in accordance with its own rules, must respond within a certain time frame to these designated entities. The bill establishes a designated complaints function, and the designated complainants will be organisations approved by the minister. The minister may limit the number of designated complainants in a time period, and, in turn, the ACCC must reply to the designated complainant's complaint within 90 days, with notice of the action, if any, they intend to take.

If we really part through the detail, we're getting a minister with a high level of discretion to designate who these designated complainants will be. Whilst the ACCC must reply within 90 days, they don't have to investigate; they just have to reply. So it still isn't really progressing the problem of complaints actually getting resolved and investigated automatically. Of course anyone, any other consumer or entity, can still make general complaints to the ACCC.

Really, if we can boil this down to simple language, the government is proposing a triage and prioritisation process, open to some in a designated complaint organisation. The ACCC may assess general complaints and decide whether to publish details of any actions it has taken in response to those. My concern is this is not automatically going to address the backlog or case load concerns from consumers and their complaints and how that is processed. I think what we will see is an allocation of resources internally to these designated complainants.

The designated complainant can be a corporation, a person holding a particular position, such as a statutory officer, or an unincorporated association. My understanding is that small business and consumer advocacy organisations are what the minister really has in mind and is looking at as being potential designated complainants. Whilst in principle that may well work—I think of organisations like Choice or COSBOA, which represents a number of small businesses—I am concerned about the criteria for those designated complainants and how that then sidesteps the idea that all complaints and all small businesses and customers have that opportunity for an equal process and avenue to the ACCC.

The bill details approval criteria to ensure designated complainants genuinely represent the interests of consumers and small businesses. That will be a little subjective, I think. I am concerned that where organisations are fee-for-membership organisations, you are essentially providing an added reason for joining an organisation, because consumers and small businesses may well feel they then have access to a higher likelihood of a complaint being considered by the ACCC and being resolved. So there's a little bit of a picking of favourites in this triage and prioritisation process. I have raised with the minister my concerns about how this is shifting the opportunity to have complaints considered by the ACCC.

We don't want to supersede the ACCC's central role, which is responding to complaints by consumers. I accept that often consumer complaints will come in bulk, if there are repeated behaviours that are coming to light, and organisations like Choice may well be the right body to bring forward that bulk of complaints by consumers. But that's not always the case, and the question of threshold and willingness to address certain consumer complaints is I think one of the challenges for the ACCC.

I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this bill, in the hope that this will provide a better pathway to the resolution of consumer complaints, but I will be moving an amendment to ensure we have a review clause in the legislation to ensure that it is working properly. We don't want a situation with the result that in a couple of years time we have essentially the ACCC triage and prioritisation process where they are favouring the complaint process through these designated complainants but ignoring complaints from consumers and customers. I think it's important that we keep an eye on that, and this place is where we need to be able to do that process of review, because we are ultimately talking about a handful of empowered organisations to whom this legislation will clearly be giving an advantage.

I acknowledge that the UK has a similar complaints framework known as a super-complaints process. It was first established in 2003, expanding into other areas such as the financial market, the police and cybersecurity in subsequent decades. It's been shown to be effective at raising complaints not just concerning individual businesses but also regarding systemic issues impacting consumers. An example of that is from 2018, when Citizens Advice UK submitted a super-complaint regarding conduct of companies in various markets where long-term and existing customers were being penalised and paying more for goods and services. It was like a loyalty penalty. As a result of the complaint, an investigation was launched which uncovered additional conduct, including stealth price rises, costly exit fees, restrictions on switching contracts and unfair autorenewal processes. This led to enforcement action against the companies involved, pricing interventions and a package of reforms, including recommendations to other UK regulators.

I accept that there are concerns that this may be happening in some sectors, so it's likely the proposed ACCC designated complaints function could result in similar broad enforcement and regulatory outcomes. But it also just shows the value of a review amendment being included in the bill to ensure that this new framework is working as intended. There are some issues that still require greater clarity, including the following questions: are we sure that the designated organisations will not capitalise commercially to increase their membership because of the added right they gain? And what's preventing designated entities only serving their own membership, rather than taking on board broader consumer concerns and complaints that may not come from their membership base?

Finally, I think we need to look at what the problem is that we're trying to solve. If it's a backlog of caseloads for the ACCC, it begs the broader question: is the ACCC sufficiently resourced to play the role that is necessary for it to play to ensure competition in our consumer markets? It also begs the question: shouldn't every complaint get a response from the ACCC? What is its resourcing issue and what is the process? The UK model shows that there can be positive outcomes from a framework and a triage process, but I do feel the government could provide greater clarity in its thinking and answers to some of the pertinent questions around the problems it's trying to solve. What other solutions or options have been looked at and what are the prospects or anticipated outcomes here?

I should say that we have a matter of public importance to be debated today around the current price gouging occurring in supermarkets and the duopoly we have when it comes to large supermarket chains and pricing in relation to food in Australia. Consumer and customer choice is incredibly pertinent in the conversation and the debate at the moment. The role the ACCC plays in that respect is incredibly important, and so we must make sure that it's sufficiently resourced to look out for consumers and customers, and to ensure complaints are truly investigated.

In that regard, I'd like to raise the concern of scams, because that's where consumers and customers are very frequently targeted. There's yet to be a mechanism that really protects consumers and customers from scams. Again, whether the ACCC has sufficient resources to properly investigate what's happening in that space is a really broad question—and where the responsibility lies. I know that many individuals who have been the victims of scams find very little assistance and recourse from the systems and the processes. They are often let down by the financial institutions, who wipe their hands of any responsibility, and by the lack of access to data—getting any kind of investigation into those issues is incredibly difficult. I would urge the government to do more in relation to protecting consumers and customers in relation to scams.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, including the members for Mayo, Moreton, Wentworth, Werriwa, Warringah, Lyons and Hume.

Competition policy has been front and centre in the public debate over recent months. The Albanese government has been concerned to ensure that our competition settings are fit for purpose. Competition reform is vital to boosting productivity. In the early 1990s, reforms kicked off by Prime Minister Paul Keating and competition expert Fred Hilmer led to cooperation with the states and territories which ultimately boosted living standards, producing a permanent 2½ per cent lift in GDP. That translates to something in the order of $5,000 for the typical Australian household in today's terms. So competition reform is a big deal. Getting competition right is good for consumers, it's good for employees and it's good for innovation.

Since coming to office, we've increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct and we've banned unfair contract terms. We've set up a competition taskforce in Treasury, not aimed at producing a doorstopper report in years to come but at producing actionable reforms straightaway. The Treasurer has tasked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with looking at issues in the supermarket sector. We've brought in Craig Emerson, one of the great policy economists in Australia, to review the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, looking at questions such as whether that code should be made mandatory. These are all part of our ambitious competition reform agenda, as is the bill before the House today.

This bill has been welcomed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who said in her statement:

A number of our successful compliance and enforcement outcomes have come about from referrals to us by consumer or small business advocacy groups, so we welcome this proposed measure that will provide an official avenue for this information.

We consider it will reinforce public confidence in the responsiveness of the ACCC to the competition, consumer and fair trading issues significantly impacting the community.

The bill establishes a designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill will give the minister the ability to appoint consumer and small business advocates as designated complainants and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess and respond to complaints raised by these advocacy groups which relate to significant or systemic market issues. As the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission noted in their statement, a similar mechanism already applies in Britain and Canada. If the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposes to act on a designated complaint, it must commence that action as soon as practical and within six months. Any response by the competition watchdog will be based on their existing powers and functions under the act, and may include education, research, or compliance and enforcement functions. If this bill is passed, the government will proceed to identifying suitable consumer and small business groups to act as designated complainants.

In closing, I would like to thank my staff, particularly Tori Barker; officials in the Department of the Treasury, particularly the consumer policy and Law Division teams; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their hard work on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.