Senate debates

Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007

In Committee

1:42 pm

Photo of George BrandisGeorge Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

Before I begin, can I mention that I think I misspoke in my last contribution when I said that one of the pecuniary penalties for a section 46 breach was five per cent of turnover. It is, of course, 10 per cent of turnover—so allow me to correct myself. The government does not support this amendment for much the same reasons as indicated by Senator Sherry. I might point out that the amendment is not limited as to jurisdiction, so that any market, no matter how small by value or turnover, would appear to be caught by it so long as any corporation operating within that market attained a market share of 25 per cent in the markets to which the amendment is directed, down to state and territory markets. So, theoretically, you might have the market in Alice Springs for snack bars, in which one snack bar had more than 25 per cent of the market share, and, under the terms of this amendment, the ACCC would be required to monitor it. In fact, it would be required to monitor any market in which there was any reason to believe that any corporation trading in it would pass the threshold or trigger point of 25 per cent. It would so vastly expand the obligations of the ACCC as to be—with respect—nonsensical. We regard it, as does Senator Sherry, as not a workable proposition, and we do consider that the powers of the minister to direct price monitoring under section 95ZF work well.

Question negatived.

Comments

No comments