Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2017 ushers in a landmark reform to competition law in Australia. It's a bill that lowers the burden of proof so the ACCC can more easily take action against companies that misuse their market power. It is the culmination of a long campaign by many people, including my predecessor, Senator Christine Milne, former Leader of the Australian Greens, who worked tirelessly to see this change come into effect. She worked with people who have been done over by big businesses that have used their sheer size to squash competition and squeeze out their supply chains. It is a bill that brings into effect a policy that the Greens took to the 2013 election and the 2016 election. We are very pleased to have been a champion for this reform in this parliament.

It was on the day that Malcolm Turnbull actually challenged former Prime Minister Tony Abbott for the Liberal leadership that we saw the Nationals cross the floor to support a Greens motion on introducing an effects test. I'm sure it was at the front of their mind when they negotiated their secret wish list to support a Turnbull government in a formal coalition. Of course, we are seeing the repercussions of that wish list play out with the marriage equality debate right now. It is interesting that what we have got is a bill that is the result of two parties—not the two major parties in this place, but the Greens and the Nationals—who have championed this reform. We know the Liberals don't like it—they don't like it because it's not something that looks after their big business mates—but we know they are forced to cop it if they are going to stay in government with the support of the National Party. Of course, it will be the Labor Party that will be alone in opposing it.

What we have got, again, is not just Coles and Woolies literally using their market power but the Coles and Woolies of politics who have joined together in so many different ways to stymie this reform. Yet, thanks to some good fortune and circumstance, we have got a very important reform going through this chamber. It's a reform that's good for small business; it's good for farmers; it's good for consumers; and it is good for the economy. It's unquestionably a progressive step forward.

Currently, if the ACCC are to take action against a company for misusing its market power, they have to prove that a company intentionally took advantage of its market power to damage a competitor. In other words, it's not just the effect of the action but the intent. Of course, when we have laws that are seeking to prove intent, we set a very high bar, one that's almost impossible to prosecute. It's been very difficult for the ACCC to take action against big business that deliberately crowds out competitors and squeezes the life out of those further down the supply chain. Under this new law, the ACCC need to take action not based on the intent of a company but when the effect of a company's conduct is to damage competition. It might intend to do it; it might not, but an effects test says that, if big business behaves badly, that is the threshold for the ACCC to step in.

Oligopolies now define modern retail. We know that. From supermarkets to the large hardware chains to whitegoods to electronics to fuel to banking, it goes on and on and on. Shopping in Australia is now a big-brand experience. We know that sometimes there are benefits to it, but often there are huge costs to the long-term health of the market and the economy. That's why we always need to be aware of the role that oligopolies are playing and to ensure that there are measures in place to restrict their power when their power is squeezing out other competitors.

I have to say that it's not every day that we see government move ahead with a policy that is in the face of such strong opposition from some of those vested interests. We've been fighting for this for a long time, and the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have refused to entertain any change through that time. But what we see now is an effects test that acknowledges that what actually happens in a market is more important than what the theory says should happen in a market. An effects test says that the result is the thing that counts most. What is the result? What is the effect of these actions?

We know that it's supported by regulators, by academics, by consumer groups and, most importantly, by those many small businesses and farmers who have experienced what it's like to be stomped on by these huge, powerful behemoths of the market. An effects test is a win for many over the powerful interests of the few. It is very, very odd that, given all of those who are lined up in support of an effects test, it is the Labor Party that is standing alone as the voice against an effects test.

The only stakeholders that we can see standing with the ALP are the Business Council. You might be confused by this alliance, but, if you scratch the surface, you find that what you're seeing is a demonstration of the huge but largely silent power of the 'Shoppies' union. It is the Shoppies union who forced Labor to vote against marriage equality for years, time and time again, and who yet may exert their influence on some members of the Labor Party. They forced Labor to engage in a debate around school funding because it stripped out the special funding deals for Catholic schools. Now we're seeing the Shoppies union forcing Labor not to vote for a progressive policy outcome because it comes at the expense of Coles and Woolies. Remember Coles and Woolies, the big businesses that helped the Shoppies union stitch up a secret deal to leave a quarter of a million people, mostly young people, their members, getting screwed over with salaries that are below the minimum wage? Coles and Woolies help deliver the Shoppies their members. And, because there are so many members, they're a very powerful factional bloc within Labor. That is why you get the Labor Party now standing in opposition to what is a very, very positive reform for the nation.

I'm very pleased to stand here today and talk about the many ways in which the Greens have helped to shape the national agenda—the bank levy, for example. We stood firm many years ago proposing a bank levy, and of course we were ridiculed, it must be said, by the government. Yet now here we are with the government introducing a bank levy, something that the Greens campaigned on for many years. We came out and spoke strongly, loudly and passionately against negative gearing, something that distorts the housing market and means that young people don't get an opportunity to buy their own home in the way that their parents and grandparents did. It's great to see the Labor Party change their position on this and adopt some changes to negative gearing. We also championed the need for a banking royal commission. We put that to the parliament. It was voted against by both Labor and Liberal, and yet now we have seen the Labor Party change their tune on that and we are pleased to see it.

We've campaigned for so many things—medicinal cannabis, where we've seen significant reform—and now we have an effects test, this time supported by the government. We are seeing the Greens help shape both the national and economic agenda and the social and environmental agenda in this country. We are very pleased and proud to have championed this reform. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Christine Milne, who made sure that an effects test remained a central policy position of the Australian Greens—something she took to the 2013 election and something I am proud to be able to say the Greens have helped deliver in this parliament.