Mr MARTIN (1:50 PM) —As has been indicated by a couple of speakers on this side, we do oppose this particular section of the bill because it would enable the ACCC to take representative class action for anti-competitive conduct. Clearly, whilst it has some superficial attraction to some, as we have indicated, it obviously has ramifications for the trade union movement in this nation, bearing in mind the almost pathological bent by certain members on the government side to destroy those organisations.

I find it quite intriguing, as the shadow minister for small business, having debated in this chamber the passage of changes to the Trade Practices Act already this year and last year, to ponder why it is that suddenly we find this other amendment appearing out of the blue. If we are talking about small business, representative class action can already be taken in relation unconscionable conduct under part IV of the Trade Practices Act and for consumer protection under part V. Just to refresh your memory, I go to the source of those amendments that were moved in this parliament by the government in December in the House of Representatives and in April in the Senate which have now become law and will take operation as of 1 July. In the parliamentary inquiry `Towards Fair Trading in Australia' entitled, Finding a Balance, we find at page 133, recommendation 4.59:

The committee recommends that the Trade Practices Act 1974 be amended to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to take representative actions under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which deals with various forms of restrictive trade practices including the misuse of market power.

If this piece of legislation was so important why didn't the government choose to introduce this measure back in December when it dealt with small business issues, when it changed the Trade Practices Act to give effect to these sorts of matters?

Why is it that in regard to the unconscionable provisions which have now become law and which will have operation from 1 July that the government decided to leave these sorts of recommendations out of that legislation? Why is it that at the 11th hour they have sought to put them into a piece of legislation, dressed up to tackle one of the most enduring, regrettably, issues which governments of all political persuasions have been endeavouring to tackle for a long period of time? The minister at the table, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), regrettably has been sold a pup on this issue. He has been beavering away; he is the third in a long line of ministers on the government side since they came into government two years ago to be given this particular responsibility but he is the one that has got closest to it. And we commend him for the fact that he has been prepared to bring into this place for debate origin labelling legislation, but unfortunately he has been sold the pup because—and he does like dogs, as we know—the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) is the one that has leaned on him as he has leaned on so many others in the small business community and elsewhere who have had to accept what he is prepared to offer—`put up or get nothing', as we have heard him say before—in these provisions which have a retrospective element.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in the time that I have been here any attempts by the Labor Party when in government to put legislation in place on any issue which had a retrospective element to it was fiercely and with great vigour opposed by coalition members of the parliament, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate—vigorously opposed.

And one who now sits as an independent, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who I have a lot of time and respect for, echoes those comments because he knows it is true. He knows that those members of the coalition when in opposition at every turn got up and argued the case about retrospectivity in any legislation. And yet here what we see is a retrospective element being introduced in respect of granting the ACCC powers to carry forward representative class action for anti-competitive conduct.

As our colleague the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has already pointed out, it may well be that the ACCC and the media-shy Professor Allan Fels might like to turn his attention to some other elements of the way in which anti-competitive practices, whether it be on the waterfront or elsewhere, are being tackled in this nation. It may well be that there are some other important issues such as the way in which the waterfront is managed in Dampier, such as he indicated about the way in which another stevedoring company was prevented from coming onto the docks in Melbourne.

Why is it that those sorts of issues have not been pursued? Has it been lack of will or lack of legislative background? Perhaps this might give him that wherewithal to do that. But at the other end of the spectrum, we oppose it for the insidious way in which it has been introduced. (Time expired)