Mr TRUSS (Customs and Consumer Affairs) (1:55 PM) —There has been no attempt by the government to deceive the opposition in relation to this matter. The facts are that this particular item was announced by the government in the New Deal, Fair Deal statement on 30 September 1997. It was substantially publicised at that time and indeed I believe that probably the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) was amongst those who actually supported the idea of the ACCC being able to take representative actions. It is a move that is being sought by small business and widely supported, I think, by the broad cross-section of the community.

It was certainly in the bill at the time the briefing was provided to members of the opposition. We referred you to what we believed to be controversial items. I am surprised that you consider this to be controversial in view of your previous support for these sorts of proposals. There is no conspiracy theory involved. The Commonwealth had to consult with the states, and I might add including the Labor state of New South Wales, in relation to these changes under the requirements of the national competition policy. It has taken some little time to undertake that consultation, but having now finalised that consultation process the government has included these clauses in the first available Trade Practices Act bill.

The clause does not allow retrospective action against someone contravening the Trade Practices Act that could not be taken now by a small business victim. All the clause does is permit the ACCC to assist an aggrieved small business against contraventions of the Trade Practices Act. So the capacity to act in this regard is there in the current act. What this does is extend the capacity of the ACCC to assist a small business that is aggrieved.

The shadow minister's paranoia about the ACCC and its legal right to pursue the MUA seems to be the real reason for these concerns, especially in regard to breaching the secondary boycott provisions and other provisions of the Trade Practices Act. These have no bounds. There is certainly no substance to the arguments that have been put forward by the shadow minister. I believe that the fundamental purpose of this bill is, as the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest) said, to address country of origin labelling issues. Those are the matters of substance. Appropriate briefings have been provided to the opposition in that regard. These are matters that have been announced for a very long period of time, which have been the subject of discussions with the states, including the Labor state of New South Wales, and we are surprised, therefore, that the opposition suddenly considers them to be controversial.