Mr KELVIN THOMSON (4:51 PM) —Small business is one of the groups from which this government receives support under false pretences. The other two groups are people in rural areas and retired people—but they are not the subject of this debate, so I will have to leave that contribution for another time. This is a government that talks the talk of small business but does nothing for them. Any time that issues arise that impact on the welfare of small business, this government is nowhere to be found.

We saw that in relation to the problems that small business experienced with the banks, for example. This government was missing in action. We saw it in relation to the problems that petrol franchisees and retailers experienced with the major oil companies. This government was missing in action. We saw it in the way that this government fitted up small business with the GST, massively increasing their compliance burden when it had told small business operators that it would reduce their red tape burden by 50 per cent. Finally we have seen it in the area with which this Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 deals: the issue of retail tenants and their relationship with shopping centre owners and managers.

The measures in the bill, insofar as they go, are welcome. But where have we seen them before? When I looked at this bill, I thought to myself, `I have seen these measures before.' It did not take me too long to find them. I went back to the resolution passed by Labor at its national conference held earlier this year in Hobart. I have to say that the government from time to time chides the opposition on being policy free, but the sequence of events here is clear enough: a policy outlined by Labor at its national conference in Hobart and a number of those measures subsequently appearing in government legislation. It is great that the government has seen fit to pick up our policy proposals. But it ought to be understood that that has occurred on the basis of our dragging this government, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing by small business in the retail industry. That Hobart resolution is worthy of outlining to the House in full. It says:

The first two dot points state as follows:

And:

Those first two dot points are two of the three provisions that are an important part of this legislation. The other dot point that is picked up by this bill is that which refers to the raising of the transaction limit under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act to $3 million. That enables retail tenants, where the amount involved is less than $3 million, to have recourse to the remedies which the trade practices legislation allows. These recommendations are now being picked up by the government, and this is welcome.

But I will go on to the other dot points in our resolution in Hobart because they indicate further areas which we believe the government should pick up and which we believe would be of considerable additional assistance to small business and to retail tenants. Those further points set out in our national conference resolution in Hobart are for the establishment and funding of a Retail Industry Ombudsman; the mandatory notification of retail grocery store acquisitions by publicly listed companies; the mandatory notification of wholesale business acquisitions by retailers and retail businesses by wholesalers; and the establishment of a mandatory retail grocery code of conduct, as recommended by the joint select committee, with the inclusion of the principle of `like terms for like customers'. Finally, our resolution refers to maintenance of the legislative restrictions on who may own and operate community pharmacies.

A lot of good work lies behind these recommendations, and I am aware that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, contributed to that work. That is all good policy that was adopted by Labor in Hobart. We hope that the government will see fit to implement that policy in due course, as it picks up a number of recommendations in this bill.

This is a government that has been governing all too often on behalf of the big end of town and dismally failing small businesses. While here we have some of the recommendations of the Baird retailing inquiry being implemented, it is clear that the government has turned its back on many of the changes which small business need—and, indeed, on many of the changes which were recommended by this all-party Baird inquiry. So, to the extent that this bill makes changes that implement that committee's recommendations, we will be supporting them, as the member for Hunter has indicated.

There are a few other things that the bill does as well. It seeks to change a number of enforcement provisions. Those things arise out of the 1994 Law Reform Commission report. In particular, it will increase the maximum penalty levels in the act to $1.1 million for offences against the consumer protection provisions. I might point out that there is some irony in the penalties that are set here. This is saying that if you rip off consumers you are subject to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million. Some in the House might recall that the penalty for breaches of the GST legislation involving consumers was $10 million. So the government's general view is that, if you rip off consumers, you should be liable to a penalty of up to $1 million, but if you rip off consumers and mention the GST while are you at it then you are liable to a penalty of up to $10 million. That is a terrible offence. So it is a `don't mention the war' message which is being given to small retailers—you can rip them off but don't mention the GST or you will be liable for a penalty of up to $10 million.

Something else the bill does is to allow the court to impose non-monetary penalties, such as community service orders, probation orders and adverse publicity orders. I think people who watched Professor Fels in action around the introduction of the GST would question that there was a need for a change in the law to allow the ACCC to engage in adverse publicity; the ACCC has already been using the adverse publicity trick with considerable effect. The bill also extends the limitation periods of the act to six years and will ensure that the courts give preference to compensation over fines and pecuniary penalties.

Passage of the bill will also allow the New South Wales government to enact the change made to the Retail Leases Amendment Act to prevent unconscionable conduct in respect of retail shop lease transactions. Because of constitutional limitations, the Commonwealth has to enact savings provisions in the Trade Practices Act for the New South Wales law to operate. That provision has quite a long history and it is a pity that this has taken so long to happen. The Labor Party initially tried to effect this change by the moving of an amendment to the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill, which the government then voted down, and the member for Hunter later introduced it as a private member's bill in his bid to help small businesses in New South Wales.

Now we see the government making the necessary changes through this legislation. It is good that it has occurred, but it is a shame that it has taken so long. It is a matter of politics triumphing here, leading to delay. It would have been much simpler if they had simply passed Labor's initial amendment. I myself have a private member's bill regarding quarterly superannuation guarantee payments that I think represents a simple, effective and needed change, and I hope that the government will see fit to either support my bill or introduce their own and take this issue up. On a positive front, the bill allows the ACCC to intervene in private proceedings instituted under the Trade Practices Act. They will be given the ability to address issues of public interest in doing this. It will also change the requirements of the ACCC's reporting procedures, so we should see from this information included in their annual report about complaints received, the major issues that they have been involved in, descriptions of these major issues and so on.

Of the greatest interest to me are changes that arise from the Baird retail committee. I have taken quite a longstanding interest in issues to do with small businesses and retail tenancies. It is something which has come forward since I was in the Victorian parliament. It has come forward as a problem from retail tenants, particularly in the large shopping centres rather than in the strip shopping centres. Some of the matters of concern were, in the first place, retail shop trading hours and, then, the need for the adoption of a uniform retail tenancy code. Back in September 1997, when I spoke in the House on these issues, I observed that the government had squibbed one of the most important recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and that was the recommendation for the adoption of a uniform retail tenancy code. Instead, at the time, the government said: `We're going to take this issue back to the states. We're going to have a meeting of the relevant state ministers.' There was talk about the constitutional limitations on government. They said, `Look, we can't legislate for this on a national basis.' That simply is not true.

The fact is that the corporations power gives Commonwealth governments the power to legislate in respect of corporations, and it is highly likely that such a power would enable the Commonwealth to fix a uniform retail tenancy code, with all the important provisions that such a code should have concerning disclosure, tenancy mix, the rights of retail tenants to form associations within shopping centres and the like. The government continues to avoid this issue. It is noteworthy that the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector also recommended a national retail code. This is an important recommendation, so I will read it out in full. Recommendation No. 7 of the committee's report says:

The committee therefore recommended that the government revisit this issue with a view to implementing a uniform retail tenancy code through the operations of the Council of Australian Governments. How did the government respond to this issue? They said no. They said: `It's a problem for the states. We are not going to look at this problem again.'

Labor will take action on this issue. As we resolved at the national conference, Labor have committed to adopt in full the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. As I indicated earlier, some of those recommendations are being implemented here but far from all of them. The bill will insert the term `region' into section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, section 50 being the merger provision. This was an important issue in the retailing inquiry and one that the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia were quite keen to see occur. They know very well the effect of mergers on small grocers.

This is a sensible change. It recognises that Australia is a diverse place and that it is unfair to consider the effects of mergers or like acquisitions on an all-of-Australia basis. The local effects in a small town of a merger or like acquisition may result in the closure of an important shop or supermarket and, while that merger might look insignificant if you are looking at these things on a national basis or across the state, its local effects can be very substantial indeed. I would hope—and, indeed, expect—that the ACCC will now take a greater level of interest in mergers and like acquisitions.

The second of the amendments to the act arising from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector is the increasing of the transaction limit under section 51AC from $1 million to $3 million. This simply extends the range of businesses and transactions that the ACCC will now be able to be involved in. It has been found since the introduction of this provision that $1 million is too low and needs to be higher. We also see here an amendment to the legislation which will extend the ACCC's power to take representative actions under part IV of the Trade Practices Act.

For the first time this will enable the ACCC to recover damages on behalf of a small business person who has suffered as a result of a breach of part IV of the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC currently has the power in part IVA and part V, so this change will help make the act more consistent and help to protect small business people. Let me also indicate that I think these changes are very modest and that more action is needed in this area generally. I note that the Victorian state government has implemented a review of the retail tenancy legislation. To my own certain knowledge, the Minister for Consumer Affairs has set up that review. The sorts of issues which need to be discussed in such a review are the dispute resolution mechanisms and the question of retail tenants who have more than 1,000 square metres not being able to access any of the provisions of the legislation. I think it is also appropriate to look at the vexed and, admittedly, controversial issue of reasonable security of tenure, because that continues to bedevil the area of retail tenancies and put too many retail tenants in a situation of `heads we win, tails you lose'. Retail tenants who are unsuccessful lose a great deal of money, and retail tenants who are successful all too often find their leases not being renewed so that landlords can soak up the goodwill that they have generated through their own hard work.

None of this, as good as it is, compensates small business for the damage that this government has done to small business through the introduction of the GST. That is the reason why the member for Hunter has moved the second reading amendment that he has. I note that at present small businesses are going through a very difficult time filling out their business activity statements. Recently there was a survey carried out for Monash University by Pitcher Partners. That survey found that 59 per cent of family businesses did not believe that the GST was good for them and 81 per cent of family businesses did not believe that it had cut their costs. Notwithstanding the government's triumphalism about the success of the GST for ordinary small businesses, it is proving to be quite a nightmare. We have a situation where even the Prime Minister suggested that the BAS might need to be simplified. I do not know whether he has got the Treasurer's agreement to that observation, but certainly we believe that we need a simpler and fairer GST so that some of the burden which has been imposed on small business by this government can be lifted and we can bring about government which has a better understanding of small business needs rather than one which simply talks about the significance of small business but in practice makes their lives a heck of a lot harder.