Mr FITZGIBBON (3:26 AM) —That was a rather repetitive contribution from the member for Flinders. I note that he had 20 minutes allocated to him to make a contribution to this bill. He took just 10, which I think—

Dr Southcott —It's quality, not quantity.

Mr FITZGIBBON —Are you serious? The member for Boothby cannot be serious. The member for Flinders had 20 minutes allocated to him and he took just 10, but he feigned commitment to the small business sector. I did not have the opportunity to do the calculation, but I suggest that he repeated at least one line 6,000 times. I give the member for Flinders some latitude as he has not been in this place for very long and he certainly was not here when the so-called Baird committee deliberated on these issues as they relate to the Trade Practices Act.

The member for Flinders gave the impression that he might have worked for Peter Reith in the past. I thought he had worked for the current minister for foreign affairs, but one could form the view, based on his contribution tonight, that he might have worked for one Peter Reith, because he has this ideological obsession with the trade union movement. However, the point is that he has ignored all the facts.

It should be no surprise that I should rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2002, because I am a former shadow minister for small business and have a very deep-seated interest in the small business community in this country. I acknowledge the contribution that the small business sector makes to the Australian economy. It is a growing contribution. We all acknowledge the changing nature of the Australian economy. Our workplaces are growing much smaller. We are working with much smaller business units in the modern economy. The Fordist regime is behind us. The small business sector will play an increasingly important role in the Australian economy.

However, the member for Flinders misses the point in all of this. The key point is that this is a non-event; this is a red herring. I sat on the Baird committee, as did the member for Eden-Monaro, and this issue was not raised with the committee. The member for Scullin is in the House this morning and he also sat on the committee. This is an issue that was not raised with the Baird committee. I remind the House that the impetus for the establishment of the Baird committee was a Labor Party commitment prior to the 1998 election to hold an inquiry into market concentration in the retail sector. It was the Labor Party which first acknowledged that that market concentration was causing problems for the small business sector. They were having difficulty competing with the Woolworths and the Coles of this world.

It was Labor who first committed to addressing those problems and, reluctantly, the Howard government was dragged screaming to match that commitment prior to the 1998 election. I remember it very well. I was surprised at the end of the day that they had committed themselves to doing so because, as we all know, the Howard government is not about markets; it is about big business. It is not about small business. It relies on big business for its patronage and for its political donations. So I was surprised but pleased that the Howard government matched Labor's commitment to hold an inquiry into market concentration in the retail sector.

We got through the 1998 election and, unfortunately, the Labor Party lost—I can acknowledge that. The Howard government then had to turn its mind as it did. I note that the minister for small business is entering the chamber now. What an opportunity for him to make a contribution to this debate. Following the election, the Howard government had to make good on its commitment to hold this inquiry. Of course, there was a lot of jostling going on on the other side of the House at that point about positions on the front bench. The member for Cook was one of those lobbying hard for a guernsey but, alas, he missed out so he was given second prize—he was made the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.

But the member for Cook did not realise at the time that he was being handed the poisoned chalice, because he was given a brief that the Howard government did not support. He was told to hold an inquiry but was told quite clearly not to expect to make any recommendations that would be supported by the government. In other words: `Go and do the inquiry, member for Cook, but don't go in too hard. Don't do too much for the small business sector. Don't make any effective recommendations to the government because, at the end of the day, the Howard government is for the big end of town. We feign interest in the small business sector, but at the end of the day we know where our bread is buttered—it is the big end of town. So don't expect to come back to us with recommendations that are going to help the small business sector at the expense of the big end of town.'

The member for Cook accepted the brief and away he went, and we held a fairly extensive inquiry. It was an informative inquiry. We heard all sorts of evidence about the impact of market concentration in the retail sector and the impact it had on the small business sector and its ability to compete in the marketplace. We heard some very sad stories about the misuse of that market power on behalf of the big end of town and the impact of that on the small business sector.

It was also effective in the sense that there was a bipartisan spirit—I know the member for Scullin will agree—and a bipartisan approach to the recommendations of that committee. We all agreed that part IV of the Trade Practices Act had to be strengthened because there were fines for misuse of market power of up to $10 million, if I remember correctly, but they were not of any assistance to the small business person who had been affected by the misuse of market power. So we agreed unanimously that part IV of the Trade Practices Act should be strengthened so that not only big business could be fined for misuse of market power but also, while the ACCC has the big end of town in the commission, they could also seek compensation for the small business that has been affected by that misuse of market power.

We all agreed on that, but we had a minor disagreement on one point—that is, sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. The Labor Party do not believe that 45D and 45E should be in the Trade Practices Act. We think they are best enshrined in industrial relations law, so why would the Labor Party seek to extend the representative action powers of the ACCC to 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act? It makes no sense. Yet what did the government do? The government held the opposition and the small business sector to ransom. Rather than accept there was no point in insisting that the additional representative action powers of the ACCC go to 45D and 45E, rather than just allow that to be carved out and got on with, the government dug in. Months went past, a period in which small business could have had access to these new provisions. But the government was not concerned about the small business sector; it was concerned about the politics of it because, at the end of the day, it is always about the trade union movement. We saw the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations earlier in the week waxing lyrical about New South Wales legislation which enshrined the role of the mine workers union in New South Wales to play its part in safety issues in the coalmining industry.

Mr Martin Ferguson —At least you stood up for them.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I did stick up for them. That is a practice that has been going on for decades. It has been enshrined in regulation for decades. All the New South Wales government was seeking to do was take that a step further and enshrine it in the legislation itself, but Minister Abbott had a problem with that. Why? Because he saw another opportunity to give the trade union movement a whack and, at the same time, give the Labor Party a whack by virtue of the close association between the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. This is just silly. This is a government that is not driven by an interest in the small business sector; it is driven by an ideological obsession with the trade union movement.

The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter will understand that I have for the last five minutes or so been waiting for him to come back to the point he was making about the bill on small business protection. I am not denying him the call, I am inviting him to return to the bill.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I am making a point about the bill, Mr Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that the government waxes lyrical about the need to extend the ACCC's power to take representative action under 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act, yet the member for Flinders, when challenged to give an example of where small business—

Mr Hunt —I did give an example.

Mr FITZGIBBON —You mentioned the BHP case. If I remember correctly, that was a case about market power and nothing to do with 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act. So the member for Flinders might want to go and check that, and the member for Eden-Monaro might want to as well. He was very confident about the proposition put forward by the member for Flinders but I do not hear him challenging me at the moment. The member for Flinders might want to check his facts about the BHP case. My memory is that it was not a case about secondary boycotts.

The member for Flinders has still failed to give us an example of where the small business sector has been disadvantaged by a secondary boycott. I thought former minister Reith up at the dispatch box day in and day out throughout the course of the MUA dispute would have been giving us examples of small businesses that had been affected by secondary boycotts throughout the course of that dispute. I do not remember him giving one example. I remember with very great clarity that, throughout the course of the Baird inquiry, not once did we receive a submission claiming that the small business sector needed an extension of the ACCC's power to take action under 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act. Nor at any point did we ever hear of a case where small business had been affected by a secondary boycott contrary to 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act. This is simply a non-event.

If the government were serious, they would have said, `Well, we accept that there were numerous submissions to the Baird inquiry that suggested that, under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, misuse of market power, it is time to give the ACCC additional powers to take action for compensation for small business,' and forgot about 45D and E because it was not an issue. Rather than do that—and this is the point and why I transgressed a little—the government put their ideological obsession with the trade union movement ahead of the interests of small business. That is what it was all about.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I am happy to return to the bill. The bill is about extending powers to the ACCC to take representative action on behalf of small business. The Labor Party and the government agree wholeheartedly that under section 46, covering all those misuses of market power provisions, when the ACCC is in the court prosecuting the big end of town for doing the wrong thing, at the same time it should be able to take action to gain compensation for the small business that has been affected. But 45D and E are not an issue. When the Labor Party moved amendments in this place to carve out 45D and E, I would have been happy for the government to stick to their view on those sections. They should have said, `Look, we would prefer 45D and E to remain in the provisions. If we can't have that, for goodness sake, let's make sure the ACCC picks up these extra powers under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act.'

That would have been an eminently sensible thing for the government to do. But the government are not interested in small business. It is a bit like the ASIO bills. They feign concern about national security issues, but at the end of the day it is all about the wedge—not small business and not national security. They say, `Let's bring legislation in here that we know is unacceptable to the Labor Party and drive the wedge in. Let's hold national security to ransom; let's hold the small business sector to ransom. It doesn't matter whether the small business sector is going to be disadvantaged in the interim.' We had the Baird committee report a long time ago—the member for Scullin might assist me; he waves it around; I was confident he would have all his information before him—and we are still arguing the case. The ACCC still does not have additional powers to take representative action.

The SPEAKER —I am sure it is not lack of information that prevents the member for Scullin from assisting but, I suspect, his understanding of the standing orders.

Mr FITZGIBBON —The ACCC should have these additional powers now, but, no, the government just drive the wedge in all the time, feigning concern for the small business sector and feigning concern on national security. But at the end of the day it is just about the wedge.

Mr FITZGIBBON —The member for Indi interjects. I have always got a great interest in the interjections of the member for Indi. She claims to represent the interests of the small business sector. I never hear her putting forward any sound propositions to assist the small business sector. I heard her very loud support for the GST. Isn't it funny? The Treasurer stands at the dispatch box each day in question time waxing lyrical about the GST, having us all believe that the transition has been just marvellous for the small business sector. He has closed his ears. Of course the small business sector is still struggling with the introduction of the GST. Of course it has increased their compliance costs burden. Yet all the government are interested in doing is driving the wedge in. We saw another example in the House yesterday during question time, by virtue of the contribution of the member for Werriwa, where a builder had given services to the minister—

Mr Martin Ferguson —That's Bob the Builder!

Mr FITZGIBBON —Bob the Builder; I will get to him in a minute. The Minister for Revenue owed $40,000.

Mr Hockey —I can pass my folder across to him.

The SPEAKER —The Minister for Small Business and Tourism does not have the call.

(Quorum formed)

Mr FITZGIBBON —I was hoping Bob the Builder would come in—

The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter will return to the bill.

Mr FITZGIBBON —because it seems the only interest the coalition has in small business in recent days is in ensuring that Bob the Builder in Port Stephens gets an opportunity to—(Time expired)