Mr ROSS CAMERON (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (5:28 PM) —On behalf of the government it is my pleasure to sum up the debate on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I have listened with interest to the characteristically passionate contribution by the member for Kennedy, for whom I have a high regard. But on this issue I confess we have a divergent opinion. I note that under the ongoing competition reforms which this economy has been subject to under the previous government and under the current one in particular, we see Australia being described as the miracle economy by the OECD. We see unemployment at record low levels. In my own electorate it has fallen from 12 per cent to four per cent. We see rapid rates of economic growth. We see real wages for low-income earners rising significantly and consistently. We see tremendous benefits to Australian consumers. This bill provides a healthy balance between the desirability of new market entrants and the capacity of efficient Australian corporations to grow.

The government would like to thank those honourable members who participated in the debate on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This bill implements the government's response to the independent review of the competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act in 2003, chaired by Sir Daryl Dawson. The Dawson review was the most comprehensive review of the competition provisions of the act for a decade. After extensive consultation and careful consideration, the Dawson review concluded that the competition provisions of the act have served Australians well. It made a total 43 recommendations aimed at improving the operation of the competition and authorisation provisions as well as the administration of the act. The overall theme of the Dawson review was that the competition provisions should protect the competitive process rather than particular competitors. The government strongly supports this view of the act and has accepted the vast majority of the Dawson review recommendations.

The bill will improve existing ACCC processes by providing for greater accountability, transparency and timeliness in decision making and by reducing the regulatory burden on business. Following the government's response, the government undertook a three-month consultation period with the states and territories and a 35-day voting period on the text of the bill required by the Conduct Code Agreement. All eight jurisdictions have approved the bill and the government is eager to see early access to the benefits that are contained in the bill for business, both big and small, and for consumers.

The new processes and requirements are: a new voluntary formal merger clearance process to operate in parallel with the informal clearance system, definitive time limits for consideration by the ACCC that business can rely on and the certainty that a clearance is legally binding. Merger authorisation applications will be considered directly by the tribunal instead of the ACCC to ensure commercially realistic time frames for applications and to prevent strategic appeals by third parties. Non-merger authorisations will have strict time limits for consideration by the ACCC and, of particular advantage to small business, the ACCC will be able to waive the filing fee.

The bill will reduce the regulatory burden on small business by introducing a notification process for collective bargaining by small business dealing with large business as an alternative to the authorisation process. The third-line forcing can be beneficial and procompetitive and will be subjected to a substantial lessening of the competition test, instead of being prohibited per se, consistent with other forms of exclusive dealing. Serious cartel type conduct such as exclusionary and price-fixing provisions will continue to be prohibited outright. Genuine joint ventures will provide a defence on competition grounds.

Dual-listed companies will be treated on the same basis as other companies under the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC will have a new ability to seize evidence, but this will be balanced by the requirement to obtain a warrant from a magistrate. The bill provides higher penalties for a contravention of the act, allows persons to be disqualified from directing or managing a corporation and prohibits the indemnification of officers, employees and agents against the imposition of a pecuniary penalty. This will ultimately be of great benefit to consumers, providing a strong incentive for companies and those responsible for managing company business to comply with the act. Other measures help ensure the constitutional validity of the act's national application and apply the competition provisions to local government, insofar as it carries on a business, consistently with the act's application to other levels of government.

The opposition is critical of including merger and collective bargaining proposals together in a single bill. The Dawson review recommended the proposals as part of the one package. Both sets of proposals streamline administrative processes, providing transparency, timeliness and accountability. The government is about finding the best and fairest environment for all business to operate in, not favouring one type of business over the other to the detriment of all. If the opposition is serious about bringing the benefits of Dawson to business, both big and small, it will not try to break up the bill and delay it further by sending various parts off to a committee.

The government has responded to the report of the Senate Economics References Committee on the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act in protecting small business by accepting some changes to clarify the misuse of the market power provision, section 46, and the prohibition of unconscionable conduct in business transactions. I note the Minister for Small Business and Tourism has arrived at the table and I commend him for his valuable contribution to those reforms which are to the benefit of small business.

The opposition is querying why the government has not included the changes that it proposes to section 46 in the Dawson bill and why, in fact, the government has only included one recommendation from the Senate inquiry—that is, collective bargaining—in the bill. The government is consulting with the states and territories on its proposed amendments to section 46 as required by the Conduct Code Agreement. The states and territories have a maximum time limit of three months to respond. As at the time of this speech, no state or territory has responded. Following the consultations, the government will seek the vote of the states and territories on a draft bill. Amendments to section 46 cannot be progressed until the states and territories respond as per the Conduct Code Agreement.

I also note that there have been calls by the opposition and by some in the press for a whole range of new provisions in the Dawson bill to include mechanisms such as a cease and desist power for the ACCC and a prohibition on creeping acquisitions. Dawson, reviews prior to Dawson and the minority government senators in the Senate report specifically rejected such new powers as not only unjustified but quite possibly damaging to the competitive process. Business, particularly small business, is eagerly awaiting the benefits that this bill will confer. I am hopeful the government will receive the support that is needed to streamline and improve the administration and enforcement of the act. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie) —The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.