Mr ANDREN (9:45 AM) —I wish to make a brief contribution to the tail end of the second reading debate on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, particularly in relation to collective bargaining. This bill represents the government’s response to the Dawson review of the Trade Practices Act and the recommendations that followed from that review. I would like to make a contribution to the debate on this bill insofar as it relates to small businesses and collective bargaining. Specifically, I would like to speak about how these changes may relate to orchardists from my electorate and other small businesses, such as smash repairers. In both industries, the smaller grower or repairer is at a considerable disadvantage in dealing individually with the large-scale wholesale markets and retail grocery chains or motor vehicle insurance companies respectively. I have been working closely with both these groups over the past five years in their efforts to implement mandatory codes of conduct to help level the playing field in their business relationships with their bigger brothers in the industry.

In the absence of mandatory codes, the right to collective bargaining is a reasonable though far from perfect option for small businesses in these industries in particular. Schedule 3 of this bill provides the mechanism by which small businesses may notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of their intention to enter into arrangements for collective bargaining with a target business or corporation, whether that corporation is a supplier or a buyer. Currently such arrangements can only be entered into if they are first authorised by the ACCC—a more thorough and time-consuming process. The commission will authorise such an arrangement if it decides it will result in a net benefit to the public. The notification process proposed under section 93AB means that the onus will be on the commission to object to the proposed collective bargaining arrangement within a period of 14 days. This period may be changed to 28 days by regulation, as suggested in the minister’s second reading speech.

I am concerned that this bill lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a small business, and, therefore, those businesses eligible to enter into collective bargaining arrangements. Under section 93AB(4) a corporation may enter into collective bargaining with their target if they do not make more than $3 million in transactions with that target in any 12-month period. Whilst this limit will encompass small businesses, it does not preclude medium and large businesses, those with access to far greater resources to negotiate the terms of their business relationships. I also note the need for some account to be taken of those businesses with large turnover but small profit margins, such as fuel retailers; hence the opportunity for the minister to prescribe different limits by regulation. But again, this may lead to medium and larger businesses attempting to enter into collective bargaining. The only parliamentary scrutiny available here would be if a disallowance motion were moved and supported. Come July, the success of such a motion is highly unlikely unless moved by a government member.

Midway through last year, I supported my local growers’ calls for collective bargaining rights as they waited for movement from the government on the Buck report—its review of the voluntary code conduct for the grocery industry. The vast majority of opinion amongst those growers was that the voluntary code had not been successful and it was time to move on to a mandatory code. Being realists, these producers know that only a mandatory code of conduct will help everyone in their industry get a fair price for their produce. Following the election, the government made good on its commitment to begin the development of a mandatory code of conduct to, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister:

There will be a seven-step process before the nature and detail of the mandatory code is decided. Nothing is likely to happen in a hurry, so this bill, allowing collective bargaining in the meantime, may help improve the lot of growers in my electorate. Whether it does or not remains to be seen.

Similarly, Calare’s smash repairers have been seeking support, initially through the ACCC and now through the Productivity Commission, in their business relations with the four large motor vehicle insurance companies. A group of smash repairers not only from the Calare electorate but from all over western New South Wales came to me with their concerns, which led to our submission to the ACCC on this particular issue. That helped highlight the fact that many smash repairers feel that they are in no-win position, faced with rising costs from council regulations about waste products and the like and yet screwed right down to the boards in their ability to have any flexibility in meeting those added costs given the position of the insurance companies. They are looking at the very least for a code of conduct that can regulate their industry. Since 2001 I have assisted repairers to put their case for regulation of their relationship with the insurance companies, who are able to set the terms and conditions of work done for insurance customers.

The repairers claim that hourly rates paid for various repair jobs have not increased for over a decade, and that the times allotted by the insurers for the completion of work is completely unrealistic. The honouring of lifetime guarantees offered by the insurance company also falls to the repairer and is at the repairer’s cost. Many repairers also have issues with the preferred repairer programs that potentially lock independent repair shops out of work, especially now with the introduction of a new premium for some policies if motorists want to have their vehicles fixed by the repairer of their choice. This issue is currently under examination by the ACCC also. Certainly, collective bargaining, given a workable arrangement can be reached, could be beneficial in this industry if a mandatory code of practice is unlikely. But both the orcharding industry and the smash repair industry are suggesting that a mandatory code is by far the preferred option.

In conclusion, I support the collective bargaining provisions for small businesses in this bill. Like the previous speaker in the debate last evening, I share the reservations of the opposition in excluding unions or union officers from being involved in the collective bargaining notification process, especially where industry bodies are free to be involved, and I support this particular aspect of the second reading amendment. As with voluntary student unionism, it seems the very word ‘union’ triggers something like a pavlovian response from the government, and I really question the reasoning behind this exclusion in this piece of legislation. I will be interested to see any amendments to this bill when it returns from the Senate. It begs the question as to why substantive amendments are not being debated here—they should be. It may be one bonus of the post-June setup and the change in the political landscape when I would hope that, at last, substantial amendments can be introduced here in the people’s house and debated, as they should be, and then moved on to the other place if necessary, rather than using the Senate as the first option in all cases. Amendments should be introduced here and debated, whatever their eventual fate.