Download Fragment

Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Page: 6948

Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (17:33): On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

Mr CRAIG THOMSON: by leave—In this inquiry, the committee conducted the rare task of comparing two bills that have the same purpose, in this case to control price signalling in Australian markets.

In November 2010, the member for Dunkley introduced a bill to this effect and the Treasurer introduced a government bill in March 2011. The government bill followed a consultation process, including an exposure draft in December 2010.

Although the bills have similar aims, they take different approaches. The member for Dunkley's bill only applies to the communication of price related information to a competitor, for the purpose of encouraging the competitor to vary their price, and where the communication has the effect of substantially lessening competition. This bill applies to the economy generally.

The Treasurer's bill creates two prohibitions. The first is where a firm privately communicates price related inform­ation to a competitor. This is described as a per se offence because the conduct of itself is so unredeeming that no further elements are required for liability. The second prohibition is where a firm generally communicates information relating to price, business strategy, or its capacity, and does so with the purpose of substantially lessening competition.

The Treasurer's bill applies to sectors of the economy stipulated in regulations. The Treasurer has committed to applying the bill initially to the banking sector and conducting a review before extending it further.

It is immediately apparent that the Treasurer's bill would have a stronger effect and this is the reason why the majority of the committee is supporting it over the member for Dunkley's bill. The committee's concl­usion is consistent with evidence provided by the competition regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. It stated that elements of the member for Dunkley's bill would mean that it would be of little practical use to the commission in controlling price signalling.

I would like to thank those organisations and individuals that assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report, including the member for Dunkley, who joined the committee as a supplementary member for the inquiry. I would also like to again place on record my thanks to the secretariat, who, under an increased workload, have again been of magnificent assistance in producing this report. Again I would like to place on record the need to make sure that these committees are adequately resourced. There is a different workload that we have in this parliament from the one before, and they are operating under very trying circumstances. That does need to be recognised; otherwise the work of these committees will not be able to go on.