Senator SCHACHT (3:43 PM) —I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS) BILL 2001

This bill I am introducing in the Senate today flows from the Retail Committee's recommendation to extend to the ACCC power to take representative action on behalf of third parties for breaches of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974, including the all-important sections 46 and 47.

This recommendation also came from the Reid committee, which examined a range of small business issues, including tenancy issues. The ACCC already has the power to take representative action under Parts IVA and V of the act, and it makes sense to extend that to Part IV. The reasons it is not in Part IV already are largely historical and date from the time when different ministers had different responsibilities for different parts of the Act. It is time that inconsistency was addressed.

It is well known that Labor does not support the secondary boycott provisions being part of the Trade Practices Act, and instead should be dealt with in industrial relations legislation. Therefore, Labor is not prepared to extend the ACCC's power to take representative action under sections 45D&E of the Act.

This bill is based on a simple concept to give the ACCC the opportunity to recover damages on behalf of an injured party - a small business person - who has been subject to some sort of foul play that breaches sections 46 or 47 of the Trade Practices Act. While the ACCC is in court prosecuting the offending party it can gather compensation for the small party that has been injured. That is eminently sensible.

Currently, the larger players can be fined up to $10 million for these offences but, of course, that $10 million goes back into general revenue for the Government. No part of that $10 million can be passed on to the injured party. Both the Reid committee and the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, of which I was a member, unanimously recommended it. Both committees were made up of members of parliament from all political parties represented in this place. It is only right that the Government should adopt it.

I am forced to introduce this initiative as a private member's bill, because the Government refused to accept Labor's amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No 1) 2000. The Government has literally dropped the ball on the recommendations of these Committees.

We've known since the lower house rejected Labor's amendments on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No 1) 2000 that the Government is prepared to put the big end of town, and its obsession with the trade union movement ahead of small business interests.

And what did the Government do when it rejected these amendments? It was putting at risk all those initiatives that have been begging for adoption since 1997—from the date the Reid committee made its recommendations to the Parliament. Here we are in the year 2001 and we are still trying to get them through the Parliament.

The Government was dragged screaming to the establishment of a retailing committee after the Labor Party made the pre-1998 election commitment to it. And what did the Government do next? It made sure none of the recommendations ever saw the light of day.

Bruce Baird was handed the poisoned chalice as the Committee's Chair. The Government was never serious about implementing any initiatives flowing out of the Committee and it was made abundantly clear to the Chair that it would not accept any changes—demonstrated when the Government rejected his Committee's recommendation that a mandatory retail code be established.

I challenge members and senators of the Government to support this bill as a sign of their commitment to small business, and commend it to the Senate.

—————

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (MERGERS IN REGIONAL MARKETS) BILL 2001

This private senator's bill expands the definition of what constitutes a market under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. It will allow the ACCC to take into account when considering a merger application or any like proposal the impact on competition within a particular region.

This bill is modelled on one of the important initiatives that came from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. I draw your attention to the fact these recommendations were made over three years ago. Recommendations this Government has refused to take up at the expense of small businesses in regional Australia.

Currently, the Act defines a market as a substantial market for goods and services in Australia in a state or territory. This bill will allow a much broader definition by inserting the term `region' into section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. This will allow the ACCC to consider the likely impact of an acquisition or a merger in a particular region.

When considering this issue, the Joint Select Committee had in mind the notion of `creeping acquisitions', particularly in rural and regional Australia. For example, there may be one particular acquisition of an independent store by a national supermarket chain that may not in itself constitute a lessening of competition in a wider market, but over time a number of like acquisitions could certainly impact upon competition in a given rural or regional community or a rural region.

Labor first committed itself to the outcomes of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector prior to the 1998 election. After the election and due to intense pressure from the small businesses in the retailing sector, the Coalition reluctantly agreed to follow Labor's lead.

By rejecting the broadening of this definition when it formed part of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, the Government delayed a key protection measure for small businesses. With this private member's bill and the subsequent Parliamentary vote, the small business community will be able to judge for itself whether the Howard Government is its `champion'.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

—————

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT) BILL 2001

This private senator's bill amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 to raise the transaction limit under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act from $1 million to $3 million.

Raising the transaction limit will ensure that all firms have access to this new protection against unconscionable conduct, which we see evidence of from time to time from larger players in the market.

In general terms, section 51AC provides that a corporation must not engage in unconscionable conduct in relation to business transactions involving the supply, or acquisition of goods and services of under $1 million or such higher amount as is prescribed. This provision was inserted into the Trade Practices Act in 1998 and was intended to be a substantive legal remedy for small business against unconscionable conduct.

Having considered this issue the Joint Select Committee (Baird) on the Retailing Sector found that the $1 million transaction threshold hindered access by small business. In other words, the limit was too low for high volume, low margin small business people like service station operators.

As my colleague, Joel Fitzgibbon, Shadow Minister for Small Business knows, these are important issues at the moment. Having sat on the Baird Committee and worked hard to see the Committee's recommendations come to fruition, Mr Fitzgibbon knows this bill provides the Government with a perfect opportunity to remedy some of the pain small businesses are experiencing in the GST environment.

This government claims to be a government of small business. It is the government that was going to cut red tape compliance for small business by 50 per cent, bolster cash flow for small business and bolster profits for small business. It is the government that promised the small business community it would abolish provisional tax. That must be the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the small business community.

By rejecting the Labor amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No 1) 2000, the Government is putting at risk all those initiatives that have been begging for adoption since 1997—from the date the Reid committee made its recommendations to the parliament. Here we are in the year 2001 and we are still trying to get them through the parliament. And why are we having difficulty now getting them through the parliament? Because of the government's intransigence on this issue and because of their desire to put their obsessive hatred—and we hear it in question time day in and day out—of the trade union movement before the interests of small business. These are recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the retailing committee only two years ago and we are still considering them.

What those two committees wanted to do and what the Labor Party wants to do is confer that power on the ACCC. We tried and failed with amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No 1) 2000. The Government stood in the way and attempted to give the ACCC power to take action against unions under the secondary boycott provisions. How frustrating this is, how disappointing for small business—now we are forced to introduce private member's bills to get this initiative before the Parliament.

The secondary boycott provisions in sections 45 D&E of the Trade Practices Act are not necessary to implement the objectives of the Reid and Baird Committees. What the Committees had in mind was the misuse of market power provisions of the Act, currently the ACCC can take action against a firm guilty of misuse of market power and secure fines of up to $10 million.

However, that penalty is of no assistance to a small business that has been injured by the actions of a larger player in the market. These matters go to Sections 46 and 47 of the Trade Practices Act, and at no time did either Committee consider 45 D&E to be an issue for small business.

Labor has said we will adopt all of the recommendations of the Retailing Committee, including a mandatory code and the principle of like terms for like customers in an industry code. We want to revisit retail lease issues, a huge issue for small business around this country. But I will tell small business that, unfortunately, they still do not have those provisions available to them because the Government refused to let the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No 1) 2000 through the House of Representatives.

I will tell them that in this very place, the Opposition and the Democrats agreed - having looked at the deliberations of the Reid committee and the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector - that those committees never turned their minds to the secondary boycott provisions and that the exclusion of the secondary boycott provisions in no way undermines the effectiveness of what both committees set out to achieve.

That is what I will tell them—just as I will tell them that Sandra Nori, the Small Business Minister in New South Wales, has been waiting since 1998 to have the Retail Leases Amendment Act enacted. An initiative that contains a key provision to prohibit unconscionable conduct in retail shop lease transactions.

I challenge members and senators of the Government to support this bill as a sign of their commitment to small business. This will be a true test of their sincerity, particularly after the lack of initiatives for small business in the Budget.

It is time to start helping small business and stop politicising this debate.

I am proud to introduce this Bill. It is a significant initiative and I commend it to the Senate.

—————

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (OPERATION OF STATE AND TERRITORY LAWS) BILL 2001

This private senator's bill amends the Trade Practices Act 1974, to ensure there are no direct inconsistencies between Commonwealth and State law under the Act.

This bill is Labor's last resort to ensure vital small business protection measures under the Trade Practices Act. Measures that the Government has been painfully slow to respond to - at the expense of small business.

The Government rejected this initiative when it formed part of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. The Coalition placed its loyalty to the big end of town and its long-standing obsession with the trade union movement ahead of the interests of Australian small business.

This is a very sensible bill, one which my colleague, the Shadow Minister for Small Business, Mr Fitzgibbon moved as an amendment in the House of Representatives last year during the debate on A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 2000. Extraordinarily, on that occasion the Government voted down his amendment.

As is acknowledged in the Bills Digest, he later introduced the provision by way of a private member's bill on June 5 last year. The amendment will ensure that in future the Trade Practices Act unconscionable conduct provisions do not override state and territory laws when they are inconsistent with the Act.

The request for the so-called savings provisions first came from the New South Wales government in 1998 when it introduced new retail leases legislation to provide small business retailers with an easy to access, low cost, dispute resolution process. That very effective legislation - and I congratulate New South Wales Small Business Minister Sandra Nori on it - is yet to be proclaimed in New South Wales because it may be vulnerable under section 109 of the Constitution.

Section 109 of the Constitution provides that when a law of a state is inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth the latter will prevail and the former will, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

This amendment should have been introduced into this House at least a year and a half ago. The delay in doing so has been unacceptable and I know it has been a matter of some concern to the New South Wales Government. This is a wonderful opportunity for the Federal Government to finally move on this initiative.

How the Government votes on this Bill will be a test of its sincerity, and I call on its members to stop politicising this debate and to support its passage. That way, small firms can get on with what they do best—growing their business and employing people.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

—————

FAIR PRICES AND BETTER ACCESS FOR ALL (PETROLEUM) BILL 2001

The private senator's bill I am introducing into the Senate today proposes to do what the Government promised to do but failed to do—that is, bring petrol prices down and reduce the outrageous gap separating city and country fuel prices. It will do so for the first time by giving service station operators the opportunity to shop around for their fuel. For too long, the major oil company oligopoly has controlled and manipulated petrol prices all the way from the refinery to the bowser. With the arrival of Woolworths and other independents, there is evidence of the benefits of new competition at the retail level. It is now time to introduce that same level of competition at the wholesale level.

This bill that I am introducing today will do just that. It will do so by allowing resellers to secure up to 50 per cent of their fuel supplies from sources other than their principal branded supplier. In other words, if a Caltex franchisee in Cessnock, Longreach or Dubbo is approached by Caltex and offered a price for his fuel, for any given week he will have the ability to go to Shell, Mobil or BP seeking a more profitable arrangement, which in turn can be passed on to consumers.

The bill will deliver this right and protect resellers who choose to exercise it. It will deliver the first point by making all future contracts between those covered by the Oilcode subject to section 47 of the Trade Practices Act. It will protect resellers from retribution from oil majors by providing ACCC enforcement.

Australian motorists have been held ransom to the major oil companies for too long. Petrol price hikes over holiday periods have confirmed in the minds of motorists what they already knew—that the Government's so-called 1998 petroleum industry reforms have been a failure. Rather than seeking to curtail the ability of the major oil companies to manipulate prices, the government now wants to enhance their power by repealing the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. This Act was a Fraser Government initiative designed to address the heavy concentration in the industry by restricting the number of service stations the oil majors may directly operate. But now the Government wants to remove that barrier. It wants to give the oil majors the absolute power to manipulate prices and take their economic rents wherever and whenever they can. That, of course, will be concentrated in rural and regional Australia.

So, at a time when we should be looking to curtail the control that the major oil companies have over retail prices, the Howard Government wants to strengthen that power.

The bill I am introducing today addresses this serious imbalance. If supported by the Parliament, this bill will put an end to the cosy arrangements enshrined in contractual agreements that give the oil companies exclusive supply rights to resellers.

Importantly, this bill embraces the principles that have been contained within Western Australian and Victorian state law since the early 1980s. However, service station operators in those states have not been able to take advantage of the ability to shop around for their fuel offered by the state acts because the oil majors have been very quick to challenge such behaviour as constituting `passing off'.

The Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill will deny the major oil companies the ability to entrench anti-competitive practices on those grounds, and introduce some transparency at the wholesale pricing level. Unlike the products sold by fast-food chains, petrol is a homogenous product. The fuel you buy at a Caltex service station is exactly the same as the fuel you buy at a BP or Shell service station.

The Senate Economics References Committee that examined the merits of this bill earlier this year recommended its adoption. The Committee accepts the view of the ACCC, the National Farmers' Federation and a number of other industry players who supported the bill throughout the inquiry process. Once the bill secures the support of the Senate, the onus will on the Howard Government to jettison its blind loyalty to the major oil companies, and give motorists and small business station operators a break by supporting the principles contained in this bill.

Before the introduction of the GST, John Howard and Peter Costello promised Australians the GST would not increase the price of petrol. It did. And it was a significant increase. By not reducing the excise enough when the GST was introduced, the Howard Government has subjected motorists to some of the highest petrol prices in Australia since July 2000.

As a result of the Howard Government's refusal to remove the impact of the GST on inflation when calculating its automatic indexation of petrol, the February 2001 GST spike was created and passed onto motorists in the form of a petrol price hike of one-and-a-half cents a litre. The double-tax take to line the coffers of the Government.

Labor held the Government accountable on these broken promises, and forced John Howard to cut fuel excise and to abandon fuel indexation earlier this year. This bill is a crucial mechanism to break the major oil companies' control over the price of fuel all the way from the refinery to the bowser. And Australian motorists stand to benefit from the support of this bill in the Parliament.

Wholesale competition reform is long overdue in the petroleum industry. Government members and senators cannot deny the significance of this initiative and I call on them to support the passage of this bill. I am proud to be introducing this bill, and commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.