Senator HARRIS (11:51 AM) —For the benefit of the chamber I would like to clarify the wording of the revised PW205 amendment. At the end of note 2 it says:

I apologise to the Temporary Chairman. This was circulated without my knowledge and that explains some of the confusion, even from me. I seek leave to withdraw revised amendment PW205 and go back to the original wording of amendment PW205.

Leave granted.

Senator HARRIS —I move:

77A This Part does not authorise anti-competitive conduct

Note 1: Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 prohibits acquisitions that would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market. Subsection 51(1) of that Act provides that section 50 does not apply to anything authorised by an Act.

Note 2: The question of whether a cross-media acquisition contravenes section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 involves identifying the relevant market or markets in which the acquisition would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition.

Note 3: The question of what is a relevant market is worked out under the Trade Practices Act 1974, and there is nothing in that Act that limits it to a market regulated by this Part.

I think it is important to clarify succinctly the actual intention of moving this amendment. The amendment will protect the public interest in media mergers and acquisitions by ensuring that the ACCC's critical role in examining the competitive effects of cross-media mergers is affirmed notwithstanding any exemption certificate issued by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. So it is clearly saying that the ACCC still has the ability to carry out the investigation irrespective of the ABA having granted an exemption certificate.

The second thing is that cross-media mergers or acquisitions should proceed where they benefit the public by establishing strong, viable and better resourced media players. Such transactions, however, should be consistent with a vigorous and competitive media market. Under the government's bill, a cross-media merger will require the ABA to issue an exemption certificate subject to a number of conditions, relating mainly to diversity considerations. The One Nation amendment confirms that the ACCC has the jurisdiction to fully investigate all the competitive implications of a potential merger. The One Nation amendment ensures that, in exercising its powers of investigation, the ACCC will be able to consider all relative markets affected by the merger. The important inference there is `affected by the merger'. In many cases a merger or acquisition involving newspaper, television or radio companies could have implications for other markets, such as the Internet, pay TV, magazines or even non-media markets like advertising. This may be because the companies involved in the merger themselves also have an interest in those other markets. The amendment will ensure that the ACCC has the jurisdiction to consider those implications. Finally, One Nation considers this amendment to be an important measure to ensure that the public interest continues to be protected under the government's proposed revised cross-media arrangements.

Question agreed to.