24   Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time— And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Billson, viz.— That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and:

(1)    condemns the Government for its belated action to address the anti-competitive price signalling ‘gap’ in Australia’s competition law;

(2)    notes that the bill only arose following Coalition leadership to introduce the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010 as a private member’s bill into this House;

(3)    recognises the assessment by academics and leading competition law practitioners that the Coalition’s bill is superior to the Government’s bill and should be brought on for debate in the House;

(4)    records its concern about the Government’s failure to undertake proper and meaningful consultation on the preparation of its bill, or to allow the House Economics Committee to carry out its work to examine the bill and consider public submissions;

(5)    notes the particular flaws in the Government’s bill in that it:

(a)    recklessly creates a per se liability for private communications without adequately justifying this approach in terms of economic policy or competition law principles;

(b)   ignores that sound competition law should wherever possible have an economy wide application unless clear justification is provided to deviate from this settled approach;

(c)    includes sector-specific application and per se prohibitions that give rise to a complex task of identifying all conceivable business transactions and conduct that have a legitimate business justification, as an exhaustive list of exemptions is manifestly incomplete;

(d)   risks consumer and economic detriment by failing to adequately differentiate between information sharing that may be pro-consumer and pro-competitive from conduct that is clearly not; and

(e)    creates uncertainty about which sectors and/or markets will be subject to the bill into the future, with the basis on which the application of the provisions will be extended remaining a substantial economic concern; and

(6)    notes that these substantial deficiencies in the bill and their likely detriment to the Australian economy and the well-being of the Australian people mean that this bill should not be passed in this form.”

Debate continued.

Amendment negatived.

Question—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Consideration in detail

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

Mr Billson moved Opposition amendment (2).

Amendment negatived.

Documents

Mr Bradbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) presented two supplementary explanatory memoranda to the bill.

On the motion of Mr Bradbury, by leave, Government amendments (1) and (2) of sheet CA206 and (1) to (5) of sheet CA209 were made together, after debate.

Mr Bandt moved amendment (1).

Debate continued.

Amendment negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

On the motion of Mr Bradbury, by leave, the bill was read a third time.