Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Can I indicate at the outset of this debate on Senate amendments to the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005 that, when we had discussions at the office of the honourable member about how long these amendments would take, he indicated they would take half an hour, which was agreed as three speakers at five minutes on each side of the chamber. He has just finished his fifth speech in this debate, and not only has he has moved this lot of amendments but he has, as he conceded, prepared a second and third lot of amendments, which he is seeking to move after this. So it is very hard to come to agreements with the office of the honourable member for Hunter if, after half an hour, he is on his fifth speech.

The second point I want to make is that he said that the amendments on schedule 1 had been something of a surprise to the opposition. Can I indicate that the overwhelming majority of them were moved in the Senate a year ago, in October 2005. So he has had 12 months to come to grips with those amendments.

As I indicated, the only new amendment that was moved in this House was the amendment which gave the ACCC the right, on an application before the tribunal, to call witnesses, cross-examine and examine witnesses, and report on statements of fact. That was circulated in the amendments at 5.30 last night, as the clerk pointed out to me. So, again, what he said was wrong. And, in relation to that one amendment: he has had it all night, and I cannot see on what basis anyone would possibly oppose that amendment.

The next point I want to make is that the member for Hunter came in here and, you will recall, took some of my speaking time to make a point of order that our amendments were outside the scope of the act. Our amendments to reinsert a schedule which the Senate took out are plainly within the scope of the act. And now he is moving an amendment on divestiture under section 46. In other words, he started off saying it was outside the scope of the act to reinsert a schedule which was there and taken out by the Senate, and now, in order to try and delay the proceedings, he has come along with a divestiture amendment—plainly outside the scope of the act, as he conceded.

The member for Hunter said, ‘Well, now, the Treasurer might say that I am doing precisely what I complained of.’ Well, it would be a terrible thing, wouldn’t it, for the Treasurer to point out that this was precisely what you were erroneously claiming in relation to the government amendments but that you have gone on to try to do that in an effort to try and delay these proceedings!

It will come as no surprise that the government will not be agreeing to these amendments. I also point out that this matter has been through the House. The amendment you now wish to move was not an amendment that you moved when this was last in the House. This was last in the House a year ago. This amendment was not moved then. It has not been moved at any time in the interim. It has been thought up today to try and delay proceedings. Now we are told the member for Hunter has another two sets of amendments.

Let me also say that I hear this repeated refrain from the opposition that they support the Dawson bill and they want the Dawson bill to be enacted—the whole of it. It was the recommendations of the Dawson committee that led to this proposed change in relation to authorisations. That is where it came from. It did not come from the government; it came from Justice Daryl Dawson. It was Daryl Dawson who recommended you should have the right to go to the tribunal direct for an authorisation. That is what you on the opposition are opposing. Whatever you are doing, you are not claiming to implement to Dawson bill; you are here in this parliament trying to stop the Dawson bill and the recommendations that were made.

In relation to the member for Kennedy, I hear what he had to say. This is not a bill that relates to media ownership. That was a separate bill that was passed earlier this morning. This bill predated the media ownership and broadcasting amendments. It stands independently and separately from them. The changes that are put in place in relation to this will not change those matters. For all of those reasons the government will not be voting for these amendments.

See this speech in context