Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

other markets which are even more concentrated. But again the important point is: what is the recommendation of the ACCC? That the competition in the grocery market is not good enough—that we need more competition. This is something that the government has been saying for some time: that we need more competition for the grocers in Australia. That is why we have freed up the foreign investment laws—to get more competition into the Australian grocery market. That is why we have the COAG process freeing up the planning laws so that planning cannot be used to stop competition in the grocery market. That is why, as a direct result of this inquiry, the ACCC is going to go after restrictive covenants which stop supermarkets being opened in shopping centres where a supermarket is already in operation. That is the direct result of this inquiry; those are the actions that result out of this inquiry—more competition. Consumers benefit from more competition and farmers would benefit from more retailers being in the Australian market, particularly in the smaller states. In the larger eastern states we have the competition provided by Aldi, for example, which does not exist in the other states. We need to see that spread, whether it is Aldi or others, throughout the country.

The ACCC’s job is to promote competition. The ACCC’s job is to enforce competition. The ACCC’s job is to advise government on how competition can be improved. The ACCC has been doing that for a long time. The previous government froze them out. The ACCC has been calling for years for section 46, the predatory pricing clause of the Trade Practices Act, to be considerably strengthened to give them the tools to do their job. The previous government for 12 years refused to do it. Next week it will pass this House. After the 2003 Boral case, which watered down the Trade Practices Act so much that the ACCC brought no more cases, finally that situation will be fixed.

I noted the remarks of the shadow minister for competition in opening the debate. He could not even refer to the bill—that is their commitment to competition. He did not even talk about the bill! He did not even appear to know what was in the bill! Any competition expert in the country would be shaking their head at the contribution of the shadow minister for competition. The previous government refused to criminalise cartels, to put in a jail term for cartels, despite 15 pleas from the ACCC that, if we are going to crack down on cartels in this country, we need a jail term. The previous government ignored it. We will pass it and we will have a significant jail term for cartels in Australia for the first time.

We now have the situation where the ACCC has said of the petrol market in Australia that we have as close to collusion as you can get while still being legal. The ACCC has said that. In the petrol market we have collusion. It is not illegal but it is as close to collusion as you can get while still being legal. The government says that is not good enough. We have asked the ACCC what we need to do to fix that, and the ACCC has come back with Fuelwatch.

When you ask those opposite what they think about a situation where the competition watchdog says that we have as close to collusion as it can be while still being legal, their official policy position is, ‘No worries; it does not worry us—that is fine; we will just let it continue.’ I have had so many taxi drivers and constituents say to me—and I am sure that all honourable members have—’Don’t you think there is collusion in the petrol market? Don’t you think they are ganging up against us?’ And I say, ‘No, I don’t think they are, because they do not need to. All the cards are stacked in their favour. The information is shared by retailers, and consumers just don’t get a go.’ That is what Fuelwatch is about, and the Liberal Party stands opposed to it—well, part of the Liberal Party; there has been a development.

We hear from the Liberal Party just how terrible Fuelwatch is. The people of Western Australia have had the benefits of Fuelwatch for eight years, and what has the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia just announced? Fuelwatch is going to stay in Western Australia—no changes at all. They fume and they carry on that Fuelwatch is terrible. Then they get put to the first test by the people and they say, ‘It’s not that bad actually; we’ll keep it, thank you very much, if we’re elected.’ What a bunch of hypocrites! They fume against Fuelwatch and, when they get put to the test by the Australian people, they say it is not that bad and they will keep it.

In relation to the ACCC and the views of those opposite, there is something in all seriousness which concerns me—and I am glad the member for Cowper is in the House. My attention was drawn to some comments by the member for Cowper in the Daily Telegraph on 9 August 2008. In relation to GROCERYchoice he said that it ‘calls into question the competence and integrity of the ACCC’. Can I say that members of the government are fair game—I am fair game; all ministers are fair game. Feel free to criticise us. But for a member of the alternative ministry of Australia to attack the integrity of public servants is quite inappropriate, and he should reflect on that. He should apologise to the over-600 staff of the ACCC. If he does not, the Leader of the Opposition should pull him into line, because he is the alternative minister for consumer affairs. He is the man who, should they be elected, would be partly responsible for the ACCC, and he attacks the credibility and integrity of its 683 staff. He should apologise.

See this speech in context