Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Hence I referred to it as being in the early 1990s, when the Labor Party was actually in power, that the price war broke out. But I thank the parliamentary secretary for his grasp of history, as only a great Labor man could possibly understand.

Referring to the Boral case in particular, the ACCC alleged that the conduct of Boral was designed to eliminate or substantially damage C&M and other competitors, including Rocla and Budget. The majority of the High Court, with Justice Kirby in dissent, decided that Boral had not breached section 46 of the TPA. Section 46 did not contain, at the time, any concerns or words regarding predatory pricing. Clearly this case demonstrates that market power by itself is not sufficient. If market power could not be attached to the Boral case—Boral being the size that it was at the time when the price war started, when the Labor Party of Victoria had destroyed the economy, causing Kennett to come back in and restore the economy to the sort of First World economy that it was—market power by itself was not sufficient, considering what had happened during that time.

Birdsville will not stop legitimate and pro-competitive discounting, as is claimed by some large business organisations. The amendment will only be triggered by below-cost pricing, when that occurs, over an extended period of time for an anti-competitive purpose—an extended period of time; the period of time it took the Labor government in Victoria to almost wipe the economy out prior to the Kennett government.

See this speech in context