David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I note that there have been a considerable number of contributions from both sides of the House on this bill and the points of difference between the approaches that have been adopted by both sides, I think, are now clear. On the one hand, those on this side of the chamber have sought to place this set of amendments within the broader context of the Australian Labor Party’s long-term commitment to delivering greater competition within markets right across the economy. It was the Labor Party that introduced the Trade Practices Act and the Labor Party have played a significant role in all of the significant competition reforms that have occurred certainly since that time.

In relation to the bill before us, a range of measures are proposed and they have been set out by speakers previously. To summarise the items that I wish to comment on, I wish to make some comments in relation to the proposals to clarify the definition of market power, which of its nature involves comment on the so-called Birdsville amendment as it currently exists within the existing legislation. I also will be commenting on the efforts of this bill to clarify and legislate in respect of the issue of recoupment of losses and to make it clear that recoupment of losses should not be necessary in order to make out a case in respect of predatory pricing. Another important element of the bill relates to the provision of more guidance in relation to the definition of ‘take advantage of’, which is something that, in the absence of any legislative detail, the courts have been left to interpret. The parliament now has an opportunity to provide some guidance that might overcome perceived inadequacies in the interpretations that the courts have previously had applied in respect of that definition. I also wish to make some comments in relation to the legislative requirement for a deputy chairperson of the ACCC to be someone with knowledge of or a background in small business.

That brings me to the issue of small business generally. Certainly those on the other side have sought to hide behind some belief in the merits of their case being advantageous to small business as being one of the primary arguments that they have mounted in this debate. It is interesting that just about every speaker from the coalition that has spoken on this issue has said, ‘We are the party of small business’—that is, the coalition, and presumably that includes the National Party as well. On that basis, they cannot support these amendments.

Sometimes it is just as interesting to reflect on what is not said as on what is said. I reflect upon the fact that the shadow minister for small business, the service economy and tourism has not made a contribution to this debate. I think that is telling. I think it also exposes as a fig leaf the argument that the opposition is opposed to these amendments on the basis of its commitment to small business. I note an article on 29 April 2008 in the Australian:

Opposition small business spokesman Steve Ciobo said the coalition would back the amendments “in principle”—

See this speech in context