House debates
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008
Second Reading
4:05 pm
Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
Well, let us move on. In a doorstop interview on 9 October 2007, the then Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, stated that the coalition would continue to examine the strength of the trade practices law and make further changes if they were needed. However, he stated that he would not make any commitment beyond that. We know what happened to that. In the meantime there have been serious cases of cartel misconduct recorded in this community. Some members opposite claim that our hastiness in beating towards creating legislation to criminalise cartel conduct was based on a personal vendetta against some of those who were taking part in and found to be guilty of these malpractices. This was between 2000 and 2004.
In 2007, another company was severely penalised for such conduct. We made a commitment in 2007 that we would advance the legislation. The minister has carried out that promise. Contrary to what others have said—particularly the member for Pearce, who claimed in an extraordinary finish to her speech that the minister was forced to rush the legislation—my understanding, and I am not a lawyer or an accountant, indeed far from it, is that we have had a period of consultation, we have circulated a Treasury discussion paper and we have had other discussions with major agencies throughout the government over 12 months. Because of those consultations, the minister made changes to the amendments which are before us today. This is hardly a rushed piece of legislation.
The Labor Party made a commitment based on the history of a poor legacy in relation to criminalising what is highway robbery in this country. The legislation before us deals with that in a balanced, measured way. Indeed, and let us not forget this, it follows the example of many other countries, in fact—again, I am not an accountant—15 OECD countries and others, including the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Norway, France, Germany, Israel, Taiwan and so forth. It is not as if we have invented the wheel, indeed we have not even reinvented it. What we have done is to hopefully make it work and run more smoothly than it has in the past.
I congratulate the minister. I congratulate this government on behalf of my community, which I must say has felt the detrimental effects of what looks like collusion, often, in terms of paying major prices for major commodities, which unfortunately are controlled by very few players in the market.
The penalties that have been introduced in relation to this legislation I believe are appropriate. I believe they will act as a deterrent, as they must, and that individuals cannot escape their responsibility, particularly in relation to decisions that are made which are of an anticompetitive nature. I realise and I understand that there are sensitivities in terms of trying to balance the rights of individuals and their privacy and the need to intercept and get proof of cartel conduct of this anticompetitive nature. I believe the legislation has the balance right. I know the minister has given a commitment to monitor the legislation as it goes into practice, and I think that is absolutely important in this case.
I thank the minister. I thank the government for fulfilling its election promise. I think this is going to act as a strong deterrent. We join many around the globe in trying to tackle what is highway robbery in our economy. It is not fair. It is anticompetitive. It is anticonsumer. It is anti small business. I thank the House.
No comments