Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), on the sheet revised 20 November 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 35, page 26 (line 16), omit paragraph 51ABP(3)(c).

(2) Schedule 1, item 35, page 27 (line 21), omit "may consider any reports or", substitute "must seek and consider the".

Amendment (1) relates to an ability for the minister, preserved in the bill, to introduce market concentration based thresholds for compulsory notification. It can be hard to define a market, and competition lawyers can argue for days about what that market definition is. Market concentration based thresholds for compulsory notification add complexity and are opposed by many competition law experts because they add uncertainty, risk and compliance cost to the first step in the clearance process. Amendment (1) deletes section 51ABP(3)(c) to remove the ability for the minister to introduce market concentration based thresholds.

I'm putting this amendment forward because it needs to be really clear to companies as to when they need to notify. The government heard that during the consultation process and isn't putting it in the current threshold tests but is preserving the ability to do that in the future. I think, for the sake of simplicity and certainty for business, it would be better not to have that ability in there.

Amendment (2) is about the role of the ACCC when the Treasurer designates high-risk parts of the new economy so that the ACCC will be able to review all mergers, regardless of whether they meet the other key thresholds. This could be used for airlines, supermarkets or any industry where there are specific competition concerns, but the bill doesn't require the Treasurer to seek advice from the ACCC before making such a designation.

I think this is a problem. ACCC consultation should be a requirement not an option.

I'm proposing that section 51ABQ(4) be amended to require advice from the ACCC to be sought and considered before the Treasurer designates any high-risk part of the economy. I think this is necessary because I'm concerned that this could be used for political purposes where a particular industry could be kicked with greater scrutiny in an effort to appease the public rather than where there are specific and well-founded competition concerns. I'm not reassured by the government saying that the ACCC could always participate in the public consultation process. The ACCC has specific expertise and a specific role in this area and should be consulted specifically in advance of any public consultation.

These two amendments are minor but practical improvements to much-needed reform so that we can build a more competitive economy.

See this speech in context