Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

If I were to sum up my and the Democrats view on this bill in one sentence it is that we would support the legislation that is before the chamber if it were accompanied by the trade practices strengthening amendments that are required. We are not opposed to the bill; what we are opposed to is that it has arrived on its own.

I think I made it clear in the second reading debate, but I will restate it for the purposes of this amendment, that what we have argued for is that the Dawson trade practices bill, the trade practices bill which is designed to strengthen the Trade Practices Act with respect to section 46 and the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 should all have been dealt with cognately—or, if not cognately, at least sequentially, in the same week. We could then have dealt with this more easily.

Of course, we have particular views on the Dawson bill; we are strongly opposed to elements of it. We are delighted that, as a result of the effort of The Nationals, as I understand it, the Treasurer withdrew the alterations to third-line forcing, which were detrimental to a better competition regime. But we remain strongly opposed to the antichoice, antiunion provision in the Dawson bill—which is not part of the Dawson committee’s recommendations anyway—and we remain deeply concerned about the changes to the merger decisions capacity of the ACCC commissioner and the ACCC tribunal. We think that could lead to forum shopping and to a less rigorous approach than is currently adopted. Of course, the Dawson bill itself may occasion quite a bit of debate when it comes forward.

With respect to the trade practices bill, which covers off small business amendments that strengthen the Trade Practices Act, we are likely to support the amendments. We just do not think they go far enough. We are not being bloody-minded about this. We would accept the will of the Senate, but what we want is the opportunity for the will of the Senate to be expressed so that with this bill, which deregulates the petroleum market and provides more competition among the oil majors, you would have an accompanying set of changes to the Trade Practices Act which introduce a stronger competition regime.

Restating our position in short, as I have just done—I have done it at great length elsewhere, particularly in my speech at the second reading stage—it is obvious that we would support the opposition’s amendment because it gives the government time to bring forward what it should. But of course it does not provide a guarantee that that will happen. That is my difficulty. As I have said previously in this debate, I have been both frustrated and upset by what I have seen as a spiteful approach whereby, because there has been disagreement within the coalition regarding these matters, the Treasurer and the cabinet have refused to bring forward a trade practices bill which should have accompanied this bill and should have allowed us all the comfort of knowing that, while independents were likely to face even stronger big company competition than they have to date, they would be better protected by a strengthened Trade Practices Act.

In conclusion, I support, on behalf of the Democrats, the amendment, but I do hope that the minister—because I am sure he has support for that view—will be prevailed upon to give a guarantee, a commitment, that these bills will be brought before the chamber prior to this date. If the minister could give us that guarantee and commitment on the floor of the chamber I would be much comforted. He can do that. He is the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He does have the numbers. The legislative program is in his hands. If he gives me that commitment and guarantee here and now, our attitude to the overall bill will change and we will be much more comforted than we have been to date.