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

This particular debate is not on broadcast and so, for those who are going to be reading the debate, I think it is useful to remark that, in the presence of the duty minister, Senator Brandis, we are fortunate. Sometimes duty ministers do not have particular expertise in the bills they have to run—they have competence but not expertise. In this particular case, Senator Brandis is, of course, a person who deservedly enjoys a high reputation with respect to trade practices matters, which means that we are likely to get responses which do not just accord with the legislative line but hopefully are informed by his background and understanding. I make those remarks deliberately because, of course, I want to put a question arising from these amendments.

Let me say at the outset that the Democrats support the amendments. I understand these amendments now go under the quaint name of ‘the Birdsville amendments’, as proposed by Senator Joyce, and I want to compliment Senator Joyce again on his persistence in getting these amendments accepted and put forward, because they do advance the general cause. I have the view that, in certain respects, there are people who cannot be satisfied by trade practices law—that, in certain respects of the law, perhaps particularly with regard to section 46 matters, that which advantages small business will disadvantage big business, because it restrains their ability to take advantage of their market power to exercise the natural monopolistic instincts of any business faced by opportunities to increase their market share and increase their profitability. I often refer to business behaviour, even where it is prohibited or condemned, as natural behaviour, because it is the natural desire of businesses to acquire market share, to increase their profitability and to increase their market standing.

That is my lead-in, Minister, to discuss a reaction I have noted from big business and big business organisations. Firstly, it is with some pleasure I note antagonism from big business because that means it is actually reflecting some benefit to small business. But I have also seen a particular argument put out in this case by the Australian National Retailers Association—and I am restating their position; I do not want to verbal them—which is essentially that this will severely limit the ability of national retailers to discount and to operate competitively as they have in the past. I personally think that is arrant nonsense. As soon as this bill is passed, big retailers will continue to compete and discount as they have in the past. They will just be restrained if they go too far and breach this particular new provision.

My question to you, Minister, is: are you aware of criticisms of big business surrounding this amendment? Are you in particular aware of the Australian National Retailers Association’s attitudes and are you able to rebut concerns which I think somewhat exaggerate the effect of the amendment?