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

I move Democrat amendment (11) on sheet 5324 revised:

(11)  Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 12), after item 3, insert:

3H After subsection 95ZF(4)

Insert:

        (5)    The Commission will:

             (a)    commence monitoring prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of goods or services by a corporation once that corporation has attained a market share of 25% of:

                   (i)    the national market for the goods or services; or

                  (ii)    a State or Territory market for goods or services;

             (b)    table a report in both Houses of Parliament on the monitoring at six monthly intervals.

Commercial confidentiality

        (6)    The Commission must, in preparing a report required under subsection (5), have regard to the need for commercial confidentiality.

Commission to send the corporation a copy of the report

        (7)    The Commission must send the corporation a copy of the report required under subsection (5) on the day it tables the report.

Public inspection

        (8)    The Commission must also make copies of the report required under subsection (5) available for public inspection as soon as practicable after the report has been tabled.

This amendment too relates to a theme of mine which I have pursued over time in this place, and it relates to some competition law which I admire in other jurisdictions. I am, of course, referring to the device used in the Fair Trading Act of the United Kingdom whereby they use trigger concentrations of market power to institute a process which could be colloquially described as ‘market watch’. They are alert to the fact that great commercial power, when accumulated, may not be illegal—it may not, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the society or the economy—but it deserves to be watched in a manner which allows for the competition authorities to be fully informed in greater detail than is available through the normal market processes of market disclosure, particularly for publicly listed companies.

The amendment as I have attempted to design it—as usual, with legal assistance—only applies to state, territory and national markets. That is an important consideration because, of course, the market definition was quite properly changed in our competition law following a joint house inquiry in, I think, 1997 which recommended that markets, in Australian competition law, no longer be defined as national but as applicable in a regional as well as a larger market sense. In practical terms I would anticipate that the companies involved would provide disclosure of relevant information to the ACCC and the ACCC would assess that information to identify trends which may suggest areas where greater care should be taken with respect to competitive activity. If such trends were identified then a more detailed scrutiny may occur—much in the same way as ASIC monitors particular trends under its jurisdiction.

It is essentially an ACCC watching brief over highly concentrated markets that I am recommending. I think that would be to the advantage, not the disadvantage, of our economy. It would obviously need the ACCC to take note of how other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom operate. It does seem to be a practical, effective and responsible market measure, as used in the United Kingdom. I am suggesting it could be useful in our own legal context.