Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think the issue does need to be clarified. The government wants to put beyond doubt that you do not have to prove that you need to have recoupment as the basis of actually proving predatory pricing. I think that is the absolute clarity of the issue and I can understand why the government has put in:

A corporation may contravene subsection (1AA) even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred by supplying the goods or services at a price less than the relevant cost to the corporation of the supply.

To speed up things, I am wondering whether we should have the vote on the issue of whether the section should stand as printed. Then, if that is defeated or, to put it in other words, is repealed, the government may want to put forward an amendment that inserts into the legislation this issue of making sure beyond doubt that you do not have to prove recoupment to be able to prove predatory pricing. This is an issue, as it is in the explanatory memorandum and we had this debate some time ago. I think some senators were arguing at the time that it should be in the legislation. The government is honouring that by putting into the legislation that the recoupment issue is beyond doubt. But we are confusing the market share issue with the recoupment issue and I think, for clarity, the government should genuinely move each in its own right as an addition to the Trade Practices Act.

Question put:

That Schedule 1, items 1, 2 and 6, and Schedule 2, items 1, 2 and 6 stand as printed.