Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I need to respond to some of the comments of Senator Conroy. This is certainly not politics for politics’ sake, as he said at the end of his remarks. We acknowledged, and I acknowledged in my comments on the previous amendment and these amendments, that we do not think the previous system worked effectively. We do have concerns about the way the system was gamed. We do think there are problems that need to be fixed. We acknowledge and support the more prescriptive approach that is being put in place that will ensure that the setting of determinations is done by far quicker and more effective means. We acknowledge that we believe there should be some form of merits review; that matter has been decided.

In relation to these binding rules of conduct and Senator Conroy’s arguments that these need to be applied without procedural fairness because of their urgency, we do not believe there is an undue delay in providing a reasonable level of normal procedural fairness. By having procedural fairness you are not imposing forms of appeal; you are not opposing anything that will actually allow the parties to delay the process in any meaningful way. You are simply ensuring that there is some notice given, that there is potentially some opportunity for comment. That is basically as far as decent procedural fairness provisions are likely to go.

In terms of the urgency, if you were talking in terms of a court system and you sought an ex parte injunction along the way, you would not have such an injunction usually stand for a 12-month period. It could, Senator Xenophon, but it would not be usual for such things to stand for that period of time without the other party having the opportunity to make their case to get the matter effectively resolved. In this instance we acknowledge there is a need for the government to have provisions for urgent action. That is fine. These amendments will not prevent that urgent action. They will simply require the ACCC to act in a procedurally fair way to the parties involved. It is a simple case; it should not be the matter of such argument in this place.

I am surprised that Senator Conroy thinks that of all our constructive amendments, and the constructive approach the opposition may have taken notwithstanding our differences on this matter, this is one that is said to be not constructive. We think this is a straightforward amendment. We do not think it comes with enormous ramifications for the operation of the system. We think, however, that it simply strengthens the system and ensures that the ACCC’s actions and decisions engage the parties that they affect in a fair and responsible manner.