Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005
Second Reading

Speech

Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (6.13 p.m.)—The introduction of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005 is of crucial importance to the National Party, and I think it is good to reiterate what Senator Boswell said. He said that the bill introduces a crucial new reform which is of great importance to small business and farmers: a cheap and simple notification process for collective bargaining. The new notification procedure gives small business and farmers a simple instruction process to get together to negotiate for better commercial outcomes with large suppliers or customers in the buying of inputs and the marketing of their goods and services. I agree with those sentiments expressed by Senator Boswell, which reflect schedules 2 through 12 of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005.

During the recent campaign for Senate seats in Queensland, where the National Party campaigned in its own right, we took to the people of Queensland four issues. One of those issues was zonal taxation, which, as everybody knows, is the capping of tax rates in depressed regional areas as a stimulus to further economic growth and a stimulus for small business—to rejuvenate an area, to make the economy grow and broaden and to take it away from that agricultural boom-bust drought-prosperity cycle. We talked about the mandating of ethanol. We are starting to move in that direction and we would like to see a bit more movement. We want to look over the horizon and see an alternative fuel policy into the future so that Australians can maintain the freedom to drive a car at an affordable price.

We talked about core family values because we believe that the family is the fundamental unit which drives society and that, if you have the family unit right, a lot of your other social problems move away. There is no social security policy that will replace a family. We also talked about the overcentralisation of the retail market and our belief that it has gone too far. It was a real head-nodder at speeches we gave around the countryside. People were on board with that. They believe the market is overcentralised and that Australia needs to do something about it. Currently, we have 77 per cent of the retail market controlled by two organisations. Just think of all the dollars you spend every day on retail trade. To have so much of that controlled by two organisations is not a healthy thing.

We made a contract with Queensland that, when we came here, we would represent them on those four issues, and I intend to do that. Because they believe in us they gave us this seat; that seat is now used to gain the majority in both houses. I acknowledge it is one of many seats, but it is one of the seats nonetheless. So we have a special contractual relationship because we had to campaign in our own right in Queensland and they were the promises we made. In my maiden speech, to follow that issue up, I talked about strengthening the power of the ACCC and section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. I mentioned that, if there were a clash between small business and big business, I would be on the side of small business. This frames the current problems I am having with schedule 1 of this legislation.

The purpose of the economy is not to produce the lowest priced product for the end consumer. That may be a consequence of a good economy but it is not the purpose of the economy. The purpose of the economy is to create the greater nexus between the wealth of the nation and its people, and it generally does that through small business. Our job in this parliament is to maintain the management of that, to make sure that small business prevails and gets a fair go, to make sure that small business can start from the ground up, that a person can start from the ground up and attain their goal and that freedom that they get from small business.

We have had so many instances where it has looked like that might be slipping away. Newsagents, some of the horticultural producers, pharmacies and a lot of small retail shops in regional towns or in suburbs feel that they are over a barrel. They feel threatened and do not feel that they have the ability to go on in the manner in which their parents or grandparents probably went on before them. Our job in this parliament is not only to say we support that but also to publicly show we support that and to do it in such a forum as this, the elected body in this Senate chamber they have sent us to. Why do we believe in this freedom to go into business? The freedom to go into business is a mechanism that gives us our own personal freedom. In politics, we have to allow the greatest freedom for the individual that does not impose upon the freedom of others. That is the aspiration within politics.

One of the key freedoms you can have is the freedom to start your own business, build it up, see it progress and hand it on as a legacy to your children. That is a key aspiration we hold. Some people talk about their future within a company. Some people like to have their own future managing their own affairs, their own future that they determine. I side with those people and I want to support them. I believe the birth of a new business gives birth to an aspiration that you can pursue. It also allows the development of new products, new ideas and new managerial techniques. It gives the whole economy a greater breadth, a breadth to go forward. On the conservative side of politics—and, I suppose, even on the Labor side of politics—it is a fundamental good that we try to encourage.

Currently, with 77 per cent of the retail market controlled by two organisations, we would have to say that freedom is slipping away somewhat. The ‘national champion’ argument pays little regard to the ‘freedom of Australians to be in business’ argument. Mergers and acquisitions are the stepping stones by participants in the market to a position of centralisation that inhibits this freedom. As such, Senator Boswell was instrumental in including the provision that you cannot have a merger that is likely to have the effect of lessening competition in the market. The ACCC works under this auspice. As such, it is something that should be maintained in its current form. Currently the ACCC approves 98 per cent of mergers. The other two per cent do not pass, and they do not pass for a very good reason.

The Australian Competition Tribunal, however, works from a different format—the format of the public benefit. I will now refer to the Law Council of Australia for an outline of what public benefits are. Public benefits include increased exports, increased substitution of domestic products with foreign goods, increased international competitiveness of Australian industry and efficiency gains. It does not mention anything about participation from the ground up of small business, keeping a broad participation in the marketplace and maintaining the fundamental freedom of someone to start with nothing and build their business up. It does not speak to that issue; it speaks to another issue. The ACCC was a protector of that initial goal of not fundamentally reducing competition in the marketplace and, by doing so, maintaining people’s ability to start a business and grow. One would hope that that is a fundamental belief of anybody on the conservative side of politics.

The public benefit argument obviously runs in complete conflict to what I was walking around Queensland talking about with my Senate team. It also works at an angle to what I was speaking about in my maiden speech. The difference between what the ACCC represents and what the Australian Competition Tr