Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18850. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):Although the Labour Party again in the spirit of most of these pieces of legislation will support the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I have got to ask the Minister of Commerce—and I am sure that he is going to stay and hang on every word. I am going to make a couple of comments about Supplementary Order Paper 408 which I have proposed to replace section 36. This is quite important because the Government has just said—we have just heard the Minister say—that the National Party is the champion of competition. To a large extent like all parties in this Parliament that would be true except there was a big issue that was raised in this House earlier this year in respect of the grocery trade which the Minister rubbished from the then Hon Shane Jones who was a member of this Parliament and whom he rubbished. He basically went into denial over it.Then it was found out that the Government had been well-informed about the concerns about this issue as far back if memory serves me correctly as the Minister’s predecessor Simon Power in 2009. The current Minister then met with the chief executive officer of the grocery suppliers association Katherine Rich. The file note that he authored in his office or that was authored by his officials at his request or instruction notes the conversation and notes the gravity of the issues. If the issues were not of sufficient gravity one wonders why this Minister would have instructed his officials to make a file note of the conversation to go and rehearse various options and to note that in the file note. Then nothing happened. He stood in this House and said: “I know nothing.” Like Sergeant Schultz he said: “I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing.” So although the Minister stands up and says he is the champion of competition that is limited to only those aspects that interest that Minister.We have proposed a pretty substantial amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 408 in respect of section 36 of the principal Act. I have to say that there are some very eminent entities in this country including the chair of the Commerce Commission the Productivity Commission and many in the telecommunications industry who have called on section 36 to be amended in the way that my Supplementary Order Paper 408 does.Clare Curran: We’re in tune.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says: “We’re in tune.” Hell yes we are in tune.Before I go into the nature of the Supplementary Order Paper I will just deal with the Minister’s response. I sent the Supplementary Order Paper—as is the wont to do in these commerce bills; there is cooperation pretty much—to the Minister on 10 December 2013. He then turned up at the Commerce Committee for the 2014-15 estimates a couple of weeks ago and I asked him whether he would support it. He has had it for nigh on 7 months. He said he would get his officials to look at it. I asked him in the select committee whether he would support it and the answer was no. It was not because he did not agree with it but simply because he wanted to put it through some sort of full policy process. OK fair enough—that is a logical step to undertake. However he had 7 months to do it—7 months to do it—and he did nothing as this bill progressed through. Such is his commitment to stamping out anti-competitive behaviour.Then we see the letter that he wrote me which I received on the 24th of this month. In it he says that although he rejects the Supplementary Order Paper “to this end the Government recently announced its intention to review section 36 as part of its Business Growth Agenda Future Direction 2014 report.” So now we know that the Minister had our idea endorsed by the Commerce Commission and endorsed and called for by the Productivity Commission the telecommunication industries and others for 7 months and he decided to do nothing about it until he got a prod. And then the excuse was that National was going to put it through a full policy process. Given the Minister’s track record on getting a policy process expedited through the bureaucracy the Parliament and the select committee God only knows how long it will be before we actually see if at all any proposed changes to section 36 as called on by external entities. You would think that we were going to write things on tablets of stone.What we are actually changing in the proposal for section 36 is that as it stands the Commerce Commission has to prove the intent of monopolies abusing market power rather than the effect of that behaviour. To give a rather coarse example but a simple one for one or two members opposite it is a bit like saying that in a car accident where somebody injures somebody—breaks their legs runs them over or what have you—we will look at the intent. The intent was not actually to do that to maim the person because it was an accident but we will not look at the effect of the fact that that person may be permanently injured unable to work unable to earn an income—i.e. there is a series of negative impacts on that person’s life. So that is the sort of basic example for Mr Young opposite. In essence the Act looks at the intent but it does not actually look at the impact and actions around the impact of anti-competitive behaviour. It is a simple change but it is an important change. We think that looking at that effect or that impact—actually what happened who got done over why they got done over how that had an impact on that entity or person and what the anti-competitive behaviour was—is extremely important. It is actually the practical outcome of the exercise.As I say the Productivity Commission has called for this the Commerce Commission has called for this and various other industry players have called for this. Given that these bills are relatively non-contentious and are generally almost always supported by the parties we sent the Minister the Supplementary Order Paper 7 months ago in the hope that this could be helpful. We did not make a big song and dance about it. We told the world that we were doing it. We hoped the Minister would take it seriously and 7 months later when he could have embarked upon his major root and branch policy process all we get is a letter dated today that says: “We are going to look at it at some future time as part of a fancy growth and industry agenda and mix it up in the politics of the day.” I think that says more about the Minister than it actually does about what we want to do here tonight. There is an opportunity to pass a simple Supplementary Order Paper to have a major impact on anti-competitive behaviour and give the Commerce Commission particularly some really good grunt in terms of going after this sort of stuff.There is a question I would just like to ask the Minister and I am sure he will give another dissertation as we move through this. Rather than him just saying: “Policy process—that’s what we have to do.” I would like an explanation as to why he did not embark on that 7 long months ago—7 long months ago. He says on the one hand he is the champion of going after anti-competitive activity. He says he is the champion of business. He says he supports this bill. He says he wants to cooperate with other parties and get the best possible piece of legislation out. Yet when he was given the opportunity to do so nothing happened. We would have supported a truncated policy process I have to say and I believe that the industry would have the Commerce Commission would have and the Productivity Commission would have. If we had all come together and said: “Look we think it is the right thing to do but we want to health check it. I am sure we will consult but we do not want to mess around with this. We want to get it done because it is the right thing to do.” this side of the House and I am sure other parties as well would have supported that. But nothing happened.The silence is deafening from this Minister. It is the same Minister who got up and rubbished the grocery issue. He said it was all a lot of hot air and then suddenly the Commerce Commission put seven or eight investigators on the case subpoenas flew around this country like lightning bolts witnesses were brought in and they are taking that issue extremely seriously. But it is a worry when the Minister of Commerce the highest officer within that portfolio decides in an arbitrary way to simply rubbish it and then criticises others by the way for putting up suggestions prior to the Commerce Commission reporting and then sneaks round to the back door and cuddles up to the very organisation that is being investigated by the Commerce Commission in order to do some sort of slipshod deal on a voluntary agreement to in some way prove to us that he is on the case and he is actually doing something. Well the arguments that the Minister puts up round this are riddled with holes. We expect some accountability and at the very least we expect an explanation as to why he will not support Supplementary Order Paper 408.