SpeechHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the chance to talk on this bill the Commerce Amendment Bill third reading. Although I'm not a member of the committee of the House that discussed it National does support this bill. We see that there are some parts of the legislation that are important.Proposed new section 36 Misuse of market power" moves away from the intention test to a purposed effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. That is something that is a change in our law and probably under that clause isn't so much of an issue but when it comes to the actual effects test the National Party has some concerns around the nature of that test and how it will actually work out in practice for companies that may then be subject to that test.The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's regulatory impact assessment supports the National Party's view stating that there is a genuine risk that some businesses may act overly conservatively and compliance-focused to avoid any risk of contravening the amended section 36—"This would impose some costs and could lead to some firms not engaging in conduct that is ultimately pro-competitive."Effectively the risk is that this achieves the ultimate difference in purpose from what the bill is actually there for which is to enable competition. It would actually potentially mean that businesses take an overly conservative view and potentially could be liable for any unforeseen reduction in competition.That's where one of the key fundamental parts of our law is enshrined in most legislation—is an intention test. There needs to be an intention to commit an offence. I'm going back to the legal system days and I'm sure Mr Chris Penk will understand this very well—the mens rea of intention. I can't actually believe I can remember that those days but even a non-lawyer myself that did study it—[Interruption] Yes. Remember the lectures on mens rea and how important that is especially in the criminal justice system. Here we are moving away from that to any unforeseen reduction in competition as being sufficient.So when we have the words "purposed effect" or "likely effect" and it's now "purpose" or "likely effect" that actually then creates—well that should be the change in the amendment that the National Party is looking for which would actually give a little bit more comfort to those businesses that could potentially be in the position where without any intention they are ultimately responsible for unforeseen consequences.Although the bill is generally in the right intention you could say the actual nature of the test that is being used could actually lead to a situation where some businesses are not in a position that they would have endeavoured to have themselves in. We understand that some companies have written to the Minister to that effect and there hasn't been that response from the Minister to be aware and change this law to make it more satisfactory for those that are in business.We will support this legislation but we have some concerns around it especially around those unforeseen circumstances and possible options that it could create for business and we would encourage—it's a bit late now in this reading for the Minister to make those changes but it's important that the Minister looks at how this law is actually implemented through the various mechanisms that he has or she has to make sure that we actually get to a situation where it is not an unjust law that's being passed through this House. So we look forward to the Minister actually implementing this law in an appropriate way through the relevant departments rather than in a very strict way which potentially could happen too under this legislation as it stands at this time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Ingrid Leary—five minutes."