Competition Law

Australian Competition Law and Policy Discussion

Which party has the best competition policy?

Posted by Julie Clarke on 15 August 2010

It may seem a bit of a no-brainer, but we should at least ask the question, especially as the new Government will be responsible for replacing current ACCC boss, Graeme Samuel, who will step down from his current position in 2011.

Labor?

Labor has, of course, traditionally been much stronger on competition policy.  The Whitlam Government introduced the TPA (which the Rudd/Gillard Government has re-named the CCA – effective 1 January 2011) and were responsible for the most significant reforms of the Act – the introduction of the National Competition Policy (including access regime) by the Keating Government and the criminalisation of cartel conduct by the current Government (despite its flaws and ultimately rushed implementation, they moved on it when the Liberal’s failed, despite Dawson recommendations and years of promises).

More recently, Labor recognised the flaws in the ‘Birdsville Amendment‘ introducing predatory pricing rules and unsuccessfully tried to amend them soon after the Rudd Government took office.

On the downside, it has conducted various recent reviews that have not really led anywhere.  The creeping acquisition review was drawn out – two discussion papers were released, no real response/report produced, but rather a bill introduced which purported to address creeping acquisitions by amending the definition of market (widely thought unlikely to have any practical impact at all – and the bill has, in any event, lapsed following the calling of the election).  In the end it’s a good thing that the Government didn’t proceed with most of the proposals mooted for creeping acquisitions (it was particularly pleasing that it killed off the Xenophon/Zumbo ‘Richmond Amendment‘), but it would have been preferable if they’d just reached the conclusion that either (a) there was no real problem with creeping acquisitions or (b) even if there was some limited problem with them, there was no practical way to implement meaningful reform.  In the end, the proposed legislation appeared designed only to enable the ALP to claim that they had fulfilled another election promise.  There is also an ongoing inquiry into the definition of ‘understanding’ in the TPA that appears to have fallen off the radar.

In addition, although the Rudd Government started with a dedicated Competition and Consumer Minister (Chris Bowen), the current Minister, Dr Emerson, although certainly qualified for the job, is also Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation.  As a result we tend to hear a bit less about competition policy than we might otherwise have with a dedicated Minister (although the same can be said of the Coalition in this respect).

Legislative drafting is also a bit nightmarish – although this is not necessarily unique to one party.  Following a major review of consumer law provisions and a nationalisation of consumer policy (in itself to be welcomed) we now have an incredibly ‘messy’ Act – most consumer provisions now appear in a schedule, with lots of ’empty’ bits in the body of the Act and an insane numbering system for the competition law provisions (s 44ZZRD etc).  That is not to mention the the highly verbose and technical language adopted in the provisions themselves.  It would have been nice if the Government had at least taken the opportunity to do a tidy up and renumbering of the competition provisions, but ultimately that’s an issue of style over substance.

However, the fact that Dr Emerson is in the midst of a verbal stoush with Frank Zumbo and has even issued a press release listing what he describes as ‘Zumbo’s Zany Ideas’ makes Labor more appealing.  Not because of the stoush per se, but because of the public recognition that the ‘Birdsville Amendment’ (which the Liberals passed under the Howard Government) and the Blacktown Amendment, Richmond Amendment, forced divestiture powers and unconscionable conduct reforms proposed by Zumbo are ‘Zany’ and don’t feature in Labor’s competition policy outlook.  Although Zumbo claims Emerson’s criticism of his ideas is extraordinary and that there are better things the Minister could be doing, I find the reference to Zumbo’s policy ideas (which he has repeatedly promoted in public forums – particularly his various op-eds) perfectly appropriate and useful in assessing the Government’s position on various questions of policy.  I might of thought Zumbo would have been more upset if the relevant minister had not taken any notice of his proposals; it would appear the problem is not Dr Emerson referring to the proposals, but rather his dismissal of them.

As a result, despite the rushed effort to get some legislation through and the lag-time associated with some other reviews, there appears at least to be a commitment to strong and sensible competition policy.

Liberal/National?

The Liberals say they will review the Trade Practices Act … again. Frank Zumbo claims this is long overdue, but there is little support for that proposition among experts and details are lacking on the purpose of the proposed review. In this respect, Zumbo suggests that Australia has one of the ‘weakest competition policies in the world’, especially compared with the US which he suggests has one of the strongest.  It’s not at all clear on what basis he makes such an absurd claim (for example, one of his suggestions is that Australia introduce price discrimination laws like the US – perhaps he has not checked to see how frequently such laws are actually enforced in the US and what this might say about genuine concern over such conduct).  Zumbo further claims it’s been 10 years since a major review – however the Dawson Review (initiated by the Howard Government) Committee only reported in 2003, it took years for most proposed reforms to be implemented by the Liberal Government and it took until the Rudd Government for criminal penalties (recommended by Dawson) to be implemented (effective from 2009).  In the meantime there have also been many reviews into other aspects of competition policy.  Thus, while there’s scope for some tweaking, it’s time to let the current reforms settle in before any major review becomes worthwhile (unless the review is confined to repealing the Birdsville amendment and renumbering the provisions – I’d be all for that).  In this respect, see John Durie’s analysis of the proposed review, concluding that “If the review was aimed at simplifying the law rather than being a smokescreen for fictitious, unenforceable or contradictory small-business gifts, then maybe Hockey is on to something”.  The fear is, however, that the proposed review would be directed toward benefiting small business, which is not (and should not be) the purpose of competition policy.

On the upside, the Liberals did eventually implement many of the Dawson Committee proposals.  They also, like the Government, opposed the Richmond Amendment proposal.  However, they do favor continued efforts to legislate against ‘creeping acquisitions’ and, speaking in Parliament, shadow competition Minister Bruce Billson, made favorable references to the drafter of the Richmond Amendment, Frank Zumbo, and his small-business agenda, stating: ‘I talk with academic experts of considerable stature and insight such as Professor Zumbo’.  Zumbo is, however, the only academic of whom I am aware that is pushing this agenda.  Billson’s remark, in the same speech, that he could ‘only think of one occasion where it has been asserted that there is no need to examine these issues’ might suggest that he’s been speaking to a fairly narrow range of interest groups; perhaps I have too, for I cannot think of an occasion in which I have spoken to a competition law or economics expert (practitioner/academic) where it has been asserted that there is a need to re-examine this issue.

In addition, despite initiating the last major review, there appears a lukewarm commitment by the coalition to implementing meaningful (or sensible) change in competition policy.  The last piece of ‘competition policy’ implemented under the Howard Government was the Birdsville Amendment (drafted by Zumbo and introduced at the behest of Barnaby Joyce following a visit to the now infamous Birdsville pub).  When discussing the Bill, Joyce seemed convinced that competition policy (and this bill in particular) was all about protecting small business and went to great lengths to explain his motives, stating in part (I kid you not)

“It might be a joke, but I use the example that even Jesus Christ, when he was looking for disciples, went and found small business people. He went out and found fishermen. Even just looking at that as an example, he found people who had the freedom to make their own decisions on whether to stay or go; they did what they wished. It is a very important point. I do not know how he would go if he turned up today and he had to stand at the back of a queue at a major bank and scream to people to listen to a message. That is also part of why I have such an entrenched fervour for the protection of small business. It is a key thing that we need to look to.

Within the National Party there is one thing that is unique about all of us, every senator who sits in here. We are all small business people, the whole lot of us … Finally—and I hear some people denigrating me, which I do not think is needed—I would also like to acknowledge the support and the hard work of Professor Zumbo. I do not feel that he is welded to any political group. I believe that he has a belief in small business. When I read him in the Australian Financial Review I see that he understands legislation and the Trade Practices Act like nobody else I know. … he has been a great advocate for small business. I … hope the Senate gives strong support to this bill … I look forward in the future to progressing other issues pertaining to small business”

Competition policy is not about ‘protecting small business’ at all cost (it may protect small business from anti-competitive tactics employed by its rivals, but it is not designed to protect small business where they lost custom due to inefficiency) and this bill (and its motives) set a frightening precedent.  The Birdsville Amendment on predatory pricing is bad law.  So far no real damage appears to have been done (because the provision has never been tested), but the fact of its introduction suggests more pandering to interest groups (or particular politicians) than any sensible policy direction – and the coalition compounded this with their opposition to a subsequent amendment bill introduced by the Labor party (which would have removed the inappropriate reference to market share introduced by the Birdsville bill).

Government’s obviously aren’t elected on competition policy alone, but if they were you would have to think Labor would have the numbers.

10 Responses to “Which party has the best competition policy?”

  1. You're biased said

    Wow, someone who likes Emerson’s inaction. You wouldn’t be a labor voter would you? Either that or you must want to endear yourself to Emerson. Wake up to yourself and come down from your ivory tower and go meet some small business people.

  2. Actually no, I wouldn’t be a Labor voter. I have no political bias in this respect (in fact I have more often been accused of political bias in the other direction). But I do have a fairly sound understanding of competition policy and I examined the competition policy (in isolation) of both parties over time on the merits – and I believe I did criticise Emerson’s inaction in certain areas. But those are not areas in which the Liberals have promised action. I’m not entirely sure how you can make the claim that the Labor party has been less active in competition law than the Lib’s. Perhaps a history lesson is needed.

    You have, however, highlighted the problem (bias) with your own rant; competition policy is not about protecting small business – in no jurisdiction is this the ‘purpose’ of competition law. Rather it has a broader purpose of enhancing consumer welfare.

  3. You're biased said

    You may have an economic rationalist view of competition policy, but it’s you that needs a lesson. You suggest that “small businesses” are inefficient. On what do you base such a smear? Maybe you have read too many economics textbooks and don’t have enough real world experience about the contribution being made everyday by small businesses around Australia?

    If anyone is ranting it’s you with your self serving diatribe and big noting of yourself of how much you “know.” Who are you trying to impress … Emerson or just those competition law or economics “experts” you talk to?

    Small business doesn’t need your patronising comments and they certainly don’t need “protection” from competition as you wrongly suggest. Perhaps you can use your next blog to suggest ways to strengthen Australia’s competition laws to better protect competition.

    • I did not say that small business was inefficient. I said that competition law was not designed to protect small business in cases where they are inefficient. And after claiming my blog post was biased because I failed to recognise the plight of small business, you now attack me for patronising comments suggesting small business needed protection from competition (which I did not claim). We really are angry aren’t we. I did say that I know something about competition policy; this was not about big-noting, but rather was an attempt to explain the motives for my original blog post, which you wrongly suggested were politically motivated.

      I have on many previous occasions suggested improvements to competition policy and will continue to do so, but given the impending election I thought it would be interesting to evaluate the performance of each of the majors on competition issues. You are naturally free to disagree; but it would be more productive to explain reasons for disagreement (what should Labor have done? why do you think the Liberals will be a better choice for competition policy?) instead of simply attacking the author.

      • You're biased said

        You’re sounding very defensive as well as biased. Your blog is full of personal attacks and patronising remarks, so you are no stranger to making attacks on those who disagree with you.

        At no stage in this blog do you say that Emerson should pursue meaningful and substantial additions to our competition laws. Your idea of an “addition” to the law in this blog is to re-number the legislation. The rest of your blog is just a diatribe.

        What a wasted opportunity to make a real contribution by having a go at both sides to pursue real and substantial additions to our competition laws. Praising Emerson and attacking others is not a very sophisticated way to approach the issue of much needed competition law reform and we look forward to some common sense in your next blog.

  4. I’m happy to let others judge whether I am biased and defensive. The purpose of this blog post was not to propose change to law (I have done that elsewhere and will continue to do so as appropriate) but to evaluate the performance of the major parties. You clearly disagree with that evaluation and continue to make the claim that competition law reform is desperately needed – but you don’t make any attempt to explain why change is needed and what form it should take. That’s an issue I’m happy to debate.

    • You're biased said

      So you didn’t want to make any suggestions for real and meaningful additions to our competition laws in this blog, but you want others to do so in their replies.

      Well let’s have a debate when your future blogs do have something real and meaningful to say about additions to our competition laws rather than simply present sweeping attacks as you have in this blog.

      And please make your suggested additions more interesting than a suggestion to re-number the legislation. Your readers deserve better!

      • Please try actually reading my blog and replies – I had indicated that the purpose of this blog post was not to suggest reform but to evaluate party policies. In that respect (and in the context of the Liberal party announcing a major review of the Act) I suggested that I would not oppose cosmetic reforms, but I did not suggest that they were anything more than that; I also made clear my view that major competition reforms were not needed at this time.

        You’re free to read previous articles and blogs of mine if you’re genuinely interested in my views on competition policy; it seems you are not. Sweeping attacks were not made in my blog – rather targeted criticism of a ‘small business protection’ philosophy governing competition policy was made which was relevant to an assessment of which party I considered to have the superior record on competition policy. You, on the other hand, continue to attack me and my assessment of the competition policy of each party without providing any reason or justification for that attack. And naturally you do so under cover of anonymity.

  5. You're biased said

    I have read your blogs very carefully and you don’t appear to have any interest in any real and meaningful additions to our competition laws.

    You don’t hesitate to attack small business and others because they make suggestions about the need for reform. You use the cloak of your suggested “expertise” to dismiss any proposals for real and meaningful additions to our competition laws.

    Your view is simply that there is nothing wrong with our existing competition laws. What is the basis of your view? Economic textbooks or simply a dislike of change? Academics need to come down from their ivory tower from time to time.

    Without real and meaningful additions to our competition laws from time to time there is the real danger that new or emerging anti-competitive business practices are not effectively dealt with by our existing competition laws. That’s why regular major reviews of competition laws are so necessary if you really must know. Business practices may evolve into anti-competitive practices and therefore competition laws also need to evolve to remain relevant and effective. Real and effective reform of competition laws, like learning by academics, needs to be ongoing, unless of course you think you know it all!

  6. Ben Ponnito said

    ‘You’re biased’ – what your present is truly bizarre. Any outsider can see that it you and you alone obsessed with the idea of status, you appear inherently plagued by an intellectual superiority complex. For Ms. Clarke to suggest that she has knowledge of competition law and policy is not in any way a claim of superiority – perhaps most intriguing is why you seek to describe it as such. Also, to suggest that all is suggested on this blog is a ‘re-numbering’ of legislation is a clear indication that you either lack the ability to read or are simply blinded by your own bias on the issue of small business.

    The ‘suggestion’ that competition law and policy is not directed at small business which happens to be ineffecient is not a ‘suggestion’ at all – it is a fact. This fact is no way derisive of small business – legal policy in this area is not directed at ineffecient practice in any shape or size.

    You then seek to refer to the idea of ‘sophistication’ – really? Please review your understanding of this term. If one is to talk about sophistication a consideration of your comments regarding academia may be warranted, the most efficient path for competition law and policy is not in disregarding the role of academics (regardless of their alignment with your own viewpoint) but rather in complementing their role with the role of practicum – including that of small business.

    What you suggest ‘You’re biased’ is patently bizarre and entirely missing the point of this blog which so many of us enjoy for its content and in-depth analysis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: