The Productivity Commission says existing oversight is adequate to deal with misuse of market power.
A recent legal case illustrates why the government has made a mistake in changing its market misuse law.
The government will adopt an “effects” test to combat anti-competitive behaviour. It should ensure meaningful penalties are attached.
In a major victory for small business and the Nationals over big business, the government has agreed to write an ‘effects test’ into competition policy.
The debate over two words in Australian competition law could lead to an anti-competitive future for Australian businesses.
The federal government will implement Harper’s much-pushed for recommendation for a new competition policy body - but how its fits with other regulators is uncertain.
In kicking the can down the road on section 46, the federal government has chosen good politics over good law.
Ian Harper made a bunch of less glamourous but very useful recommendations in his competition review, that deserve not to be overshadowed.
The proposed changes to Australia’s competition regime make sense, and deserve bipartisan support.
The new Turnbull government should follow the lead of the Harper Review and introduce an ‘effects’ test on market power.
Both big and small business have much at stake in competition policy reform, but they need to move on from simplistic arguments about misuse of market power.
Supermarket giants are predictably opposed to
Harper Review’s effects test, but the report is a mixed bag when it comes to other retail competition issues.
The main question to ask of the Harper report is: what will make a tangible difference to our economic prosperity?
The “effects test” aims to boost prosecutions for misuse of market power. But will it really make it easier for the ACCC to win cases?