Division Description Changes — Bills — Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016; Second Reading — 27th Mar 2017

Change	Division
representatives vote 2017-03-27#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2017-04-21 04:14:06	Title Bills — Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016; Second Reading Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Don't agree with the bill's main idea Description ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-27.113.1) introduced by Labor MP [Chris Bowen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcmahon/chris_bowen), which means it was unsuccessful. The bill asked the House of Representatives to refuse to agree to the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, it refused the House to read the bill for a [second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ### What was the bill's main idea? According to the [bill's homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5788), the bill was introduced to: * strengthen the prohibition on corporations with substantial market powers from engaging in conduct that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in markets in which they directly or indirectly participate *** remove provisions in relation to telecommunications-specific anti-competitive conduct and the competition notices and exemption order regime The [bill's digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd087) has more information. ### Motion text** > That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > "The House declines to give this bill a second reading and calls on the Government to explain why it is introducing a dangerous piece of economic policy that is legally unworkable, will chill competition, and will create uncertainty for business".

~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-27.113.1) introduced by Labor MP [Chris Bowen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcmahon/chris_bowen), which means it was unsuccessful.
The bill asked the House of Representatives to refuse to agree to the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, it refused the House to read the bill for a [second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html).
### What was the bill's main idea?
According to the [bill's homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5788), the bill was introduced to:
* *strengthen the prohibition on corporations with substantial market powers from engaging in conduct that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in markets in which they directly or indirectly participate*
* *remove provisions in relation to telecommunications-specific anti-competitive conduct and the competition notices and exemption order regime*
The [bill's digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd087) has more information.
### Motion text
> *That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
> *"The House declines to give this bill a second reading and calls on the Government to explain why it is introducing a dangerous piece of economic policy that is legally unworkable, will chill competition, and will create uncertainty for business".*