Title          : Review of: Annotated Trade Practices Act 1974, 1996 
                 Edition, (Sydney: Butterworths, 1996), and Annotated
                 Trade Practices Act, 17th edition, (Sydney: LBC, 1996)
Author         : Professor Michael Blakeney
Organisation   : Murdoch University School of Law
Keywords       : Trade practices law; legal reference
Abstract       : Review of two leading reference books on Australian 
                 trade practices legislation
Citation       : E Law - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law,
               : Vol 3, No 2, (July 1996)
ISSN           : 1321-8247
Filename       : blaketpr.txt
Ftp location   : www.murdoch.edu.au/pub/elaw/issues/v3n2/
File size      : 6K
File type      : Document
File format    : ASCII
Contact        : elaw-editors@central.murdoch.edu.au
Copyright      : E Law and author; details on the web page

****************************************************************************

Ray Steinwall and Lucienne Layton, Annotated Trade Practices Act 1974, 1996
Edition, (Sydney: Butterworths, 1996), ISBN 0 409 312223, 548 pages; Russell
V. Miller, Annotated Trade Practices Act, 17th edition, (Sydney: LBC, 1996).

Review by Michael Blakeney

  1. The Trade Practices Act 1974, which was considered to be one of the
     most revolutionary of the legislative innovations of the Whitlam
     administration, has gradually attra cted the bipartisan support of both
     Federal and State governments. Initially, the unfair competition and
     restrictive trade practice provisions were emulated by parallel State
     statutes. The Federal Act was largely confined to s.51(xx) trading
     corporations by decisions such as St. George County Council[1],
     Adamson[2] and Hughes[3] and the Crown in right of the various States
     was exempted from the reach of the Act by the High Court in Br adken
     Consolidated Ltd v. Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd[4]. This confinement has
     been reversed by a package of State and Federal legislation which was
     precipitated by the 1993 Hilmer Committee report.

  2. The vision of the National Competition Policy Review, chaired by
     Professor Fred Hilmer, was for a national competition policy in which
     State and Federal governments cooperated to establish a competition
     code which uniformly applied rules of market cond uct to all market
     participants regardless of their ownership. On 11 April 1995, the
     Council of Australian Governments (COAG), signed a series of agreements
     in support of a national competition policy reform package. On 20 July
     1995 the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 received the Royal Assent
     and reciprocal legislation in the States and Territories recognised the
     superintending authority of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

  3. The Trade Practices Act was itself reformed to replace the Trade
     Practices Commission with the Australian Competition and Consumer
     Commission (ACCC). With the parallel State an d Territory legislation
     the prohibitions of anti-competitive conduct in Act now apply to the
     State Crown and to virtually all businesses in the country.
     Additionally, the competition provisions of the Act were broadened and
     the penalty levels increased to $10 million for corporations and
     $500,000 for individuals.

  4. The detail of theses changes is reproduced in Steinwall and Layton's
     1996 Annotation of the Act. The Annotation contains the Trade Practices
     Act and Regulations, the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 and a very
     comprehensive index and case commentary. A useful feature of the
     Annotation is the legislation notes which explain the very considerable
     volum e of changes to the Act, such as the various transmogrifications
     of s.45D, the secondary boy cotts provision, which prior to 1994
     applied to trade union activity.

  5. The Steinwall and Layton Annotation will inevitably be compared with
     Russell V. Miller's Annotated Trade Practices Act, published by the Law
     Book Co, which is now in its 17th edition. Miller is 50% larger than
     Steinwall and Layton. It contains the Comp etition Principles Agreement
     and related regulations. It also contains the specialist regulations
     which have been promulgated under the Act. In its earlier editions a
     strength of Miller was its reference to secondary commentaries as well
     as case law. This has fallen away in later editions.

  6. A particular strength of Steinwall and Layton is its reference to
     unreported cases.

  7. Until now Miller has been in a monopoly position and may have become
     flabby from lack of competitive exercise. Consumers will view with
     interest whether Steinwall and Layton can attract market share and
     whether the vigour of competition will call forth an innovative
     response from Miller.

  8. For the student reader price will probably be the ultimate criterion of
     choice between these publications. For the competition law practitioner
     nurtured on Miller, Steinwall and Layton have to meet the challenge of
     breaking down consumer loyalty.

Notes

[1] R..v. Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974)
130 CLR 190.

[2] R..v. Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte West Australian National
Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190.

[3] Hughes v. West Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) 19 FCR 10.

[4] (1979) 145 CLR 107