The Comparative Research On The Regulation Of Administrative Anti-competition Behavior Between China And Australia

Administrative anti-competition behavior seriously limits the market competitionand gradually becomes an obstacle to the sustainable development of socialist marketeconomy in our country. Although we have enacted the Anti-Monopoly Law toregulate administrative anti-competition behavior, there still exists many deficienciesin our country’s regulation system for administrative anti-competition behavior,andcannot effectively solve the serious problem of administrative anti-competition.Administrative anti-competition behavior is not an unique phenomenon in China. Italso exists in western developed countries like Australia. But the severity of the twocountries’administrative anti-competition problem is different. In theory,thecomparative study of China and Australia’s regulation systems for administrativeanti-competition behavior is helpful to the improvement of our country’s regulationsystem;in practice,the comparative study is conducive to the two country’s economiccooperation and our country’s economic development. Australia does not rely on asingle law to solve the administrative anti-competition problem,instead,itcomprehensively uses constitution, competition law and the related legal documentsof competition policy to regulate the administrative anti-competition behavior,and hasobtained a good effect. Australia firstly uses Federal Constitution to regulate theregional monopoly problem,and then uses Competition and Consumer Act to regulatethe administrative organs’ business activity,and at last uses the competition neutralityprinciple and legislative review principle of Australia’s competition policy to regulatethe administrative organs’ prejudice behavior and abstract administrativeanti-competition behavior. Due to difference in state’s structural arrangements,development degree of market economy and legal systems,no matter from theconcept,subject of law enforcement,offence determination,legal responsibility andrelief approach of the administrative anti-competition behavior,or from thecompetition neutrality system and anti-competition law review censorship,there existmany differences in the administrative anti-competition behavior regulation systembetween China and Australia. Compared with Australia,our country’s regulationsystem for administrative anti-competition behavior system has the problems ofunreasonably established law enforcement subject,extremely light legal responsibility,single relief approach,incomprehensive competition neutrality system,andunsystematic anti-competition law review censorship. In order to solve the above problems,our country should set up a independent and authoritative law enforcementagency,introduce civil liability and criminal liability for administrativeanti-competition behavior,provide anti-monopoly enforcement authority with thejurisdiction for administrative anti-competition behavior,increase judicial reliefapproaches,build a comprehensive competition neutrality system from the aspects oflegislation,enforcement mechanism and complaints mechanism,clear the review scopeand perfect the review way of anti-competition law review censorship.