Page 3303 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and determined what role competition should play in the Australian economy and in which areas this could benefit us. It said that no applicant should be able to engage in anti-competitive conduct against the public interest, which I do not think anyone would disagree with; that, as far as possible, universal and uniformly applied rules of market conduct should apply to all market participants, regardless of the form of business ownership; that conduct with anti-competitive potential, said to be in the public interest, should be assessed by an appropriate, transparent assessment process, with provision for review, to demonstrate the nature and incidence of the public costs and benefits claimed; and that any changes in the coverage or nature of competition policy should be consistent with, and support, the general thrust of reforms. The Chief Minister agreed to these principles, although now that she has come back to the ACT we would not really know that she had agreed with those things.
Madam Speaker, competition is not an end in itself, but it is a very effective means of delivering higher-quality services to the people who need them, at lower cost. Certainly, everybody in the ACT is saying that services are becoming more and more expensive and there are fewer of them. Competition is one of the constructive forces which can be used in an economy to the benefit of the consumer in order to create jobs and wealth for everyone in the community.
Mr Connolly: That is what I keep saying about petrol competition; but you never believe me.
MRS CARNELL: That is because you did not produce a competitive marketplace.
Mr Connolly: We have. It was 68.5c today.
MRS CARNELL: It is not competitive. The Hilmer report concluded that, unless the national competition policy was implemented by all States and Territories as soon as possible, the Australian economy and people would forgo urgently needed benefits. To give an example of the benefits which have been provided to the Australian people upon introduction of competition into certain industries over the last few years the following can be cited: Domestic air fares have fallen by 25 per cent since domestic deregulation in 1990, and passenger numbers are up by 59 per cent, which is something that ACTION buses could look at; the cost of long-distance phone calls fell by 14 per cent and 23 per cent in the year to June 1993, following the introduction of a competitor to Telecom; and prices charged by 50 Commonwealth and State government trading enterprises subjected to "yardstick" competition fell by 4 per cent in real terms in 1991-92.
Although the Chief Minister, when far away at COAG, endorsed the Hilmer recommendations, it can only be concluded from her inaction in implementing any of the recommendations that she thinks that they have absolutely no relevance for the people of the ACT. There could be no better demonstration of this Government's ignorance of what competition means than the mind-boggling statement of the Urban Services Minister, Mr David Lamont, who said about taxis on 27 July:
... we believe that there is competition within the industry at the moment, to the extent that there is one operator that operates, Aerial.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .