Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (16 April) . . Page.. 891 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

What has not been nearly so closely defined and what has given rise to some concern, some apprehension, about competition policy are the disadvantages, the costs, of this policy. There has been very little work done in a formal sense on what the downside of competition policy might be, and that was an aspect that the select committee heard a great deal of evidence on. We did hear evidence from organisations like the Australia Institute and ACTCOSS, and we had a submission from Professor John Quiggin, that in their view there are disadvantages in competition policy. Different organisations, different submissions, took a different view of those disadvantages. In many cases they all said that there has simply been insufficient study of what the downside might be; for example, perhaps the cost to our environment of reducing the unit price of different commodities. For instance, with regard to petrol, will there be an impact on our environment? That work has not been done.

We also heard a great deal of apprehension about the possible cost to the community of a vigorous program of tendering out of community services. It was felt by some organisations, some people who gave evidence to the committee, that there had been insufficient work done on whether the community would continue to get the same quality and the same quantity in services which are contracted out to a particular price. I believe that these are very legitimate concerns about how competition policy might develop.

Overall, I think there was also a great disappointment by the committee at the relative lack of a cohesive policy on competition being put forward by the Government. I would like to quote from just one of many comments on that matter. I will quote from the ACTCOSS evidence. The evidence given was as follows:

There are a number of line managers within the ACT Government who are attempting to restructure programs on the basis of the competition [principles] agreement without, in my view, having read it. That sounds harsh, but I am of the view that these principles have gained a cultural value within Government services and are being implemented at a micro-level with, frankly, quite horrendous consequences, particularly when you look at the human services in the community sector. We seem to have a problem in that one level of Government is putting one position on the matter, but at another level you can clearly see changes in the way programs are being delivered and administered.

That was evidence put forward by one of the organisations which came before the committee and expressed concern in general terms about the lack of a cohesive Government policy on competition. I think it is unfortunate that there is so far that deficit in the Government's view on competition policy.

One of the impacts of not having a cohesive policy is that we do not have a cohesive analysis of community service obligations. There has been some preliminary work done to identify our community service obligations and to ensure that they are monitored as competition policy develops and that the community is not disadvantaged by the reduction in or abolition of community service obligations. I would like to mention in particular the evidence given by ACTEW in relation to community service obligations, which is mentioned in the committee's report. It did seem to me, as a member of the committee,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .