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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (16 April) . . Page.. 892 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

that ACTEW had given almost no real consideration to what its community service obligations are; despite the fact that it was corporatised quite some time ago and ought to have very closely examined what its obligations are. Instead, we got a view from ACTEW that community service obligations were really a matter for the Government, not for them, and that they were not very good at it anyway. I am not doing them an injustice by making those comments. The committee was of the view that the Government must review, as a matter of urgency, all of the community service obligations across each and every one of its agencies before proceeding at too hectic a pace down the competition path. It seems to me that that task must be done absolutely if the community is not to be vastly short-changed in this process of competition.

I do not want to speak at length on the report itself; but I would like to make one further quote from Professor Quiggin, whose submission to the committee was extremely valuable. He said:

In summary, a carefully handled program of microeconomic reform based on increases in competition in appropriate areas could yield small, but useful, social welfare benefits to the ACT. An ideological approach in which policies are imposed in the name of competition, without careful analysis of costs and benefits, will almost certainly dissipate these potential benefits and leave the people of the ACT worse off than in the absence of any reform.

Whilst I have been and remain a supporter of competition policy, I believe that it is appropriate that the Government and all members of the Assembly take very seriously the words of caution offered in this report. Competition policy is a process which will take place over many years. It is an iterative process in many ways, but it seems to me that if that process does lead to our community being worse off there is no reason for us to have such a policy at all. Much of the evidence that was put to the committee identifies different aspects of the people and organisations concerned about possible disadvantage. I hope that the Government will take that very seriously.

The committee has made a number of recommendations in relation to competition policy. The first of those is that the Assembly enact the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995. This was a commitment that I gave at the outset of the committee's inquiry. It does reflect my own view and my party's view that a competition process has some benefits for the community. The committee has recommended that. The committee is also recommending, however, that there be a range of monitoring and assessment activities in relation to competition policy as it develops. We have asked that the Government report to the Assembly on the identification and costing of every community service obligation provided by a government service before they expose that service to competition. In retrospect, I wish that we had done that in relation to ACTEW; but we did not. I think that was an omission by the Assembly. The committee has recommended that the Government should develop explicit CSOs for ACTEW, in consultation with the community, and report to the Assembly by August. We have also recommended that the Government consult and, through its agencies, enter into a process of community consultation when it identifies and assesses those community service obligations.

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