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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1621 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

For that reason, because of little evidence of concern, or certainly insufficient evidence of concern, the Opposition is likely to look favourably on the Greens' motion on the notice paper on this issue. The community service obligations are very important. We all look to them for such statements of principles, which will reassure those who rely on sympathetic and considered policies from government. It does not seem that this Government, and perhaps other governments, necessarily realise this. Mr Speaker, in supporting this Bill, the Opposition states clearly that we will monitor most closely its outcomes. We will ensure that the benefits claimed, yet to be delivered, will truly benefit the people of the ACT.

MS TUCKER (3.25): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again on this matter.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: Earlier on, in 1995, the discussion about Hilmer was heating up, and I will quote the beginning of an article by Brian Toohey in the Canberra Times on 15 April:

No-one should ever be surprised by what otherwise intelligent people are prepared to swallow when it comes to economic modelling. Nevertheless, the level of gullibility displayed in the response to the modelling work on the Hilmer "reforms" is astonishing.

To listen to just about every politician, public servant and commentator in the country after last week's Premiers Conference in Canberra, you could be excused for believing that Nirvana was just around the corner.

Later in the article he claims in relation to the Industry Commission:

The commission, to its credit, warns that it is important to understand that the results are sensitive to the assumptions underpinning the model - a warning which is promptly ignored by politicians ...

The article goes on to quote a professor of economics at James Cook University, John Quiggin, who also had some very insightful questions about the whole concept of competition policy reform and whether it is the wonderful solution it is being touted to be.

The micro-economic reforms within government associated with national competition policy are among the most far-reaching reforms to the public sector in Australia's history. I heard Mr De Domenico claim again that this Bill is not about CSOs and it is not about the broader concerns that were expressed to the committee. I state again, as we have stated continually through this discussion, that the community does not think so. The community recognises that there was something called a competition principles agreement signed, which is very much related to the Competition Policy Reform Bill. The community had not had any opportunity to discuss the implications of this agreement, so they took the opportunity when this committee looked at the whole issue of competition policy; they were quite right to do so and we welcomed their submissions.

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