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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1702 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

of these radical new directions in the public sector. Neither is a customer commitment program adequate for scrutiny. I understand that Mrs Carnell wants to move a motion that this actually be sent to an Assembly committee. I will say straightaway that it was an Assembly committee that recommended an independent panel to look at this. It is absurd to send it back to an Assembly committee. If there is a major issue about reporting mechanisms, I am sure that we can sort out those details.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Business, Employment and Tourism) (4.02): Mr Speaker, in this Assembly yesterday, in debate on the Competition Policy Reform Bill, and again today, Ms Tucker has made some unsubstantiated suggestions regarding the implementation of the competition policy and its impact on the community. Ms Tucker suggested that the most disadvantaged in our community will suffer as a result of what she sees as haste in the implementation of the competition policy reforms nationally and in the ACT. On what possible basis could she arrive at such a conclusion? I am blowed if I know.

How, to begin with, could she conclude that competition policy is being introduced hastily? As indicated yesterday, competition policy was not developed overnight. It was the result of considerable analysis and debate by the Commonwealth and all States and Territories. It largely follows from the recommendations of the Hilmer committee, which was established as a Federal Labor initiative in 1992 - four years ago. The Competition Policy Reform Bill itself is a result of the National Competition Policy Agreement, signed by the Commonwealth and all States and Territories in April last year.

As to Ms Tucker's argument that the reforms will in some way negatively affect those in our community already disadvantaged, I strongly disagree. The competition policy reforms have been instituted by governments across Australia, with the principal aim of removing barriers to competition where it is sensible to do so - I stress "where it is sensible to do so". By providing the opportunity to improve competition, the economy can grow and jobs will be created - jobs and growth that are sorely needed in our community; jobs and growth that can only serve to provide the means to better assist the disadvantaged.

Certainly, the Act passed by this Assembly yesterday - the Competition Policy Reform Act - could not lead to the sorts of dire consequences suggested by Ms Tucker. That Act will see the ACT government business activities face the same conduct provisions of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act as their private sector rivals. These rules establish the conditions for fair trade regardless of individual bargaining power. How can exposing government businesses to fair competition disadvantage the community? It does the opposite. It ensures that valuable government resources are not used to prop up inefficient bureaucracies and to hamper the growth and development of business in the city.

The thrust of Ms Tucker's motion relates to consultation. Not only does she want more, but she wants another advisory group or committee, where none is needed. In the Government's response to recommendations 6 and 8 of the select committee's report on the Bill, we clearly indicated that the various competition policy reforms that were of concern to the select committee were already subject to a range of accountability

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