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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 583 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

flowing through the national economy, failure to participate actively would see the ACT's agenda taken out of our hands and, therefore, result in a loss of ability to ensure the full benefits that should accrue to our community.

The agreements require the Territory to implement some reforms, such as competitive neutrality, including the development of a competitive neutrality complaints handling mechanism. The assessments of each of the tranche payments depend to an extent on the ACT maintaining its progress in this area of reform. While the ACT is free to set its own agenda, guaranteed in clauses 3 and 5 of the competition principles agreement, we are constrained to meet certain criteria. Significant businesses must be subject to the competitive neutrality principles, aimed at achieving a level playing field between government-owned and privately-owned businesses when they compete. Government businesses must be subject to taxes or charges equivalent to those applying to competitors. Regulations applying to competitors must also apply to government-owned businesses. The prices charged by government businesses must reflect the full cost of service provision.

Similarly, in reviewing legislation to identify restraints on competition, several criteria must be satisfied if restraints on competition are to be maintained. Firstly, the proposed legislation must have a benefit to the whole of the community that exceeds the cost. Secondly, the objectives of the legislative proposal must be achievable by no other means than legislation. These criteria involve the application of several principles which have been bandied about over recent times, but which need some explanation.

Firstly, with regard to the resolution of competitive neutrality complaints, it is important to the community and the Government that complaints are handled promptly, fairly and quickly. In the Government's view, that requires a process that is independent from the business which is the object of a complaint and the agency that purchases the services of the business on behalf of the community. The arrangements in place in the Chief Minister's Department satisfy the test of independence within that constraint. The framework is similar to that in Victoria, which has been endorsed by the National Competition Council.

Secondly, there is a concern that competition policy reform is being applied to other than significant businesses. The ACT actually has few significant businesses, if the criteria which are used in Victoria, Queensland or New South Wales are applied here. The measure of significance in the ACT economy would be markedly lower than what would be sensible in those States. But, for instance, in any jurisdiction the proposed Belconnen pool would be classed as a significant business, with a capital value of about $15m.

We are not bound to follow slavishly criteria for reform in the ACT that are appropriate elsewhere. The point of the provision in agreements for parties to set their own agendas is that reforms should address and provide benefits where they are applied. The Government sees benefits in applying the reforms as broadly as possible, so that the benefits of the reforms may be as widespread and as effective as possible. There should not be any area of government activity that is inefficient, wastes resources, is ineffective or duplicates services provided elsewhere. There is no benefit to the community in government supplying services that are provided more efficiently by private enterprise.

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