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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 908 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

(2) calls on the Government to support the establishment of such a council and to consult with and consider the views of the Standing Committee for the Chief Minister's Portfolio in relation to possible appointees to the council before any such appointments are made.

I raise this issue today because of my concern about the way in which competition policy reform is proceeding in the Territory. The thing that is worrying to me is that it seems to be rushing along at an out-of-control rate. I move the motion because I believe that there is no other way of ensuring that the Government properly applies the provisions of the public benefit test on implementing competition policy reforms. I move it because I believe that the Government is using competition policy as a smokescreen to justify its ideological commitment to the economic equivalent of a scorched earth policy.

If we ever had any doubts that the Government was driven more by ideology than by the national agreement itself, they were clearly dispelled yesterday when its agenda was clearly articulated in the budget. If you turn to page 18 of Budget Paper No. 3, you will see a section headed "Microeconomic Reform and National Competition Policy". It says:

The Government intends to extend reform beyond that required under the agreement.

Let me say that again, because it bears repeating: The Government intends to extend its reform beyond that required under the national competition agreement. We will not just comply with competition policy; we intend to be the best in the class when it comes to levelling the playing field. What a pity it is that we will have to level so much in the ACT to achieve this front-of-the-class commitment to an economic theory. Let us not be fooled. We are talking about an economic theory here. The benefits we are supposed to reap are yet to be tested and are the subject of hot debate. Take milk, for example. Historically, across the country, prices have gone up in the long term. In the short term, we lose an industry, people lose jobs and businesses go broke. It sounds to me like a great benefit!

Yesterday in this place I drew attention to a report of a House of Representatives committee entitled "Cultivating Competition". The report notes at the outset that there is considerable agreement that economic benefits will flow to Australia through the competition policy reforms, but it goes on to say that there is considerable disagreement about the magnitude of those benefits. The Industry Commission's analysis of the growth and revenue likely to flow from Hilmer's reforms estimated a long-run annual gain in gross domestic product of 5.5 per cent, or $23 billion a year. However, Professor Quiggin of James Cook University believes that the long-run annual gain in GDP will be as low as 0.48 per cent. That is an estimate that is so close to no change that it does not bear thinking about. Imagine if we were to implement all these changes and we realised no real effect on the nation's bottom line. Imagine how those who are now hailed as economic heroes would be seen then.

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