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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 910 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

competing ideas. Clearly, we are not going to get that kind of competition from the Government, because its budget papers put us firmly in the camp of the competition policy zealots. It is high time this parliament and others around Australia began to question the unquestioning attitude of our leaders to a particular economic theory. It is time to drag this ideology kicking and screaming into the public arena.

Despite what the Government would have us believe, the House of Representatives committee makes it clear that the main consultation and discussion about the reforms took place within the Council of Australian Governments. It says:

So far there has been little discussion in the community on competition reforms.

This motion today seeks to implement paragraph (j) of recommendation 1 of the committee's report, which says:

Where possible reviewers should be independent of the existing arrangements with more significant, more major and more sensitive reviews demanding greater independence;

The first part of my motion is worded as it is because I understand that the Greens have issued drafting instructions to set up a council which would monitor, review and make recommendations to the Assembly on, the implementation of the national competition policy principles and agreement. I flag today my intention to support this council and I hope that the legislation will be ready for our next sittings in August. I want it to be an independent body with the resources and the teeth to do its job. I believe that all future reviews should be conducted by that committee.

I also believe that the current review of milk should be referred to it for reconsideration. As I said yesterday, I do not question the integrity of the person conducting this review, as I am certain that it is beyond reproach. However, I do question the motives of the Government. It has compromised the process by conducting an internal review of a process which clearly should have been reviewed by an independent body. The Urban Services Minister, Mr Smyth, yesterday dismissed my question on this review by saying that the person running it was not involved in the milk industry. Unfortunately, the Minister does not seem to get it, so I will spell it out. No, she is not involved in the milk industry, but she is inseparable from the Government and the Government's determination to be top of the class in competition policy reform. In that sense it was not fair of the Government to ask her to do the job, because no matter how fair her report, it will always be subject to criticism. I do not criticise Dr Sheen; I criticise the Government for setting up such a deeply flawed process. I blame the Government for initiating an inquiry which was always going to be called into question. As I said yesterday, it is time the progression of this policy became transparent, as the Federal parliamentary committee concluded. It is time the agenda was handed over to a neutral umpire.

In summary, I hope that members will support my motion. I believe that Mr Hargreaves has an amendment which we have worked with him on. We will certainly be supporting that, and I look forward to support from the majority of the Assembly.

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