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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 923 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think that one of the things we need to do with regard to this new body is to make sure that the appropriate model is put in place, because it is not as easy as just putting people on a forum, as we found with the old one. It does have to have a proper model, it has to have a defined role, and it has to have proper accountability mechanisms. Of course, there are resourcing issues as well. All of that needs to be determined if this is to go ahead. I am suggesting that I report back to the Assembly on the last sitting day in August with a proposed model that would achieve those things, obviously in consultation with the Standing Committee for the Chief Minister's Portfolio and other interested parties.

Mr Speaker, the Government has no problem at all with this approach. In fact, I have to say that national competition policy is not something that is easy for any government, particularly as it was not a policy that was signed or even worked up by this Government, or even by the Coalition Federal Government.

Mr Berry: It was signed by you.

MS CARNELL: It was not signed by me.

Mr Berry: It was signed by you in 1996.

MS CARNELL: I am sorry; the national competition policy was signed in 1994. It was signed in 1994 by Rosemary Follett, Mr Speaker. There is no doubt that Rosemary Follett agreed to the national competition policy.

Mr Speaker, it is a difficult issue and I think the points Mr Smyth has made already show just how difficult it is. Yes, from the perspective of the Government, we will defend the Milk Authority within the law. We cannot defend it outside the law, but within the law we will defend the Milk Authority and the legislation that exists in the ACT. We have made that clear the whole time. When members read the legal advice that Mr Smyth has tabled, I think they will see the issues that are involved. They will also see that this is not to do with competition policy at all; that is not the issue. A public benefit test is no longer the basis of the directions that will be taken in the future. It is with regard to the self-government Act and, of course, the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, to come back to the point, I believe that having a council that will look at issues regarding national competition policy would be in the Government's best interest, because we have found that there are absolutely no wins for the Government. It seems that, when we use consultants, the consultants do not know what they are talking about, Mr Speaker, and that, when we use in-house experts, the in-house experts do not know what they are talking about. By the way, I believe that both do know what they are talking about. Of course, we will be in a position in the next few weeks to table the report into gaming which has been done by an external consultant. I assume that that means that those opposite will accept that one but not accept one that has been done by Dr Sheen - an internal person who has real expertise in this area and is not involved in the Milk Authority.

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