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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 105 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

. a clear assessment of the efficiency impacts and the public benefits arising from existing and proposed regulatory structures ...

. conclusions about the overall case for public benefit arising from forms of regulation in the milk industry arrived at by applying some weights to the various factors; and

. some recommendations about changes to the regulatory structure based on this assessment.

What did the Competition Policy Forum say in relation to the Sheen report's attention to each of those critical issues? The Competition Policy Forum advised us:

The Review does not provide this. The Forum -

the ACT's Competition Policy Forum -

believes that the Review does not present a coherent analysis of the issues in question. The evidence presented is incomplete and unpersuasive and precludes well-informed public debate about the merits of proposed reforms to the regulatory structure of the milk industry in the ACT.

That is an absolutely damning indictment of the Sheen report, an absolutely damning indictment of this Government's approach to the structure of the milk industry in the ACT. It is absolutely damning. I repeat that this is the body that we established. This is the body staffed by leading experts in relation to competition policy and industry restructuring in the ACT. That is a damning indictment of the way this Government has dealt with this issue.

There are some other quotes, and it is relevant that they be recorded in relation to this debate today. The Competition Policy Forum says:

The Review is based on an understanding about the legal impediments to the current regulatory arrangements provided by Section 69 of the Self-Government Act, Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, and Part IV of the Trade Practices Act ... The Review makes the serious implication that the current arrangements are illegal ... This raises a significant economic question: If the current arrangements have been contrary to the law then why have they not been challenged in the past? The Review provides no answer to this question.

More importantly, the Review does not provide any support for the opinion that the current arrangements are contrary to the Self-Government Act, the TPA or the Constitution. The Review indicates that legal advice was obtained ... but the reader is not informed of the nature or source of this advice. As the legal basis for

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