Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 335 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The Chief Minister came back with a model that was not a forum composed of a range of representatives of different community sectors but an expansion of the existing single-person Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission to enable it to inquire into competition policy issues, including complaints about competitive neutrality. This model was referred to the Chief Minister's Committee, which reported in October 1998. It supported the establishment of the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, or ICRC, but wanted the commission to consist of five commissioners so that it was more representative of the broader community. The Government, in its response to the committee's report, accepted most of the committee's representations but did not want such a large commission. It did, however, agree to increase the commission to three commissioners, with the option of adopting extra associate commissioners for particular inquiries.
Turning to the Bill before us today, I believe that what is being proposed now is significantly different from my original concept of a community-based advisory forum to address competition policy issues. This Bill will give inquiries into competition policy issues more structure and clout. I also like the provision that will allow individuals and non-government bodies as well as the Government to request the commission to undertake inquiries and for the commission to initiate its own inquiries. The ability of the commission to investigate competitive neutrality complaints independently of the Government is also welcomed.
On the down side, however, I am concerned that the incorporation of the forum role into the bureaucratic framework of the old IPARC will result in community involvement in the conduct of inquiries being significantly reduced from the original Competition Policy Forum model. I should also point out that this Bill does not address the avenues that should be available for appeal against decisions of the ICRC. This is a weakness in the current legislation that the Government, in its response to the Chief Minister's Committee, said that it would address, but we have not seen any proposals yet.
I guess, however, from the amount of Assembly time that has so far gone into developing this model that I would not get the numbers to go back and try to make the original Competition Policy Forum model work effectively. I am therefore left with the option of attempting to make the ICRC work as closely as possible to my original intention, which is why I am putting up some amendments to this Bill. I believe that some of the detail of the Bill in the areas of the membership of the commission and the allocation of inquiry costs does not reflect comments made by the Chief Minister's Committee in its report or even the Government's response to that report. I will talk about this further when I put my amendments.
MR HUMPHRIES
(Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.30), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for what I think is support for this Bill and its passage today and the opportunity, by doing so, to significantly expand the independent pricing oversight and general overview of competition in the ACT which the new Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission will be able to exercise. It is important that we understand that there has been a serious community debate about the kind of role which a body of this kind should be playing. It is important also to acknowledge that the Government has taken on board concerns raised in the community about these issues and has put forward to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .