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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 857 ..

MR OSBORNE (8.22): Can I speak, Mr Speaker, or do I have to wait until after the vote?

MR SPEAKER: You can speak if you wish.

MR OSBORNE: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I wanted to speak before the vote, but I was a little confused. Someone from the Labor Party said that there was agreement on that first - - -

Mr Berry: I thought Trevor was okay with it, because he only amended the second bit.

MR OSBORNE: I want to speak before we have the final vote, if I may, Mr Speaker. As I said, my understanding from the Labor Party was that there was agreement on that, and I was caught on the back foot. I do apologise.

Mr Speaker, this debate has its origin back at the time two former Labor leaders, Rosemary Follett and Paul Keating, got together and signed an agreement endorsing the Hilmer reforms on competition policy. That agreement, over a half decade ago, set about dismantling state and territory owned monopolies and deregulating industries to provide for full private sector competition. It did not really make front-page news at the time, because nobody thought it was all that important but, surprise, surprise, it was.

The sweetener for the States, of course, came in the form of substantial financial compensation, along with the threat to have payments withdrawn if any government became tempted to change their mind after they had signed on the bottom line. I know the Labor Party may not wish to be reminded of this, Mr Speaker, but it remains a fact all the same.

I would make it clear that I am not opposed to competition in the marketplace as a principle, nor do I have any problems with free market economics. However, one of the wonders of our age is how often economists are allowed to be wrong and still be considered wise. I guess this is not necessarily surprising, because economics is based on assumptions about how humans will behave and is therefore fatally flawed because people do not follow any regular set of rules.

It is taken as an article of faith that the public will suffer if competition is lessened. It is assumed that the public will always benefit through competition by way of lower prices and greater choice. Experience has proven that competition policy is not all it is cracked up to be, but we are nonetheless locked in as a parliament to following its path.

As an example, I believe that we are seeing quite clearly the dark side of this philosophy as it impacts on our small but vital milk industry. Instead of a state owned monopoly, we will most likely end up with a privately owned monopoly, with less choice for people at home. The small private operators are being squeezed out, and we saw once viable home delivery runs being sold at auction last week for just $100.

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