Legislation
Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 (Commonwealth)
Summary
Implementation of Hilmer Committee reforms
View intergovernmental agreements implementing National Competition Policy
Details forthcoming
Hansard (including second reading speeches / consideration in detail)
House of representatives
Mr Gear (ALP, Assistant Treasurer) (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2793)
This bill is the central element of a new national competition policy. It will establish processes and institutions to encourage competition, not just in particular sectors, but across the whole economy. This bill and the associated agreements between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments have the potential to trigger reform initiatives for many years to come. Implementing this policy is the most important single development in micro-economic reform in recent years. Ultimately, the ability of the economy to grow and provide jobs and an improved standard of living depends upon how well the productive potential of the economy is employed and enhanced.
Mr Costello (Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2804)
Mrs Crosio (ALP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security) (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2810)
Mr Andrews (Liberal Party) (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2814)
Mr Gear (ALP, Assistant Treasurer) (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2819)
Third reading in the House (House Hansard, Friday, 30 June 1995, page 2820)
Senate
First reading (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 29 March 1995, page 2433)
Second Reading (Senator Crowley - ALP, Minister for Family Services) (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 29 March 1995, page 2434)
This bill is the central element of a new national competition policy.
It will establish processes and institutions to encourage competition, not just in particular sectors, but across the whole economy. This bill, and the associated draft agreements between the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments, have the potential to trigger reform initiatives for many years to come. Implementing this policy is the most important single development in micro-economic reform in recent years. ...
... The payoff from this bill for ordinary Australians is very real. It paves the way for cheaper prices, more growth and more jobs. It is an important element of our ambition to reduce unemployment to around 5% by the end of this decade. ...
The origins of the bill may be traced to 1991 when the Commonwealth and the States and Territories agreed to examine a national approach to competition policy. In 1992, the Government commissioned the National Competition Policy Review, chaired by Professor Fred Hilmer. The Hilmer Report was completed in August 1993. Since then the Government has been engaged in extensive consultations with State and Territory Governments on implementation of the Report. The Report was discussed by the Council of Australian Governments in February 1994 and August 1994.
The vision of the Hilmer Report was for a national competition policy in which the Commonwealth, States and Territories cooperated to ensure that universal and uniformly applied rules of market conduct apply to all market participants regardless of their form of ownership. The Commonwealth has worked hard to realise this vision ...
Report of Economics Legislation Committee
Senator Childs (ALP, NSW) (presenting the report, Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 933)
Senator Boswell (Nationals, Qld) Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 933)
I believe that the referral of the Competition Policy Reform Bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee accomplished a couple of things. Firstly, it gave an opportunity to many of the groups affected by the legislation to raise questions about it and to seek clarification in many instances. This was the first time these groups had a chance to have any input or to gain first-hand knowledge of a major piece of economic legislation. Secondly, the committee hearings and submissions served to highlight the previously unacknowledged concern of the small business sector about how the national competition policy would affect it. ...
Senator Margetts (Greens (GWA), WA) (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 934)
Senator Harradine (Independent, Tasmania) (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 935)
... I know the government wants to get the program through, but I would request that the government ensures that Treasury provides the information that I, at least, have sought on this matter, and that it does so without the sort of obfuscation that one has seen, at times, from Treasury.
Senator Brownhill (Deputy Leader of the National Party, NSW) (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 935)
Adjournment: Senator Spindler (Democrats, Victoria) (Senate Hansard, Wednesday, 7 June 1995, page 1043)
Senator Gibson (Liberal Party, Tasmania) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 22 June 1995, page 1694)
... The opposition welcomes the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995. We are pleased to see competition being brought in for an additional substantial sector of the Australian economy. The emphasis now moves back to the states. The coalition is delighted that the state premiers have signed off and have agreed to implement these difficult reforms.
Senator Kernot (Leader of the Australian Democrats, Queensland) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 22 June 1995, page 1697)
Senator Kernot - Here we go again, embracing another theory. Despite all the evidence of the last decade, here we go again. Unquestionably competition is always good -
Senator Panizza - Of course it is.
Senator Kernot -I will go on to talk about that in my speech. I might refer to Compass Airlines. I will come back to aviation later. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I say to Senator Panizza: you cannot always embrace theories unilaterally or universally without thinking about their impact on ordinary people. You must ask the question: who pays the cost of change? That is the point I want to make in this speech. The Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995 will help set in train one of the most radical and far-reaching public reforms. The public sector as we know it will be forced to restructure in far-reaching and not necessarily positive ways. This bill will force public service agencies to reassess their role, their relationship to the public, and to realign their operations. I do not object to any of that. However, the focus is to do all of this on largely economic commercially driven lines. As I said, nobody objects to the notion of an efficient public sector, but the question is who pays for it.
In the Democrat's view, competition policy represents the victory of economics over equity, of competition over compassion and of accounting over accountability in the management of public services. Yet this bill, and the ramifications of this bill, have been the subject of very little public debate. [yes, apparently she was serious when making this claim; one can only assume the independent Hilmer Inquiry was considered by the Senator as entirely irrelevant] It has been the subject of minimal public scrutiny. It has been debated in closed forums - not by Australian people who own this debate and the outcome of it.
While the Industry Commission has debated it, while cabinet has debated it, and while COAG has debated it, everywhere I go Australian people are catching up with the fact that it exists. In my view, this bill highlights that parliament has been largely sidelined by the Keating government as the forum for policy debate.
The deal with the states on competition policy is already signed and sealed, and all this bill does is make sure it is delivered. The merits of the argument as to whether the Hilmer path, as opposed to any other path, is the best path or the only path have not been adequately aired. It is simply assumed. The majority of the media in this country has already accepted the Hilmer philosophy as gospel without any challenge to the likely effects or the fundamentally doctrinaire belief underpinning it that all competition is good and all regulation is bad - just like Animal Farm.
...
Competition policy has great potential for banditry and bastardy. We want to make sure that we keep the bandits and the bastards as honest as possible. [presumably unregulated monopoly is not the alternative the senator was considering when making this claim]
... It is predominantly because we do not believe that this bill has had enough public debate - and I do not mean parliamentary debate; I mean genuine Australian citizenry debate - that we are going to vote against it. We are not doing that because we believe everything in the bill is bad - of course there are some positive aspects to it - but because the competition policy reform agenda is based on a flawed premise [the Senator did not enlighten us as to why/how the premise was flawed (if there was one discernable - and given she acknowledges the extension of authorisation provisions the claimed premise that competition is always good was certainly open to challenge]] and a duping of the Australian public. [?!?!&*!]
We are told that competition is good. Senator Gibson said that. The Hilmer report is laudatory of the untrammelled benefits of market and competition underpinning it. But we have heard that line for 12 years in this country since our first foray into deregulation. ...
Senator Boswell (Leader of the National Party of Australia, Qld) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 22 June 1995, page 1700)
Senator Abetz (Liberal Party, Tas) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 22 June 1995, page 1704)
Senator Margetts (Greens (GWA), WA) (Senate Hansard, Monday, 26 June 1995, page 1754)
... It is indeed unfortunate that debate has been so limited on this issue. It seems another of the areas where, philosophically, there is little difference between the major parties. As a consequence, many issues have not been brought out. Competition policy is primarily about extending the power of the private sector. You can talk about safeguards, but these are proposed to calm concerns about this extension of the private sector into what has been considered the public domain. Competition policy is about eliminating the public domain, maybe not entirely but at least as far as possible. Why would anyone want to do that? A few people—generally people with economic power—might make a good profit out of it. But this is not the reason we are told we should want this. The reason we are given is that the private sector will somehow be more efficient and cheaper and that we will all somehow pay lower bills. ...
More to follow
Third reading - Senator Margets (Greens (GWA), WA) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 29 June 1995, page 2217)
I rise to make some final comments with regard to the Competition Policy Reform Bill. I believe that what has been done in this legislation is shameful and will not benefit the community, the general public, at all. ...
Third reading - Senator Harradine (Independent, Tasmania) (Senate Hansard, Thursday, 29 June 1995, page 2220)
