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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 909 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

But there is more. The House of Representatives committee goes on to point out:

There has been no major analysis of the broader socio-economic costs of the reforms, particularly the impact on unemployment, changed working conditions, social welfare, equity, social dislocation, environmental impacts ...

When I read this, I thought there must have been an error. Then I thought what geniuses we have as leaders. It beggars belief when you realise that the combined intellect of all those attending the Council of Australian Government meetings - the Keatings, the Kennetts, the Folletts - decided to proceed with the most broad-ranging reform of the way Australia does business since Federation without putting in place any mechanisms to measure their impact on our society. I see Mr Quinlan shake his head when I mention the word "Follett". How interesting it was to see members of the Labor Party outside this afternoon addressing people from Capitol Chilled Foods, yet I bet not one of them let those people know that they actually signed the agreement which created these problems.

Mr Wood: We did not.

MR OSBORNE: You did not? Did someone say he did not? I look forward to hearing from you, Mr Wood.

How dare these people then turn around and tell us that these policies are all for our own good when there is no way of measuring whether they are working! I wonder why it is that people around the country are starting to rebel against the common economic agenda of the two major parties. The zealots who fashion these policies will never admit the damage they do to small business and communities around Australia, because they never see it. They never have to live with the consequences of their decisions. To borrow a phrase from historian Geoffrey Blainey, they do not see it because they do not live in the front-line suburbs where these policies bounce and shatter people's lives. They are too busy staring at a computer-generated economic model and receiving the congratulations of their mates in big business. Let there be no mistake: It is big business who will be the winners in competition policy reform.

As it happens, I do believe that parts of competition policy will benefit the community; but I also believe that applying it like a ruler across the whole of society is foolish, because our community is more complex than that. One answer does not fit all questions. I believe that over time elements of this policy will be exposed as a dangerous fad. It amuses me that Professor Hilmer's latest book is about exposing the damage done to industries by management fads. Unfortunately, by the time we discover the full extent of the damage competition will do to some industries, it will be too late. Once industries are undone by this policy they cannot be remade.

I am aware that anyone who dares question the direction of micro-economic reform is being accused of being an economic caveman. I know that this accusation could be levelled against me. Frankly, on this issue I do not care. I do not care, because I have now been in politics long enough to know that branding is a tactic of groups that do not wish to discuss an issue. It is high time the so-called benefits of competition policy were exposed to a bit of competition, the oldest kind of competition, and that is

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