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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2218 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

is framed by major parties. In Australia, we are no longer citizens; we are consumers, or sometimes clients. Democracy is thus reframed in the language of the market, where public benefit is assessed in terms of consumer benefit and democratic rights become the right of the consumer to choose a product. The responsibility of government has thus changed from one of promoting the common good of the whole community to facilitating market choices, while the actual range of choices has been steadily narrowing as smaller companies have been bought up and transnational corporations have amalgamated.

The free market approach has been tested in Australia through competition policy. The rationale is that, through deregulation, consumers will benefit from goods being cheaper and that this equates to general public benefit. The society is seen as a collection of individuals who are motivated by self-interest. The idea of collective responsibility and the common good or the public interest is acknowledged, but very narrowly defined and marginalised.

Deregulation of the milk industry in Australia is a good example. Under the new arrangements, it is estimated that we will lose over 3,000 dairies and be left with a few big retailers and producers who have a very strong negotiating position. There has been an increase in the number of intensive farming feedlots, with the associated environmental problems; millions of dollars have been lost to rural communities, with the associated social costs; and milk is not that much cheaper anyway, if at all. Australians are now asking whether it was worth it. That is a good question and it deserves a thoughtful answer. Even if there have been small gains for consumers, there has been no account taken of the broader social and environmental costs. When the impact on rural communities is taken into account, it looks like a bad move.

Politicians from the major parties are now moving into damage control and speak of bandaid measures such as collective bargaining for the farmers and further compensation. Interestingly, even the Prime Minister, previously a passionate advocate of competition policy, has recently considered that it may not be quite the unqualified success predicted. Polling could have something to do with that. Too many Australians are not enjoying any public benefit. The power of the voters is starting to have some effect in Australia in terms of domestic policy and competition policy, but behind the scenes the federal government is still pushing this policy through the World Trade Organisation and currently through the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS, and not many citizens are aware of that.

What is GATS? It was agreed as part of the Uruguay round in 1994. It is one of the international trade agreements administered by the World Trade Organisation. The specific aims of GATS is to remove barriers to trade in services. Because most trade in services occurs within a country, rather than targeting external barriers such as tariffs, it targets all internal domestic laws, regulations and policies that may possibly discriminate against foreign service providers or even limit their profitability. The argument put is that this is levelling the playing field, so no-one gets a special deal. The GATS rules describe what measures governments are allowed. Government measures are defined broadly as "any law, regulation, rule, procedure, decision, administrative action or any other form" and include subsidies and grants.

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