weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

2592 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005
I wish to provide an example. My partner and I buy a cattle property. We fence it, put in dams,
provide the infrastructure, pay the rates and so on. Another company comes along and puts its cattle on
our property, does not pay for the upkeep and does not pay for the fences. All of a sudden it says that it
is competing against us and it sells its cattle cheaper than our cattle. Well, of course they will be able to
compete because they are not paying for the upkeep or the expenses. This is exactly the same as what
is happening in relation to Queensland Rail at this present moment.
Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (2.49 pm): Through the budget process and support for
effective and socially responsible implementation of national competition policy, the Queensland Labor
government has demonstrated its economic credentials and its commitment to the continued economic
development of the state. The results speak for themselves. For the 10th successive year our economy
will outperform the nation.
Economic growth in 2004-05 is estimated to be 4.25 per cent—more than double the two per cent
estimated for the rest of the country. Unemployment is at record lows and is expected to average around
five per cent for the next two years. Consumer spending is forecast to be strong over the next two years,
as is public and private sector capital investment. All of these factors result in a higher standard of living
for Queenslanders.
It is an interesting footnote in our history that some of the most significant and lasting economic
reforms have been implemented by Labor governments, particularly at the national level. Freeing up our
financial markets, floating the dollar, active trade engagement with Asia and the implementation of
national competition policy reforms are a few of the more significant.
I have to confess that in 1995 when the agreement was reached between the states and
territories and the Commonwealth to implement national competition policy I, along with many, was
unconvinced that it was going to deliver the economic benefits promoted by its proponents. The Hilmer
report was the subject of significant public debate prior to the formal adoption of national competition
policy in 1995. Like many on both sides of this House, I raised a number of criticisms and concerns
particularly about the way in which national competition policy was being implemented.
I think it is fair to say that there was an ideological agenda being pursued by some which resulted
in undesirable outcomes in some instances. However, I am pleased to record that the Queensland
government, under the leadership of our Premier, was instrumental in ensuring that national competition
policy was and is now implemented in a more socially responsible way. In particular, it introduced a
fairer public benefits test which takes account of the impact national competition policy might have on
employment and other social factors.
After 10 years of its implementation and the opportunity to observe the outcomes, I now firmly
believe that national competition policy has been the major contributor to our state’s and our nation’s
much-improved economic performance. I am also convinced that it is essential that we remain
committed to the continued implementation of the policy.
As in 1995, there is now a need to continue the debate about further economic reforms in this
country and about the appropriateness of any proposed reforms. With the increasing globalisation of the
markets in which we operate there is a need for continuous improvement in the way in which we
manage our state’s and our nation’s infrastructure. As a state and a nation we are relatively small fry in
international economic terms. For example, we produce about one per cent of world output, compared
with the 30 per cent produced by the United States.
In order for us to maintain and improve our standard of living we must engage in trade with other
nations and also encourage appropriate investment in productive assets. For that to happen our major
infrastructure, including our ports, roads and railways, must operate efficiently and effectively and we
must have the appropriate structure and procedures in place to achieve this. This will help contain costs
and facilitate the delivery of resources and products to where they need to be.
It is for that reason that bills of this nature, although relatively procedural in nature, are an
important step in the continuing process of reform. This bill has as its major aim to facilitate a better
regulatory outcome for our major pieces of infrastructure. It will enable the independent regulator of
competition in Queensland—the Queensland Competition Authority—to more effectively perform its
role, particularly in instances where major pieces of infrastructure are leased by third parties. As the
independent regulator of competition in the state, the QCA plays a very important role in the
development of our resources by overseeing government monopoly business activities, third party
access arrangements, the competitive neutrality complaints process and the regulation of gas and
electricity distribution businesses.
This bill proposes to address three areas which are important to this process. Firstly, the current
state based access regime does not allow the QCA to directly enforce access undertakings against and
manage disputes in cases where a facility is leased by an operator—that is, where the operator is not
the owner of the asset. Currently, undertakings may only be enforced indirectly via contractual
arrangements between the owner and the lessee. Changes proposed under this bill will enhance the
QCA’s enforcement capabilities and will give it the discretion to take action against access providers
who are not the actual owners of the assets concerned.