The need for policy reform in Australia is reaching crisis stage, but all we get is an endless flood of government inquiries and reviews. Since being elected in September 2013, the current government has initiated 38 major inquiries, reviews and white papers — with no real policy accomplishment. Not surprisingly, there is increasing scepticism about the odds of implementing a compelling productivity-enhancing microeconomic agenda.
Most of these commissioned studies are relevant, valid and robust. Nonetheless, the government should focus political capital on those that can effectively and efficiently raise Australia's productivity. In politics, as in everyday life, it is wise to strategically choose your battles.
In particular, it is worth mentioning the Competition Policy Review (CPR) as an outstanding example of good policy proposal that needs to be given priority.
Conducted by Prof Ian Harper, who will be discussing the review at an event at the CIS on the matter later this month, the CPR proposes 56 recommendations to reinvigorate Australia's competition policy.
Among many important-and urgently needed-measures, I would like to highlight Recommendation 9 on Planning and Zoning restrictions. As substantially argued in the Harper Review, planning and zoning rules should always pass the public interest test. That is, the regulation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that: the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The CIS has long pushed against anti-competitive nimbyism lobbies to contain housing supply. In a related report, the Centre has uncovered housing affordability myths that fail to detect the regulatory and cost barriers.
Other proposals in the CPR address key competition policy areas, such as retail trading hours, disruptive technologies, parallel imports, and the list goes on.
The CPR tackles highly entrenched vested interests in what looks to be a fierce – and sometimes ugly – battle to lift Australia's prospectus. Yet it is a battle worth fighting for.
Patrick Carvalho is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
Most of these commissioned studies are relevant, valid and robust. Nonetheless, the government should focus political capital on those that can effectively and efficiently raise Australia's productivity. In politics, as in everyday life, it is wise to strategically choose your battles.
In particular, it is worth mentioning the Competition Policy Review (CPR) as an outstanding example of good policy proposal that needs to be given priority.
Conducted by Prof Ian Harper, who will be discussing the review at an event at the CIS on the matter later this month, the CPR proposes 56 recommendations to reinvigorate Australia's competition policy.
Among many important-and urgently needed-measures, I would like to highlight Recommendation 9 on Planning and Zoning restrictions. As substantially argued in the Harper Review, planning and zoning rules should always pass the public interest test. That is, the regulation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that: the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The CIS has long pushed against anti-competitive nimbyism lobbies to contain housing supply. In a related report, the Centre has uncovered housing affordability myths that fail to detect the regulatory and cost barriers.
Other proposals in the CPR address key competition policy areas, such as retail trading hours, disruptive technologies, parallel imports, and the list goes on.
The CPR tackles highly entrenched vested interests in what looks to be a fierce – and sometimes ugly – battle to lift Australia's prospectus. Yet it is a battle worth fighting for.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: