Introductory comment:
The impact of Pauline Hanson's One Nation on the Australian political system is touched on in this remarkable Murdoch article which spews out the single-minded point of view that what is good for their master is good for the population.
You will note that Labor's David Hamill is suddenly labelled as a "new conservative" not once, but twice...
Remember that by the Courier-Mail's own admission One Nation is a "populist" paper... thus it follows that the move by the other parties to embrace One Nation's concerns shows that they are at last listening to the voter and not big business and that is what freaks out the intellectual prostitutes at The Courier-Mail.
Courier-Mail editorial, Thursday 15th April 1999
The new conservatives who oppose national competition policy like to invoke nation building as something that would not happen with an open market. The Snowy Mountain Scheme would never have been built if the economic rationalists were in charge after World War II they sneer. This is vacuous nonsense, substituting cliche for intellectual rigour. If the argument held even a skerrick of logic it would follow that a multi-billion dollar project such as the Sydney Olympics would not happen either.
The only thing stopping Australia sponsoring national projects such as the Snowy Mountain Hydro Electric Scheme is political leadership and vision. If politicians believe that major infrastructure projects are worth pursuing, they have the power and the wherewithal to make them happen. Regardless of what sloganeering politicians say, there is no ultimate loss of sovereignty involved in national competition policy.
When the heads of all Australian governments signed up for the national competition policy reform package in 1995, they pledged to reform their government-owned enterprises, do away with market rigging, only allow anti-competitive scheme in the public interest and open natural monopolies to competition through access. It is a logical plan that should turn Australia into a single, open market where consumer interest replaces self-interest.
But since the One Nation phenomenon, politicians have been back-pedalling. Our political leaders - led by a policy coalition formed by Labor and the National Party - have rounded on the National Competition Council, labelling it unelected, elitist, and out-of-touch. As NCC president Graeme Samuel says, the council and its overarching policy paradigm have become popular whipping posts for almost every ill in society. That broader, pre-existing economic pressures might be driving much of the change is ignored in favour ot shroud waving and political graffito.
Queensland treasurer David Hamill is the latest to join the new conservatives. He wants the NCC abolished and is leading the charge - supported by other state governments - to put this hatchet job on the national political agenda. Mr Hamill wants the council replaced by a unit in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on Canberra, reporting to the Council of Australian Governments.
Apart from the fact John Howard has less interest in COAG than Paul Keating - leaving it to wither on the vine - it is not as accountable as the current arrangements. The NCC is responsible to COAG and can only act within the parameters set by heads of government. But as a separate authority, the workings of the council are transparent. To transfer responsibility to a group of unelected, faceless Canberra bureaucrats is a retrograde step. The reason new conservatives such as Mr Hamill resort to bashing a perfectly rational arrangement like the NCC is they do not have sufficient understanding of competition policy to explain it to the electorate.