Review of the four major banks (first report)

Banking regulation should have two key goals: promoting financial stability and achieving strong outcomes for consumers. Financial stability is critical – but so is ensuring that consumers get a fair deal from the banking sector. Due to Australia’s strong regulatory framework and the banking sector’s prudent management of financial risk, no Australian bank regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has ever failed. We need only consider the economic impact of bank failures in other nations to understand the importance of a stable banking system. However, while they have remained financially strong, Australia’s major banks have let Australians down too frequently in too many other ways. Australians turn to banks for assistance when making some of the most important decisions and facing some of the most serious challenges of their lives: borrowing to buy their first home; investing to support their retirement; and, in some cases, accessing insurance policies that they had hoped they would never need. Australians should be able to trust that their bank will act in their best interests when they turn to them for help. It is clear that in some cases this has not happened. The Government and regulators recognise this and are taking steps to remedy the failings that have occurred. This committee’s inquiry into the conduct of Australia’s major banks is an important part of this process

Advisory report on the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011

This inquiry compared two Bills that have the same purpose – to control price signalling in Australian markets. In November 2010, the Hon Bruce Billson MP introduced a Bill to this effect and the Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan MP, introduced a government Bill in March 2011. The government Bill followed a consultation process, including an exposure draft in December 2010. Although the Bills have similar aims, they take different approaches. Mr Billson’s Bill only applies to the communication of price related information to a competitor, for the purpose of encouraging the competitor to vary their price, and where the communication has the effect of substantially lessening competition. This Bill applies to the economy generally. The Treasurer’s Bill creates two prohibitions. The first is where a firm privately communicates price related information to a competitor. This is described as a per se offence because the conduct of itself is so unredeeming that no further elements are required for liability. The second prohibition is where a firm generally communicates information relating to price, business strategy, or its capacity, and does so with the purpose of substantially lessening competition. The Treasurer’s Bill applies to sectors of the economy stipulated in regulations. The Treasurer has committed to applying the Bill initially to the banking sector and conducting a review before extending it further. This inquiry found that the Treasurer’s Bill would have a stronger effect and this is the reason why the committee is supporting it over Mr Billson’s Bill. The committee’s conclusion is consistent with evidence provided by the competition regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. It stated that elements of Mr Billson’s Bill would meant that it would be of little practical use to the Commission in controlling price signalling

Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.</p

Has Investment in Australia's Manufacturing Sector Become More Export Oriented?

A more competitive and export-oriented manufacturing sector is an important objective of the Australian Labor Government's economic strategy. In furthering this objective levels of tariff protection have been lowered and foreign exchange markets deregulated. The strategy has been boosted by the competitive gain afforded by depreciation of the Australian dollar in 1985 and 1986. This article offers estimates of the size of Australian manufacturing investment in export-creating capacity over the period 1980-81 to 1987-88. A breakdown of these estimates by individual industries is also provided.Our estimates indicate an improving trend since depreciation of the Australian dollar. However, this improvement has been from a low base. Moreover, the levels of investment in export-creating capacity have yet to attain the levels prevailing in the early 1980s, and there are worrying signs that the improving trend stalled toward the end of the period. However, the breakdown of our estimates by industry groupings shows positive changes in the pattern of investment in export-creating capacity. There has been a movement away from resource-based manufactures and a larger share for elaborately transformed manufactures. This is a favourable shift in emphasis since such technologically sophisticated manufactures have been amongst the fastest growing world markets. Copyright 1991 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

The resource boom's underbelly: Criminological impacts of mining development

Australia is currently in the midst of a major resources boom. Resultant growing demands for labour in regional and remote areas have accelerated the recruitment of non resident workers, mostly contractors, who work extended block rosters of 12-hour shifts and are accommodated in work camps, often adjacent to established mining towns. Serious social impacts of these practices, including violence and crime, have generally escaped industry, government and academic scrutiny. This paper highlights some of these impacts on affected regional communities and workers and argues that post-industrial mining regimes serve to mask and privatize these harms and risks, shifting them on to workers, families and communities