Current restrictions on the location of pharmacies and a rule that only pharmacists can own a pharmacy do not ensure the quality of advice provided to a consumer and should be scrapped, the competition policy review found.
The draft report, put together by a competition review panel chaired by economist Ian Harper, recommended that restrictions on ownership and location of pharmacies be removed "in the long-term interests of consumers".
That marks a show of solidarity with the recent National Commission of Audit's recommendation that the pharmacy sector be opened up to competition, "including through the deregulation of ownership and location rules."
"Such restrictions limit the ability of consumers to choose where to obtain pharmacy services and limit the ability of suppliers to meet consumers' demands," the draft review, released today, said.
Deregulation of the pharmacy sector would likely to spur a wave of acquisitions. The $16 billion pharmaceutical industry has been protected from supermarket competition, but already retail giant Woolworths has shown signs of wanting to leverage its market power to move into the pharmacy game were protections lifted.
In keeping with its deregulation focus, the draft report also recommended states and territories remove competition restrictions in the tax industry.
Taxi and hire care regulation should be focused on ensuring minimum standards for consumers rather than supporting a particular business model. This would be best delivered through an independent regulator, the report suggested.
The report made particular mention of the app Uber as a clear example of how digital technology was disrupting traditional markets and recommended such developments be factored into future policy.
The panel also said current price signalling prohibitions did not strike the right balance in distinguishing between anti-competitive and pro-competitive conduct.
Laws prohibiting anti-competitive price signalling and information disclosures were introduced in June 2012, and only apply to the banking sector in relation to taking deposits and making loans.
"Being confined in their operation to a single industry (banking), the current provisions are also inconsistent with the principle that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 should apply to all businesses generally," the report said.
Public price disclosure was useful for consumers and was unlikely to raise significant competition concerns. As a result, the review said there was "no sound basis" for prohibiting public price disclosure.
If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=
The Abbott government is facing more scrutiny over travel entitlements, with fresh documents revealing Education Minister Christopher Pyne and his wife had a taxpayer-funded $30,000 trip to London and Rome in April.
The trip included taxpayers being billed $1352 for Mr Pyne to "day let" a room at a swish London hotel before he and his wife, Carolyn, flew back to Australia later that day, and more than $2000 for VIP services at Heathrow Airport.
The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.I'd prefer to see less PPPs with 20% IRR and restrictive clauses eg 1 public bus route to Sydney Airport or compensation if more public transport options are delivered than compete with a toll road.
The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.
But having seen what actually happens, it's very clear that neither the Coalition nor Labor has even the slightest intention of genuinely lowering business costs to improve competitiveness. Rather, it's simply about transferring wealth to selected private owners in the main, and either bashing (Coalition) or boosting (Labor) unions. Nothing about lowering costs in there.
I've understood politics a lot better ever since I realised that the "need to be competitive" line isn't what either of the major parties actually pursue. A bit of lip service perhaps, but not a lot of substance.
No way would we have the likes of Macquarie owning airports (a natural monopoly) and making a fortune if the real aim was to keep costs down. But that's not the aim....
The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.Very true. Short term sugar hit to sell of an income producing asset to pay off cheap debt, then shaft the economy with an airport charging some of the highest fees in the world, run by a company that isn't even spending enough on the airport to keep up with depreciation.
Howard was able to brag about what a good economic manager he was, while the most important airport in Australia acts as an economic drag on the tourism sector for decades to come.
Originally, NBN Co was to be automatically sold - provided the finance minister of the day felt the price would be right - five years after the network was built.
If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=
Interesting that the PM said in Parliament today that we should "live normally", but prepare for restrictions on our freedom.
I wonder if he realises how contradictory those ideas are.
Certainly getting an uneasy feeling where now every headline is Abbott and terrorism, now its freedoms bit like when in opposition all you saw was Abbott and Hi Vis with the workers.....we all know how that turned out.
You know its all poll driven when Shorten joins in lock step.
Reforms in taxes and government spending can have an important impact on long-run growth. Their design should reflect the conditions of a given country. For example, countries with fiscal space can scale up productive spending in support of long-term growth, such as higher public investment or health and education spending. Where fiscal space is lacking, growth-promoting tax and spending reforms would need to be designed in a budget neutral manner. All fiscal reform packages should be designed to balance growth-equity trade-offs.
Tax reforms must be considered as a package”” in light of complex trade-offs between the different goals that tax systems try to achieve””and also take into account the administrative dimension. For example, a shift in the tax structure from personal income to consumption taxes, justified to reduce distortions and promote growth, could raise equity concerns due to lower progressivity of consumption relative to personal income taxes. In addition, the assessment of each revenue measure should take into account its impact on tax avoidance and evasion, as well as tax compliance and enforcement costs. Therefore, while recognizing the limits and potential of each tax instrument, an effective reform should avoid a “tax-by-tax” policy approach.
These terror threats are being made online or on social media.
Why aren't these sites being blocked instead of considering monitoring everyone's internet use ?
The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.
And what was the previous Labor government planning to sell after completion ?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-force-labors-hand-on-nbn-sale-20101121-182ks.html
The media are doing their jobs as they always have but it makes me wonder how many of the target audience for these extremest would have even seen this fatwa if the media hadn't given it coverage?
Why are highly geared PPPs seen to be superior to conservatively geared Govt investments?
.
They had to build it first and we now all know how well that that was going when Labor was booted from office last year.As for Labor selling the NBN, at least it was a wholesale only monopoly providing legislated open access to everyone. If Telstra had been sold as separate wholesale and retail companies, well we'd probably have had an FTTN network a decade ago.
Back of the envelope calculations indicate the lower iron ore price and terms-of-trade could cut as much as $12 billion from government tax revenues. That would blow the underlying cash deficit out by a further 0.8 percentage points for the 2014-15 financial year, though that doesn’t include the higher spending from the failure to get key budget measures through the senate.
Yes spot on IFocus.
ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?