“It seems that we see a regulator, in this case the ACCC, seeing itself 'in loco parliamentarius'. “

Forrest, I agree that ACCC’s position on this is not looking too reputable. But do we know that it is anything other than unusual circumstances that had has led to this?

It is a very difficult area of law. Hasn’t the ACCC proceeded with the best of intentions and then found itself in this murky position, without any ill-intent?

Didn’t they give Amcor immunity before they realised the possibility of them acting in an unscrupulous manner of entrapment of Pratt?

I don’t know. I’ll let the lawyers sort it all out. But at this stage – and I haven’t delved into it in great depth – I’m not willing to condemn the ACCC.

Bad collusion needs to be eliminated or at least minimised. But then, not all collusion is bad. I can envisage the situation whereby two competing companies reach an agreement to price their products at such a level as to maintain healthy profits that protect their workers’ jobs and give the companies a good financial buffer for the bad times. There is a lot of merit in this, as opposed to two companies competing so hard that they minimise their profits and necessitate short-cuts in quality and lay-offs and increase the risk of collapse if the market even turns slightly south.

Extremely difficult territory. But I’m sure that attempts at regulation of this type are far better than nothing.

“Perhaps the ACCC has outlived its usefulness, and should be disbanded.”

I support the need for a body like the ACCC all the way, and I think that even if they are shown to be quite seriously wrong in their approach to this issue, with the great benefit of hindsight, and with no ill-intent, they should remain in operation.

.
Mein gute dis schpellink hus to be perfectimundo or elz Herr Ludwig iss goink to chucke a spastiche attacke!

“The point is, there is also a heap of trivial regulation, perhaps with good intentions, but the effects are often stifling and application of the law shows no common sense at all.”

Yabby, all of this regulatory stuff amounts to a highly complex balancing act. There are so many grey areas where it is just so difficult to know just what sort of regulatory regime should be implemented. I’m sure we agree about this.

It is also very much a case that in the attempts to stop bad behaviour by some people, others will be restricted, because fairness of treatment is extremely important…and we can’t separate good and bad people and direct the law only at the baddies. There are plenty of basically good people who would become bad in one way or another if they could get away with it.

So, what might seem like trivial or unnecessarily restrictive laws mostly aren’t when we look into them a bit deeper.

There seems to be plenty of common sense in the very law that you have held up as an example. How responsible is it for a business operator to ask (or tell) someone to operate a vehicle or piece of machinery that they are not particularly familiar with or don’t fully understand the risks of using?

I agree that regulation of this sort of thing could easily be taken too far or be a big imposition on some people that have had free reign for decades with no problems. But the other side of the coin is that accidents do happen pretty damn often, and they are arguably largely due to inexperience or lack of respect for risk factors and error margins. This situation could be very considerably improved if people were required to do a bit of formal training and accreditation.

Yes of course it comes at a cost to employers. But just imagine if an accident happened which was eminently preventable by way of a bit of basic training. How would you as an employer feel in that situation?

ACCC is one of the best institutions of government.

It is empowered to address the imbalance of power between the supply versus the demand elements of trade.

The Visy:Amcor is but one example.

I can recall a Queensland concrete cartel and of course, the Qantas:BA airfreight cartel.

However, I would acknowledge, secret cartel activity is, like any other ‘conspiracy’, notoriously difficult to prove in court hence without immunity, Amcor would have likely not been forthcoming on the scam.

I also recall the imbalance which they did not address (and imho should have foreseen) when Coles and Myer merged around the time Safeway and Woolworths merged. That concentration of wholesale market purchasing power has had a significant negative influence from which many small manufacturers, food processors and growers are suffering from.

I lived in USA when the FTC sorted out the funeral industry, which was operating as a cartel and were ripping off families with excessive pricing and a no-third-party product policy. The FTC broke the monopoly and allowed third party products. My ex-wife and I even opened a discount casket store. My pricing policy was to double the wholesale price I paid and add on $250 + for freight to get my selling price and I used to come in at about 45% the funeral parlor price for equivalent quality.

The FTC are still chewing on Microsoft… I am waiting for the ACCC to get stuck into Telstra and their domination of the wholesale telecomm market.

The point with government it is designed to legally maintain a balance which it cannot do if it is a market participant. The problem is, when taxes are lean, they can swing into monopoly mode and invent charges.

An instance…
licencing people to use the beachfront for exercise activities
placing parking meters where there was previously a free parking arrangement.

forcing some individuals out of business to protect a ‘nice little earner’ for the municipality.

These ‘commercial revenue earners’ come at a price and the price is the monopoly power which is abused to protect them.

*But the other side of the coin is that accidents do happen pretty damn often, and they are arguably largely due to inexperience or lack of respect for risk factors and error margins. This situation could be very considerably improved if people were required to do a bit of formal training and accreditation. *

Just think about that for a minute Ludwig. Every single driver on
the roads has been trained to drive well enough to pass his
driving test. Does that mean that there are no hoons on the roads,
where too much testosterone and bad judgement are the real problems?

Nearly the whole of agriculture operates on a basis of on the job
training and good common sense. People would literally need
to do hundreds of courses, for the job is so varied. Forget it,
it is great in theory or in the eyes of a beureaucrat, but totally
impractical in the real world of agriculture. If you insisted
on that law, you would shut the industry down overnight.

That’s interesting Col. I wouldn’t have picked you as an ACCC supporter.

When it comes down to it, I don’t think our positions are too far apart at all out of the four of us: Col, Yab, Gumpp and Lud.

We all want the good part of regulation and want to do away with what we perceive as the bad part or refine it a make it good. And we want it all to be effective and efficient.

.
Balance, Yabby. It’s all about finding the right balance. A certain amount of basic training with any equipment more complicated than a hammer and nail (or even including them!) would be damn good idea. On the job training is not always sufficient. Yes, some of it should be formalised in law. But too much would be prohibitive to the smooth operation of farms, companies and economies.

As far as driving and road safety goes, do you think it would be better, or not significantly worse, if there was no initial training in order to get a licence, all else being equal? I think it would be a whole lot worse.

Of course there should be formalised training when it comes to driving and all sorts of other machinery operation. But that’s not the end of the story. There also has to be an effective policing regime to make sure people uphold the standard of training that they learnt or something close to it….or cop it big-time if there is a serious accident that can be shown to have occurred due to practice that has run contrary to their training.

I’m not advocating detailed training courses for every little thing. We’ve got to place the responsibility for safety in many instances fairly and squarely on the individual, and the employer, without implementing laws. But for a lot of things, there is a role for the law and regulators.

It comes back to that eternal struggle to find the right balance.

*Balance, Yabby. It’s all about finding the right balance. A certain amount of basic training with any equipment more complicated than a hammer and nail (or even including them!) would be damn good idea*

Ludwig, sure its about balance and also about the law being
consistent and not burdening business with unneeded costs. For
competitive business operates on a level that many in the public
service simply don't understand, for they have never been exposed
to it. Thge result is that every dept seemingly loads up business
with more costs, often just to clear their own arses of any potential
liability.

Now lets look at this example. You Ludwig, can go out and buy a
4wd vehicle, with nothing but a driving license. There is no
legal requirement for any kind of formal training. The same applies
to a chain saw, an ATV and many other pieces of equipment that you
might decide to fool around with.

You can go out and be a hoon, you can abuse the vehicle and kill
yourself. In the end, if you refuse to use common sense in your
life, that is your choice and decision.

Yet if you come onto my farm and drive one of my 4wds to say help
me move some machinery, then make a hoon of yourself and role and
crash the vehicle, I should be to blame, because I have not sent
you to an accredited 4wd course?

Can't you see the double standard that applies here?

This it the problem. Every Govt official in every Govt Dept seems
to think that business has plenty of money, we'll just load them
up with all these regulations and they will have to wear it.

No wonder so many businesses are saying "stuff you lot" and are
going offshore to do business, if at all possible. Next they
will be talking job creation schemes once again in Australia,
as Kim Beazely used to