created a that needs to be reined in. Why does small business in the hearing ‘monster’ healthcare industry have to compete with a large corporatised government entity? (HBA 2017, p. 12) However, it should be that competitive neutrality policy is not aimed at inhibiting or prohibiting government businesses from competing with their private sector counterparts. Rather, it aims to promote efficient competition between public and private businesses. To that end, it aims to ensure that where government businesses do compete, they do not have a net competitive advantage purely because of government ownership (such as being exempt from some taxes, being able to borrow at the rate or being subject to ‘government’ different regulations). The original 1996 competitive neutrality statement expressed this as: Competitive neutrality does not imply that government businesses cannot be successful in competition with private businesses. Government businesses can achieve success as a result of their own merits and intrinsic strengths, but not as a consequence of unfair advantages flowing from government ownership. (Australian Government 1996, p. 5). Accordingly, although Australian Hearing’s competition for market share in the four years from 2013 to 2017 has seen its pretax profit increase from $4.5 million to $32 million (figure 2.1), its aggressive and innovative marketing strategies to achieve this outcome are not at odds with competitive neutrality policy or its obligations under that policy. Indeed, given that the standard of living of all Australians is ultimately dependent on how productively we use our resources, that standard of living is best served by having the most efficient users of those resources supplying goods and services. Whether those most efficient and most productive businesses are private or government owned is irrelevant. Competitive neutrality policy simply aims to ensure that businesses achieve competitive success on their own merits and not on the back of artificially lower costs because of their government ownership.
created a ‘monster’ that needs to be reined in. Why does small business in the hearing healthcare industry have to compete with a large corporatised government entity? (HBA 2017, p. 12) However, it should be that competitive neutrality policy is not aimed at inhibiting or prohibiting government businesses from competing with their private sector counterparts. Rather, it aims to promote efficient competition between public and private businesses. To that end, it aims to ensure that where government businesses do compete, they do not have a net competitive advantage purely because of government ownership (such as being exempt from some taxes, being able to borrow at the ‘government’ rate or being subject to different regulations). The original 1996 competitive neutrality statement expressed this as: Competitive neutrality does not imply that government businesses cannot be successful in competition with private businesses. Government businesses can achieve success as a result of their own merits and intrinsic strengths, but not as a consequence of unfair advantages flowing from government ownership. (Australian Government 1996, p. 5). Accordingly, although Australian Hearing’s competition for market share in the four years from 2013 to 2017 has seen its pretax profit increase from $4.5 million to $32 million (figure 2.1), its aggressive and innovative marketing strategies to achieve this outcome are not at odds with competitive neutrality policy or its obligations under that policy. Indeed, given that the standard of living of all Australians is ultimately dependent on how productively we use our resources, that standard of living is best served by having the most efficient users of those resources supplying goods and services. Whether those most efficient and most productive businesses are private or government owned is irrelevant. Competitive neutrality policy simply aims to ensure that businesses achieve competitive success on their own merits and not on the back of artificially lower costs because of their government ownership.