business unit within documentary imaging services. with the competitive neutrality Australian Securities The complaint claimed that policy. (Investigation Report, and Investment DBS was able to undercut the Section 2.4: Findings) Commission (ASIC) traditional market players in the legal copying and imaging market because DBS was not subject to the same costs or tax regime as those service providers in the private sector. ARRB Transport Sept 2001 The complaint alleged that The AGCNCO found, amongst other Research Ltd, ARRB enjoyed several things, that ARRB did not breach tax provided road competitive advantages neutrality and nor did it research, consulting including a taxfree status, low crosssubsidise between commercial and technical rate of return, and privileged and noncontested research work. It services access to government assets also found that ARRB’s recent rate of and government guarantees. return was below a commercial rate but that, since it was still making the transition to a fully commercial business, this did not reflect a deliberate attempt to gain a competitive advantage. However, a sustained failure to achieve an appropriate rate of return would represent a breach of competitive neutrality principles. (Investigation Report, Section 2.4: Conclusion) Australia Post Jul 2000 The complaint alleged that The AGCNCO recommended that the Australia Post enjoy a value thresholds for Customs competitive advantage by screening of postal and non-postal virtue of the different items be aligned, at a level that regulatory arrangements for strikes a balance between the postal and non-postal items. In objectives of revenue-collection and particular, the complaint risk management. It also alleged preferential treatment recommended that the government by Customs, due to the higher should give further consideration to dollar thresholds for postal whether Australia Post should pay items to be subject to cost recovery charges for the screening requirements informal screening of incoming (relative to non-postal items) postal consignments. (Investigation and the exemption from Report Section 3.4: Summary of reporting and cost-recovery recommendations) charges for high volume, low value consignments. Government entity Report date Nature of complaint AGCNCO finding ABC Production May 2000 The complaint alleged that ABC The AGCNCO found that ABC Facilities, which had Productions had access to Productions was not in breach of facilities, equipment resources purchased for competitive neutrality. The method and staff to produce non-commercial production, of costing used by ABC Productions television programs enabling it to produce services identified and allocated all relevant at a lower cost than costs, and the pricing of its services
business unit within Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) documentary imaging services. The complaint claimed that DBS was able to undercut the traditional market players in the legal copying and imaging market because DBS was not subject to the same costs or tax regime as those service providers in the private sector. with the competitive neutrality policy. (Investigation Report, Section 2.4: Findings) ARRB Transport Research Ltd, provided road research, consulting and technical services Sept 2001 The complaint alleged that ARRB enjoyed several competitive advantages including a taxfree status, low rate of return, and privileged access to government assets and government guarantees. The AGCNCO found, amongst other things, that ARRB did not breach tax neutrality and nor did it crosssubsidise between commercial and noncontested research work. It also found that ARRB’s recent rate of return was below a commercial rate but that, since it was still making the transition to a fully commercial business, this did not reflect a deliberate attempt to gain a competitive advantage. However, a sustained failure to achieve an appropriate rate of return would represent a breach of competitive neutrality principles. (Investigation Report, Section 2.4: Conclusion) Australia Post Jul 2000 The complaint alleged that Australia Post enjoy a competitive advantage by virtue of the different regulatory arrangements for postal and non-postal items. In particular, the complaint alleged preferential treatment by Customs, due to the higher dollar thresholds for postal items to be subject to screening requirements (relative to non-postal items) and the exemption from reporting and cost-recovery charges for high volume, low value consignments. The AGCNCO recommended that the value thresholds for Customs screening of postal and non-postal items be aligned, at a level that strikes a balance between the objectives of revenue-collection and risk management. It also recommended that the government should give further consideration to whether Australia Post should pay cost recovery charges for the informal screening of incoming postal consignments. (Investigation Report Section 3.4: Summary of recommendations) Government entity Report date Nature of complaint AGCNCO finding ABC Production Facilities, which had facilities, equipment and staff to produce television programs May 2000 The complaint alleged that ABC Productions had access to resources purchased for non-commercial production, enabling it to produce services at a lower cost than The AGCNCO found that ABC Productions was not in breach of competitive neutrality. The method of costing used by ABC Productions identified and allocated all relevant costs, and the pricing of its services
CN%20Review%20Consultation%20Paper.docx