WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/WGTCP/W/148
3 August 2000
(00-3186)
Working Group on the Interaction
between Trade and Competition PolicyOriginal:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM AUSTRALIA
The following communication, dated 15 June 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Australia with the request that it be circulated to Members.
_______________
Australia's Experience in Competition Policy Development Assistance
and Some Best-Practice Indicators
The Working Group on Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy decided on
27 March 2000 to continue along the lines of the December 1998 General Council mandate.  That
mandate called for the Working Group to continue educative work pursuant to the 1996 SingaporeMinisterial Declaration and to focus on:  (i) the relevance of fundamental WTO principles of national
treatment, transparency and MFN treatment to competition policy and vice versa;  (ii) approaches to
promoting cooperation and communication among Members, including in the field of technical
cooperation;  and (iii) the contribution of competition policy to achieving the objectives of the WTO,
including the promotion of international trade.
Questions associated with the interaction between trade and competition policy have not been
resolved within the WTO context.  The issue was contentious at the first WTO Ministerial Conferencein Singapore in 1996, and many Members continue to express reservations that the time is not ripe for
negotiating rules on competition policy.
I. AUSTRALIA'S EXPERIENCE
Australia's own experience with developing countries, and especially in APEC, suggests that
an incremental, capacity-building approach to comp etition policy development may be valuable at this
point.  Australia's competition enforcement agency, the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC),  has been active in competition policy education in the Asia-Pacific region.
Other federal entities such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of
Treasury and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID),  have complemented
the ACCC's efforts.  Following is a brief overview  of Australia's recent efforts, following on from
WT/WGTCP/W/125, presented on 19 April 1999.
1. Cooperation Agreements
• During November 1999, the Australia-United States agreement on Mutual Antitrust
Enforcement Assistance came into effect. It was designed to improve theeffectiveness of the enforcement of both countries' antitrust laws through cooperation
and mutual legal assistance.WT/WGTCP/W/148
Page 2
• Also in November 1999, the ACCC entere d into a bilateral agency-to-agency
agreement with the Consumer Affairs Council of Papua New Guinea (PNG). Theagreement is to promote cooperation and coordination between agencies through, for
example, regular and ongoing information exchange, enforcement assistance, staff
exchange,  technical assistance and capacity building.
• Australia already has cooperation agreements with the New Zealand (NZ) Commerce
Commission and the Chinese Taipei Fair Trade Commission.
2. Staff Exchange Programme
• Over the past 12 months, Australia has participated in bilateral staff exchanges  with
the NZ Commerce Commission, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Chinese
Taipei Fair Trade Commission, and the EC's  Consumer Policy and Consumer Health
Directorate (DGXIV).
• The ACCC currently has staff seconded to the Hong Kong Consumer Council, the
Fijian Ministry of Commerce and Malaysia's Communications and MultimediaCommission.
• One ACCC officer recently returned after a six-month consultancy with the South
African Competition Commission (SACC).  This involved providing expert
assistance and guidance to the head of the SACC's Enforcement and ExemptionsDivision, which was set up less than 12 months ago.
• An officer from the Korean Fair Trade Commission is currently nine months into a
two-year secondment with the ACCC.
3. Technical Assistance to Economies in Transition
• Over the past 12 months the ACCC has hosted short-term study visits from countries
including Barbados;  China;  Chinese Taipei;  Fiji;  Hong Kong, China;  Indonesia;Kenya;  Mexico;  the Philippines;  South Africa;  Japan;  Malaysia;  PNG;
Singapore;  Thailand and Vietnam.  These visits have involved a range of government
and non-government officials active in the fields of competition, consumer protection
and regulation.
• The ACCC has conducted a comprehensive three-phase training programme with
China.  The first and third phases involved seminars in China for government
officials involved in the development of competition law.  The second phase involved
hosting a delegation of seven Chinese officials to learn about how enforcement
mechanisms and competition law and policy operate in Australia.
• In December 1998, the ACCC entered into an AusAID-sponsored multiphased action
plan with the South African Competition Commission to provide technical assistance
and capacity-building activities in both South Africa and Australia (e.g., seminars,
workshops and training programmes in South Africa and training programmes and
placements with the ACCC in Australia).
• In conjunction with the World Bank, the ACCC is currently conducting technical
assistance activities in Thailand and Indonesia to assist them in the development and
implementation of their respective competition regimes.WT/WGTCP/W/148
Page 3
II. DOMESTIC POLICIES
Australia has a comprehensive competition policy regime that has undergone significant
development in recent years.  The Trade Practices  Act prohibits specific types of anticompetitive
conduct, including: anticompetitive agreements; misuse of substantial market power; exclusive
dealing; resale price maintenance; and anticompetitive acquisitions.  Australia has recognized that forthe microeconomic reforms undertaken over recent decades to achieve the desired  productivity gains,
competition reform should occur in a timely, coordinated and comprehensive manner nationally and
across all levels of government.  As a result, in April 1995, the Commonwealth, States and Territories
entered into three Inter-Governmental Agreemen ts: the Conduct Code Agreement; the Competition
Principles Agreement; and the Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related
Reforms.  The commitments embodied in these agreements effectively underpin Australia's National
Competition Policy (NCP).
Australia has made significant progress in the four years since the commencement of the
NCP.  The benefits to the community from this pr ocess are now becoming evident, including cost and
price reductions across most infrastructure services that have been subject to reform. It is important to
recognize, however, that this is a long-term process.  Ongoing commitment by all levels of
government to effective reform will be necessary to maximize the benefits.
III. ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC)
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) process is building greater understanding of
competition policy (WT/WGTCP/W/125 of 31 May 1999).  In November 1994, APEC Ministers
agreed that the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) would develop an understanding of
competition issues, in particular, competition laws and policies of  regional economies.  They agreedthat the CTI should examine how competition laws and policies affect trade and investment flows in
the APEC region and identify potential areas of technical cooperation.
APEC economies agreed to a set of non-binding competition principles (APEC Principles to
Enhance Competition and Regulatory Reform) at the Meeting of APEC Leaders in Auckland, New
Zealand, in September 1999.  APEC's Competition Policy Working Group has held five annualworkshops, covering issues such as approaches and exemptions to competition policies and law;
technical assistance; linkages between competition policy and deregulation; regulation of national
monopolies; occupational regulation; and regulatory reform.  APEC Working Group achievements in
1999 included Japan's APEC Partners for Progress training seminars for competition policy and law
officials; Chinese Taipei's construction of the AP EC Competition Law and Policy Internet Database;
commissioning of a study on advantages and disadvantages of competition law in developing
economies; a workshop on Competition Policy and Deregulation in Christchurch, New Zealand; andcompletion of the APEC Principles to Enhance Competition Policy and Regulatory Reform. Australia
also welcomes the positive contribution of Japan and Peru which have proposed to hold APEC
seminars on WTO issues (including competition).
IV. LESSONS FOR BEST PRACTICE IN BUILDING COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN
COMPETITION POLICY
1. Summary
Australia's experience has shown that the effectiveness of cooperation activities varies in line
with the stage of development.
• In-country training, for example, appears to be most effective once competition
legislation is in place.WT/WGTCP/W/148
Page 4
• Prior to that, when countries are in the exploratory stage of competition policy
development, Australia has found it most effective to bring officials to Australia toexamine legislative and regulatory structures first-hand.
• In terms of composition of inbound delegations, Australia has found that, in the
exploratory stage, programmes grouping delegates from different countries are the
most effective for exchange of information and experiences.
• Small delegations, rather than large ones, are best for interactive learning.
• However, once countries have legislation in place and specific technical assistance is
required, an in-country, one-on-one approach has proved to be the most effective.
2. Discussion Forums
• Conferences or workshops for officials from a variety of countries at various stages of
economic development serve as an excell ent forum for exchange of ideas and
experiences in the implementation and enforcement of competition policy and law.
They present a good opportunity for participants to identify opportunities and
priorities for advocating competition framew orks and to form valuable cooperation
networks.  In 1999, the ACCC hosted the Sixth Asian and Oceanic Antimonopoly
Conference, which successfully facilitated discussion on issues relating to
international competition policy and law, and fostered greater cooperation andnetworking among competition agencies and regulators in the region.
3. Cooperation
• Australia's experience shows that forming cooperation networks is an effective way to
combat anti-competitive conduct - by improving communication and information
exchange linkages.  Such networks are also an effective mechanism through whichdiscussion on common issues or challenges can be tackled on an ad hoc basis.
4. Capacity and Confidence Building
• Training workshops/seminars, study visits, staff exchanges and consultancies are also
effective mechanisms to increase practical operational knowledge and understanding
of competition policy and law.  In Australia's experience, however, such activities'effectiveness varies in accordance with the respective stage of competition framework
development.
• When countries are in the exploratory stage of competition policy development,
Australia has found it most effective to bring officials to Australia to examine
legislative and regulatory frameworks firsthand.  The ACCC, for example, has hosteda number of  study visits, providing officials with an opportunity to observe the
Commission's operations and discuss a wi de variety of issues with staff.
• Countries with a more developed competition policy and institutional framework
appear to benefit most from in-house staff exchanges or consultancies. The ACCC
regularly engages in short- and long-term staff exchanges and consultancies aimed atsharing its experience.  These arrangements are effective in providing practical skills-
based training and go well beyond theoretical issues.WT/WGTCP/W/148
Page 5
5. Further Building Common Understanding for a WTO Context
The activities described above enhance countries' participation in WTO trade and
competition-related work.  Following are some ideas for activities that may assist to further enhance
common understanding.
• Specific analytical work (e.g., a scoping study to determine similarities and
disparities among Members' approaches to competition policy and practice and,
therefore, opportunities for convergence)
• Conferences, seminars or workshops for both government and non-government
entities (including consumer groups) to raise awareness of the importance ofcompetition policy
• Targeted discussion groups or training programmes on such things as key elements of
an effective competition regulatory regime (e.g., legislation, institutional structures,governance, enforcement and transparency) and effective administration of
competition law (e.g., enforcement strategies, priority setting and investigation
techniques)
• Establishing a cooperation network to facilitate access to and exchange of
information and to improve communication among members on competition-related
issues
• Strategically coordinating study visits, staff exchanges and consultancies among
Member countries to increase practical knowledge and understanding of the operation
and administration of effective competition regulatory regimes.
__________