Today the Supreme Court of Victoria published its judgment in a class action against the Commonwealth of Australia arising out of the termination of the Home Insulation Program (HIP) of the Rudd Government.
The HIP encouraged householders to have roof insulation installed by offering installation free of charge – with the Commonwealth reimbursing the full cost. Installers, manufacturers and suppliers brought an action for reimbursement of the financial loss suffered as a result of the sudden and premature termination of the HIP in February 2009. The plaintiffs failed on all their causes of action. Philip Williams of Frontier Economics was called by the Commonwealth to give evidence as to the magnitude of the loss. The plaintiffs failed to persuade the court that they had suffered any loss or that, if there were a loss, it was caused by any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.
Frontier Economics regularly advises clients on a range of competition and dispute support matters.
The Federal Court has dismissed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s proceedings against rail companies Pacific National and Aurizon, regarding the control of Queensland’s Acacia Ridge Terminal, a key rail asset. The court has accepted an undertaking from Pacific National, which Pacific National submitted would prevent it from discriminating against other rail operators at Acacia Ridge Terminal.
Philip Williams of Frontier Economics was called by the ACCC as an expert witness. He gave evidence regarding the markets relevant to the acquisition, and the impact of the acquisition on competition in those markets.
The Court indicated that it would have found that the proposed acquisition had the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in breach of the Competition and Consumer Act, had it not been for the undertaking offered to the Court by Pacific National on the last day of the hearing.
Frontier Economics regularly advises regulators and law firms and their clients on a range of competition and dispute support matters.
The Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) has published a report prepared by Frontier Economics, Health Benefits from Water-Centric Liveable Communities. This landmark report looks at understanding and quantifying the liveability-associated health benefits of water industry investments to better inform investment decisions.
The challenges posed by urban development are complex, and as we shift away from traditional development patterns, decisions about water are critical. Good decisions can transform urban areas into cooler, greener and liveable spaces. Bad decisions are costly, far-reaching, and locked in for generations.
Addressing these challenges requires critical decisions to be made about how we use land and other resources, including decisions around housing, infrastructure corridors, environment and our waterways; and evaluate and value potential investments in grey, green and blue infrastructure. Appropriate policy enables community resilience to pressures such as population change, climate and drought.
This project aimed to understand, quantify, and crucially, monetise, the contribution of water investments within real world project evaluations. Our work shows that investing appropriately in water infrastructure has benefits for the community. Water investments can improve health to create more liveable cities through four pathways:
The Urban Economics team at Frontier Economics has been advising clients on a range of projects at policy and implementation level addressing challenges particular to our urban environment.
Today, the recent report produced for Telenor by a joint team from Frontier Economics in Europe and Asia “The Mobile Effect : How Connectivity Has Enabled Growth” was launched in Bangkok.
This project comprised a regional study that quantified the impact of the telecommunications sector within the five Asian markets where Telenor operates. Our research found that the telecommunications sector contributed more than one percent of the GDPs in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia, while the sectors enabled by telecommunications contributed almost three quarters of overall gross value added across these markets. Further, the findings showed the direct contribution that Telenor has on these economies in creating, producing and supplying telecommunications services.
James Allan, Director, based at Frontier Economics in Singapore, was on hand to present some of the findings from the report. Commenting on the importance of connectivity in markets, James outlined that connectivity is fundamental to the process of businesses being able to find customers, and consumers being able to find products that they want to buy. “As connectivity increases, it translates into better ways to create and manage data along with the process of production and delivery. The more that customers and suppliers can connect with each other, the greater the positive impact on economic growth.”
Frontier Economics regularly advises clients in the telecommunications sector.
The Supreme Court of Queensland today dismissed the legal action brought by Wilmar Sugar (a large miller) against Queensland Sugar Ltd (a co-operative that has the role of marketing the Queensland export sugar crop). QSL's approach was to lock in prices via futures contracts during the season based on crop forecasts provided to it by millers. Heavy rain in one season resulted in a shortfall relative to futures commitments that resulted in a loss.
Frontier Economics advised the lawyers acting for QSL. Frontier's report explained that QSL's stated and agreed role was not to manage volume risk, but to maximise prices. It also demonstrated that the analysis presented by Wilmar was based on an economic framework that was inappropriate in the circumstances, and that the results were almost entirely driven by two historical data points that were unlikely to be repeated due to structural changes that had occurred in the industry. Frontier Economics chairman Stephen Gray, and Professor of Financial Economics at the University of Queensland, gave evidence in the Supreme Court. His evidence was well-received by the judge who noted that he found Professor Gray to be an ‘impressive witness’. QSL has indicated it will seek compensation for costs associated with Wilmar’s legal action.
Frontier Economics regularly provides economic advice and analysis in legal disputes, including those regarding financial instruments and quantification of damages or loss.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) today announced it would oppose the proposed merger of VHA and TPG.
The ACCC cited Australia’s concentrated mobile and fixed services markets in its media release, but particular emphasised the potential lessening of competition in retail mobile markets as being of concern.
Critically, the ACCC found that TPG has the capability and commercial incentive to resolve the technical and commercial challenges it is facing, including the Federal Government’s ban on the use of Huawei equipment for 5G networks. It cites TPG’s mobile spectrum, an extensive fibre transmission network which is essential for a mobile network, a large customer base and well-established telecommunications brands as reasons why there was a “real chance” TPG would enter as the fourth mobile network operator in Australia.
The merger parties have a number of options if they wish to proceed with the merger, including:
As a result of 2017 reforms, the parties no longer have the option of directly seeking authorisation of the merger through the Australian Competition Tribunal.
The parties have advised that they will seek a declaration from the Federal Court that the merger should be permitted on the basis it will not substantially lessen competition.
Frontier Economics has been advising the merging parties.
The Australian Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that Australia will meet our Paris 2030 emissions targets “in a canter”. Yet commentary consistently reports that Australia is not on track to meet these targets.
The debate over whether Australia will hit its targets is like a magician’s misdirection – it distracts from the real debate that we should be having, which is whether Australia could pursue harder emissions reduction targets. Many people fear that if we can’t even hit current targets, how could we afford to adopt harder targets? Stoking these fears gives substance to the myth that deeper cuts could be a “wrecking ball” on the economy.
The problem is that very few people have any perspective on whether hundreds of millions of tonnes of emissions reductions over a decade is achievable or not. A new briefing from Frontier Economics suggests that a 45% reduction target is easily achievable and is highly unlikely to be a wrecking ball on the economy.
The Australian Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that Australia will meet our Paris 2030 emissions targets “in a canter”. Yet commentary consistently reports that Australia is not on track to meet these targets. Our analysis suggests that despite official projections, Australia is well on track for Paris and should consider more ambitious targets in 2030, including Labor’s proposed 45% target. This briefing note explains why.DOWNLOAD FULL PUBLICATION
