Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2424 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Ms Horodny certainly said that if you are going to do something that works you have to take the next step. If you are going to use trading hours as the regulatory method, then you have to go the whole hog and do it across the full range of large supermarkets, which the legislation defines as those being over 400 square metres. That is what it is about. It is no good coming up with a policy that on a cost-benefit analysis is all cost and no benefit.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (11.37): Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because it is wrong in principle. As we tried to explore this matter in question time on Tuesday, it became painfully clear that the Government had no analysis to support this policy - no analysis of the impact on jobs, no analysis of the benefits that would flow to small business, no analysis of the social cost and social benefits, no analysis of the impact on residents living near town centres - - -

Mr Moore: No analysis of the causal relationship.

MR WHITECROSS: That is right - the benefit for small business and the causal link. It is not good enough. We had an extraordinary spectacle. When the Supermarket Institute try to do a bit of analysis of their own and commission Price Waterhouse, all we hear from the Government is pooh-poohing; all we hear from the Government is criticism. A more hypocritical performance by the Government or a more duplicitous performance by the Government than their criticism of Price Waterhouse on this would be hard to imagine. We have heard nothing but reflections on the integrity of Price Waterhouse today. You cannot move round this town without running over consultants from Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, Coopers and Lybrand and goodness knows who else that this Government has employed to do all its work for it; but now this Government comes in here and says, "You know what these consultants are like. You pay them money and they will do whatever you tell them". What does that say for all the consultants Mrs Carnell has been hiring? What does it say for the way this town has been running?

Mr Moore: They must be all biased.

MR WHITECROSS: Yes. Mrs Carnell and Mr Humphries are saying, "Do not believe any of the stuff that consultants do for us. They are just lackeys of ours running our agenda; they made no objective analysis; they do not stand by their reports; they are just prostitutes who will do whatever they are told for the money". That is the line coming from Mr Humphries and Mrs Carnell. It is a disgraceful line. It is an insult to these consultants. Mr Humphries and Mrs Carnell ought to reflect on their maturity. Mr Humphries is always willing to throw in the insult against anyone who criticises anything he does, regardless of the integrity of what he is saying.

What does the Government have to say about jobs? This is quite informative. The spokesman for Mr Humphries said:

If it results in job losses at the town centre supermarkets -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .