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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2803 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

What we actually see, of course, is that who it suits are the major players in any businesses; but what we also see is blind devotion to the principle of competition and competition being used as an argument against any proposition from the community which introduces another concept to a debate, in this case standards and ethics. I could not believe it when I heard Mr Humphries make the statement - and Mr Hird, of course, has reiterated it - that the consumers will choose; that if it is cheaper it is right. I would be interested to see what Mr Humphries would say to a proposal that we should not worry too much if there is a proliferation of sweatshops and underprivileged and disadvantaged people in our community being given the opportunity to work for very low wages in their homes, and then to have the product of their labour sold in the community. I ask whether Mr Humphries also says that that is fine, the price is low, the consumers will benefit and everyone will be happy. I think not.

Does Mr Humphries also say that goods will be cheaper if they are produced in a way that has very low quality assurance for the occupational health and safety of workers and for the environmental impact of their production? Do we therefore say that it is fine because it will mean the price is cheaper and that is what really matters? In fact, I heard an economist on ABC radio recently make exactly that statement in defence of continuing to allow tariffs to be reduced. According to this economist, the fact that thousands of people would be put out of work was okay because we are going to be more competitive and the products are going to be cheaper. The fact that no-one is going to be in work and that social dislocation will result from that is not part of the equation at all.

We have competition policy principles being implemented around Australia. As Mr Corbell pointed out, there are ways that you can seek an exemption. There is also the issue of the public interest. It has been acknowledged that the discussion about public interest is part of competition policy. We have to have that discussion, or it is absolutely hopeless. The places are there to have that discussion, and that is part of the discussion that is happening here today. Of course we have to look at the ethics of production. This debate in this place is long overdue. I think the community needs to be getting more and more concerned about the trend in governments around Australia to push the line that competition is the way to get the best outcome and that if we do not, which was what Mr Humphries was saying, we will lose money. This threat is hanging over our heads, and if we dare to question it the ACT is going to lose revenue. If it is coming to that situation in this place, then it is very significant and very disappointing for the community. I am very pleased to see that other members in this place are not taking that line. Even though Mr Corbell, of course, has had some concerns about particular details of this Bill, the principle of the ethic is seen to have value for the Labor Party in this discussion, and I understand that it also does for Mr Moore and Mr Osborne.

MR MOORE (11.48): When I first saw this legislation I thought I had better do the proper consultation, so I walked down to the backyard to ask the chooks whether this was a good idea. They warned me not to be anthropomorphic. They said, "You have to understand, Mr Moore" - they call me Michael, actually - "that you think differently from chooks". I know that some here would not agree with that. They warned me of something else, Mr Speaker. It surprises me that it came from them and not from you.

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