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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 931 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there is nothing mealy-mouthed about the Government's position on this legislation. We intend to defend the legislation to the extent that it is defensible; but it is also perfectly clear from what has been put before this Assembly today that the ACT Milk Authority legislation is legislation in serious risk of being, in part or in whole, struck down. Mr Speaker, whether the members on the other side of the chamber like that or not is irrelevant to this debate. The fact is that the legislation is on shaky ground, and indeed has been on shaky ground, as Mr Smyth's quote from the briefing paper in 1989 indicates, for at least the last decade.

Mr Speaker, what does the Government do about that? Clearly, what the Government has to do is try to apply the law as far as it will go. Mr Smyth has made it clear that the Milk Authority needs to ensure that the law as it now stands in the Territory is complied with. But, as is clear from this press release, an application has been made under the legislation. It has been made by National Foods under the legislation. It is equally clear that the opportunities to reject the application are extremely limited, if they exist at all. Mr Speaker, very soon we are going to be faced with the reality that the Milk Authority is going to approve the entry of National Foods into the ACT milk market. Let us all understand that that is going to happen, and very soon indeed.

Ms Carnell: It will be inside the law.

MR HUMPHRIES: It will be inside the law of the Territory. The Milk Authority will have acted entirely appropriately in accepting and approving that application. Mr Speaker, the question is not, as this motion amended before us stands, one of mounting a full and vigorous defence of the milk industry, because the breach is already there. The crack in the wall is already very clear, and the crack is about to result in a huge chunk of the wall coming down.

Mr Berry: Nobody has decided that. That has not been decided.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry, I concede that there has been no decision. What I am saying to you, though, is: Read that legal advice and the advice that the Milk Authority has received. Their press release makes it perfectly clear to anybody. It is going to fall. It is going to come down. That hole is going to appear. National Foods, and probably other players, are going to march through it very quickly. What we think about that - what the Government happens to feel about that - is entirely irrelevant. It is completely and utterly irrelevant. Should we take steps to prevent that happening by, for example, as Mr Hargreaves's original motion called for, the seeking of injunctions, it is very likely that the Territory will incur significant damages, or significant costs, by way of an order for costs or an order for damages at some point down the track, because the position we would try to take in that circumstance would be potentially unsustainable. Mr Speaker, that is the position.

I want to come to this question of national competition policy and what we should do about that policy in respect of the ACT. We support the motion that has been put before the chamber because, frankly, we would like to see the question of how to resolve difficult issues of national competition policy put into another forum where the decisions that we have taken in the present environment could be properly tested. We are happy for that to happen because, frankly, Mr Speaker, we are sick of people loudly proclaiming

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