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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 108 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

the one accused of rushing things through - was faced with these amendments. It is a very arrogant thing to say in public, on television, that the Government rushed the legislation through and then to drop your own amendments on the table after the debate has been rejoined.

Labor has shown itself in all of this to have a very huge lack of understanding of what this debate is about, and then to blame the Government is the arrogance of ignorance. To drop amendments here that members really should have time to consider properly is, again, just another indication of their arrogance. It is arrogance because, for all Mr Hargreaves' words, he actually had an opportunity to protect the milk industry last December and the Labor Party turned it down. They voted against protecting the status quo. I thank Mr Kaine. Last time he supported this legislation and he has just re-read into Hansard the last page of my speech where we clearly outlined that we would retain the Canberra Milk brand, that we would continue to support local jobs, that we would retain the existing price controls, that we would retain the current licensing zones, that we would maintain support for Goldenholm, and that there would be a role, albeit on a reduced scale, for the Milk Authority.

Mr Kaine put quite nicely that sometimes you do have to move forward. I think he has shown himself as understanding this issue, whereas the true conservatives in this place sitting on the benches opposite just have their heads in the sand and have put political gain and beat-up before the true interests of the milk industry in the ACT. How do we know that? We know that because Mr Hargreaves owns up to it. He fesses up. He said that we have had public outcry and we have had demonstrations. He should know because he helped organise them. He brought the milk trucks in. He had them out there. He went out and addressed the masses and said, "We will save you". But when the Labor Party had an opportunity to give these people certainty in their industry, when it had an opportunity to look after the milk vendors, the consumers, the producers, the Goldenholm Dairy and anybody else with an interest in the ACT milk industry, they rejected it. They rejected it out of hand. They did not even take the opportunity to amend it; they just said no. How is that for arrogance? "Can we save the milk industry?" "No, we won't save them at all". Not an attempt; not a thought; not an inkling of what they were doing.

Mr Stanhope goes on that the Government has not responded to the Competition Policy Forum's report. I would have thought that any reasonable person would consider the legislation that we have put forward and our explanation of it to be quite clearly an indication that we have taken on board people's views and what we have put together is a path forward for the milk industry. There are factors beyond the control of this place that will influence our industry. We know that. Labor may choose to ignore that, but we do know it, and we take it very seriously. What we have put forward here, what we have put in place, is a package that gives the industry not only a path forward but also the opportunity to expand. In Mr Moore's portfolio, there are requirements which limit what vendors can do in terms of timing and articles that they can carry. We will look at removing those. We will give them the opportunity to broaden their base, to build better businesses, so that they can continue to support the ACT, as the ACT deserves.

It is funny, Mr Speaker, that much is made of this public interest test. I sought advice on the public interest test. It would seem that, as the Government is neither introducing nor withdrawing regulation, there has been no need to conduct a public benefit test. In fact,

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