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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 98 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

We need to examine the concept of public interest because this side of the chamber has been urging the scientific testing of the public benefit since the debate first happened. It is also appropriate that we think about the standpoint from which the test should be made. This Government is saying in the Sheen report that the public benefit should be proved to say why competition should not be introduced. We say that the opposite is true. The implementation of competition policy should be dependent on its being in the public interest. They say, "Tell us why we should not do something" and we say, "Tell us why we should do something".

An example of this approach is Dr Sheen's statement on page 17 that no compelling arguments have been advanced for maintaining these provisions in the public interest. Essentially, Mr Speaker, they have got it the wrong way round. We maintain that the loss of jobs, increase in prices and reduced profit margins for all except the supermarkets are clearly against the public interest. We maintain that the Government should have tested these by applying for exemptions to the TPA and the NCP, but the Government has not. Indeed, every time I have mentioned this aspect, the Government has said absolutely nothing.

Mr Speaker, this Bill contains a protection under the TPA which should be extended to the period recommended by Dr Sheen - 30 June 2000. It is interesting that the Government has picked out the preferred parts of the Sheen report and has said how concerned it is with the future of vendors' businesses, but was only going to put in temporary protections. Do not talk to me about being on the side of small businesses, Minister: You could have put in the original period - to 30 June 2000 - but chose not to. These protections are necessary to protect the vendors from the Government's inaction. Had the Government applied for exemption under the provisions of the TPA on the basis of public interest, proven by interstate examples to hand, none of this would be necessary, but now we have to fix it. Mr Speaker, after the Assembly voted against a similar Bill last year, I sought to have some of our objections addressed in order to assist the milk industry. I asked the Minister to institute a rescue regime for those in the industry who are to be detrimentally affected. He refused. This Government is responsible for the confusion and has walked away from developing any rescue package for those businesses it has wrecked.

I sought a scheme which would have been at no long-term cost to the Government's bottom line, a scheme in which the values of the businesses affected would be returned to the investor, the guy who had put so many hours of his own labour into it but who looked like going out backwards. I wanted to have a scheme where fairness was the important issue, not predation, and where the folk could exit with dignity and with some recompense and not be victims awaiting slaughter. Did I receive much in the way of comfort? Not a bit. There is no way this side of the chamber is going to go along with this crash through or crash approach to deregulation, and we are not going to cop the blame for a deregulated market.

There was no reason advanced as to why things needed to change, but this Government had to wreck the industry. We had a monopoly in which vendors worked a reasonable sized patch; we had the processor chosen through open tender; we had sound health regulations governing standard of product; we had reliability of supply; and we had the cheapest prices in the country. But things cannot be allowed to be like that. We must be

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