Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1889 ..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
be. The decimation of the ACT milk industry began two years ago when the government called for a review of the industry, claiming that it had to be done because of national competition policies. From this review we got the highly criticised Sheen report. That report was slammed by vendors, farmers and processors for failing to do a public benefit test. Most of us are affected by what happens to the milk industry. Most people drink milk, and many people make a living from it. But even so no public benefit test was done.
The blame for all the problems encountered now lies with the Minister for Urban Services. He was the one who screamed the Trade Practices Act and the national competition policy back in 1998, and we can thank him for where we are today. In December 1998 the minister said:
It is the TPA issues that are of gravest concern to the vendors, because it is the TPA issues that put them at greatest risk. We provide protection to the various market participants-to Goldenholm Dairy, to the processor, to Capitol Chilled Foods, to the distributors, to home vendors and indeed to consumers-by making sure that we fix this problem.
Minister, you fixed the problem really well! Vendors are now walking off their runs. This has become a weekly occurrence, as people in Hughes and Garran will probably know by now. Distributors' income has been cut because of the introduction of national fees into the marketplace, which has cut the delivery of Canberra milk to Woolworths. This flows on to Capitol Chilled Foods, who need to maintain sales of Canberra milk, because if sales drop there is a threat that the plant might close, which would mean job losses.
Do you still think that what you did was such a good idea, minister, wherever you are, if you are watching on the television? This is what happens when you rush through the process and fail to conduct a public benefit test and ignore the main players in the industry. I have spoken with all market players, from vendors through to the processor, and they have all asked, "Why did the ACT government do it?" They are also disappointed with the lack of consultation through this whole process. Many of them did not even know about this bill until I contacted them.
A few weeks ago I attended a scrutiny of bills meeting in Brisbane. At that meeting national competition policy was discussed. According to the director of the Economic Policy Coordination Branch of Queensland Treasury:
NCP reviews must not only consider whether an existing or proposed restriction provides a public benefit but also whether other options would achieve a greater public benefit.
The Sheen review failed to do that. But still you pushed ahead. The director also mentioned the Trade Practices Act exemptions:
The anti-competitive conduct being exempted must yield benefits to the community that outweigh the costs to the community of any restrictions on competition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .