Page 2017 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and Consumer Commission’s finding on the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries from July 2008. The ACCC made a few key findings, which are not part of the current policy. The first planning-related recommendation of note is that:
… government consider ways in which zoning and planning laws, and decisions in respect of individual planning applications where additional retail space for the purpose of operating a supermarket is contemplated, should have specific regard to the likely impact of the proposal on competition between supermarkets in the area. Particular regard should be had to whether the proposal will facilitate the entry of a supermarket operator not currently trading in the area.
Relating to current issues with price competition, the commission said that there are high barriers to entry and expansion, particularly in relation to the difficulties for finding new sites for development and limited incentives for Coles and Woolworths to compete aggressively on price. Quite stunningly, statistics analysed by the ACCC suggest that Coles and Woolworths account for approximately 70 per cent of packaged grocery sales in Australia and approximately 50 per cent of fresh product sales.
Given the findings of the ACCC and the importance of shopping centres and local businesses, I think that this is an area where the government should intervene in the market to support genuine competition and to support local businesses and local communities.
I am also calling on the government to ensure that ACTPLA and LDA policies are reflected in the territory plan and take the above-mentioned ACCC recommendation on competition and the revised supermarket policy into account.
This would include land sales and the master plans as well as the actual development application process. If we do not ensure that the territory plan takes competition and retail hierarchy policies into account, we can end up in a situation whereby ACTPLA has no grounds to refuse a development application that has the capability, nevertheless, to put a number of small business operators out of business completely, thereby losing the amenity of local shops to nearby residents of surrounding suburbs. Not just other small business operators but an entire shopping centre can be put out of operation. The LDA can be in the same situation as far as direct land grants go unless there is a strong policy to ensure that competition issues are taken into account before agreeing to land sales.
I come back to the instance of Giralang as well as the one in Hawker shops recently. It emphasises my belief that neighbourhood planning is the key to ensuring good community outcomes. These neighbourhood plans could then be inserted into the territory plan, and it would be clear for everybody what the intention for each area is. If ACTPLA does not have the capability to run a number of master planning or neighbourhood planning processes simultaneously, then possibly one option could be to give some of the process over to the community to run it for themselves. This is something I am sure the community councils would be happy to do with a bit of funding support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .