Page 4887 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
got out of bed on the wrong side today. He has been a very grumpy Chief Minister all day. And it was quite a schizophrenic speech, on the one hand saying that Mr Seselja’s motion was going to bring the end of civilisation, it seems; and, on the other hand, essentially agreeing with him. But he cannot actually bring himself to vote in agreement with this.
This is an important addition to the work done by the Martin inquiry. There is no doubt that there is wide-scale agreement with the recommendations and the direction of the Martin inquiry but there are concerns in a couple of areas. They are substantial concerns. Those substantial concerns have been raised by individual supermarket operators in the territory with successive members of the opposition. They have been raised by Ken Henrick of the National Association of Grocers. And they are concerns which have been reflected by Graeme Samuel from the ACCC in evidence before the Senate estimates committee last month.
These concerns need to be addressed and these concerns need to be resolved so that we can truly move forward with real competition in the supermarket industry. I think that everyone is on the one page and, if the Chief Minister got over his grumpy mood, he would probably realise that we were all on the one page as well. I commend Mr Seselja for his motion, and I commend it to the house.
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (5.45): I would like to echo my colleagues’ sentiments on the motion brought to us by Mr Seselja and reiterate the importance of small business to the community and the opposition’s view that small, independent supermarkets are major contributors to the grocery sector in the ACT and, in turn, to the ACT economy. Where there is strong competition, there are benefits for the consumer, and healthy, robust competition ensures that downward pressure on prices is steadily applied. This is a particularly important aspect of this debate today—benefits to the consumer.
The review of the ACT supermarket competition policy found that the ACT had a particularly high concentration of the two major chains, Coles and Woolworths, and that meant that there is currently a lack of choice and diversity when it comes to large, full-line supermarkets in the ACT. It also shows that previous decisions by the ACCC to allow the two big chains to dominate mean that we have fewer independent chains and therefore less competition, which equals higher prices. This lack of competition can be directly linked to an undersupply of suitable supermarket space in key areas of the ACT.
Planning processes play a huge role in the allocation of supermarket sites, and this is at the heart of Mr Seselja’s motion. There is no doubt that confusion reigns when it comes to policies in the ACT. We have heard the concerns of the chairman of the ACCC. We have heard that there is confusion amongst supermarket operators and that numerous concerns have been raised over the review of ACT supermarket competition policy. This has been referred to by my colleagues at length. However, emphasis must continue to be placed on these concerns.
During the Senate estimates inquiry on 22 October, in response to a question regarding recommendations 6 and 8 of the review, which seek to force landlords to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video