Page 4890 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
into planning by reporting on the process. I really do not think that we want to have to report on every single supermarket site sale. What we want is the right process and then the government can implement it. So we want to delete that paragraph.
As far as paragraph (2)(c) is concerned, I think we are fairly clear, particularly after listening to Mr Stanhope’s chronology of the process, that the ACCC has already been consulted and that the government, and, in particular John Martin, are well aware of the ACCC’s views. I assume that they basically have been taken into account. There seems to be little need to get the ACCC’s views once again. Those are the major points of the amendment, which I now move:
Omit all words after “notes”, substitute:
“(a) that the ACCC has been consulted throughout the Martin Review process;
(b) supermarket industry concerns and confusion about certain recommendations contained in the Review of ACT Supermarket Competition Policy;
(c) the important contribution that small independent supermarket operators make to the grocery sector in the ACT and to the ACT economy more broadly;
(d) that robust competition is required in the grocery market to maintain downward pressure on grocery prices in the ACT; and
(e) notes that the Government is yet to make an official response to the Review, and that a consultation process on some of the details is underway; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) clarify that the definition of “controlled by a major wholesaler” as outlined in the eligibility criteria for assessing candidates for new entry facilitation; and
(b) ensure that a competitive and transparent process is used to allocate new supermarket sites to supermarket operators in the ACT as per the eligibility criteria outlined in the Review.”.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.56): The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. There are a number of problems with it. Firstly, the amendment does not seem to reflect what was in Ms Le Couteur’s speech. It should be made clear that the amendment actually removes the entirety of the motion and replaces it with a Greens motion. There are a number of things that we cannot support in this, and there are a number of points that are missed in the proposed amendment from Ms Le Couteur.
The Greens are proposing to insert the assertion that the ACCC has been consulted throughout the Martin review process. I cannot speak to the veracity of that; I cannot speak to whether or not that is, indeed, the case. I am not sure what information has been provided to the Assembly that would make that crystal clear and that would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video