Page 4894 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
recommendations.” That is what you would be saying. The government would be directed by the Assembly to drop the Martin review. That would be the effect, the implication, of your motion. That is why it is fair and reasonable for me to say that here we have the same old Liberal Party sticking up for the big boys, sticking up for the big providers with no care for the consumer.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot move a motion demanding that the government restrict itself to a competitive process—in other words to the highest bidder—and ignore the Martin review that you propose. It is on that basis that the government is happy to support the Greens amendments, because the Greens amendments essentially reflect the process that is in train, accepting, of course, that this entire debate brought on today pre-empts the fact that we have a process with time lines and that we are still taking public submissions. But never mind that. Never mind what the community thinks; never mind the public consultation process; never mind that we are in the middle of it. Just introduce motions, pre-empt public consultation and undermine processes that the government has running. Never mind any of that. There is this essential acknowledgement that there is a process, that the government is working through all the recommendations, that the government is consulting with all the stakeholders, that it is ensuring that there is an appropriate understanding and acceptance of the issues of IGA, of smaller grocery retailers, that the report in its entirety deals with their issues and allows them to expand, as it does Coles and Woolworths.
The proposals in relation to removal of the main-line supermarket policy from group centres will assist and aid. Already I am receiving representations from owners of sites around Canberra in group centres in association with one of the two major retailers saying: “Goodie, here’s an opportunity. So we’re not going to be restricted to a single Woolies or Coles at group centres in future.” So who is lining up? Coles and Woolworths. They are not stupid. Franklins is lining up. Aldi—
Mr Seselja: You’re all over the shop. Are you now expanding the duopoly?
MR STANHOPE: No, we are not. No, you have actually outsmarted yourself here today. You have introduced a motion demanding that the government restrict the release of main-line supermarket sites to Woolworths and Coles. You have been caught out; you have outsmarted yourself. It is only as a result of the amendment proposed by the Greens that we can actually get back to the implementation of the very strong policy provided to the government through the Martin review. So the government is happy to support Ms Le Couteur’s amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.10): What a difference a motion makes. About half an hour ago the Greens were the worst in the world because they did not consult; they did not come and ask Mr Stanhope’s permission before they referred matters in relation to trees, and the world was going to come to an end. Then we have another motion and we have another group of people who are bogeymen. I have some advice for the Chief Minister, especially for his staff: put away the red cordial and do not let him have any more at lunchtime, because he has been out of control ever since lunchtime. I can only put it down to either jelly beans or too much red cordial. Just take a powder, Mr Stanhope, and listen to the people in your electorate. The people in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video