Page 4283 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(2) establishes a select committee to review the ACT Supermarket Competition Policy, including, but not limited to:

(a) the operation of the policy as it interacts with the planning system;

(b) the appropriateness of settings as it applies to ACT Government direct sales, group centres and local centres;

(d) impacts on the retail hierarchy; and

(e) future applications of planning and competition policies;

(3) the decision to exercise the call-in power to approve the Giralang DA are not the subject of the Committee’s inquiry while the matter is before the Supreme Court;

(4) the Committee shall report back to the Assembly no later than the last sitting week in April 2012; and

(5) the Committee shall consist of one Member nominated by the Government, one Member nominated by the Opposition and one Member nominated by the Crossbench, to be nominated to the Speaker by 4 p.m. on the day of passage of this motion.”.

The motion would now read that the Assembly notes that ACT consumers are best served by policies that promote supermarket competition, and consumers are best served by policies that promote supermarket competition; two, that the Assembly establishes a select committee to review the ACT supermarket competition policy, including, but not limited to the operation of the policy as it interacts with the planning system, the appropriateness of settings as it applies to ACT government direct sales, group centres and local centres, the impact of the policy on operators and consumers, impacts on the retail hierarchy, and future applications of planning and competition policies.

Paragraph (3)—this is an important point because there has been some negotiation around this—is that the Assembly notes the decision to exercise the call-in power to approve the Giralang DA is not the subject of the committee’s inquiry while the matter is before the Supreme Court. I just want to make a few points about that particular paragraph. Firstly, from time to time we come up against the issue of sub judice, and we need to understand what sub judice is. Sub judice is not a blanket restriction on speech by the Assembly; it is a protocol whereby the Assembly and parliaments in general limit themselves so as not to unduly interfere with legal proceedings.

There are a number of principles which govern whether or not discussion of a matter or debate of a matter are seen to interfere with judicial proceedings. In this case, as I understand it and we have been informed by the government, there is a Supreme Court challenge to the planning minister’s decision to call in the DA at Giralang shops.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video