Page 4284 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In discussions with the government and the Greens, we have agreed to a limited application of the sub judice principle to ensure that the specific matter—ie, the decision to call in the Giralang DA—will not form part of the inquiry. But that should not be taken as some sort of broader limit on the inquiry itself.
When we look at the issue of sub judice, it is important that we note the fact that this is before a Supreme Court justice rather than a jury. The idea that Supreme Court justices are going to be unduly influenced by discussions in a committee I do not think meets the common man test. But we have conceded the point in discussions with the government that, given that specific matter is before the courts at the moment, while that specific matter remains before the courts—the decision to call in Giralang shops—it will not be considered. But it is not possible to look at the supermarket competition policy without looking at the matters at Giralang shops, because it is arguable that the Giralang shops development was part of the genesis of part of the supermarket competition policy and has been a significant point of contention in the application of the supermarket policy. So we need to be clear on that. We have agreed to limit the committee’s inquiry somewhat on that very specific matter as it is before the Supreme Court at the moment.
The amendment goes on to state that the committee shall report back to the Assembly no later than the last sitting week in April, and it will be one member from the government, one from the opposition and one from the crossbench.
Mr Speaker, the reason this motion should be supported today is because it is time to look at this policy. There is enough concern from independent operators and from aspects of the broader community to ensure that we see a thriving supermarket sector, but it is not just that. In the end, this is about consumers. This is about ensuring that consumers in the ACT have the maximum amount of choice. But intersecting with that are a lot of principles, sometimes conflicting principles. How much does government get involved in enforcing its policies on to the market? We need to allow the market to thrive but, of course, this is a regulated market and the planning system plays a significant role now. So the government has a role whether it likes it or not. The question is how much intervention is appropriate and how much should the government be allowing these various players to compete.
Our argument has been that some aspects of the supermarket competition policy have been well intentioned and have been reasonable, other aspects clearly have not. Other aspects have been anti-competitive. The ACCC has commented on the anti-competitive nature of some aspects of the supermarket competition policy. We have seen serious questions raised about issues around Giralang shops. There are issues around the floor area, and all of these things should be considered by an inquiry. This is an important inquiry, and I look forward to getting the support of other members so that we can establish this committee today.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.30): I also have a motion, a fairly similar motion, on the notice paper today. I understand that we are effectively debating these cognately; so I will not be moving it. I would like to point out first that my motion was, in fact, on the notice paper on 24 August. The major difference has been that I have changed from a standing committee to a select committee. I broke up the motion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video