Page 2456 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I did outline just now clear arguments regarding the need to take a well-informed approach to a complex set of issues around supermarket competition policy. As I said earlier, it is not just about what happens at one site or another and which happens to capture the populist sentiment—the populist sentiment that we see being pursued by the Greens in their response to this particular issue. It is about establishing a long-term policy framework that reflects the input of key stakeholders, including the community, and that is based on evidence, not on wishful thinking or on assumptions about retail goodies and baddies. And it needs to be adaptable over time as new issues arise and competitive dynamics change in the sector.
It is also critical that the government have clear and well-grounded advice on the implications and opportunities that arise from the ACCC review, and we are doing that by engaging the best possible advice. John Martin brings to our consideration a wealth of experience, knowledge and a national and local view of these issues. We have also committed to a short but intense consultation process that will engage Canberrans at many levels. The government are committed to open consultation so that all issues are on the table and can be considered in our policy response. Our approach will be strongly evidence based because the best policy making occurs when that is done, but it will also be strongly consultation based.
I think it is fair and reasonable, in the context of the criticisms from the Greens in relation to this particular policy initiative that the government is pursuing, that one compares this with the approach that the Greens have taken, illustrated just this morning by the reintroduction of their flawed hot-water heater bill. The hypocrisy of the Greens’ attack on the government’s process in relation to consultation and evidence-based policy regarding competition policy is really quite amusing. The party that railed during the campaign about consultation—and we have seen lots of it over the last day or so about consultation, transparency and accountability—were reduced today to reintroducing legislation because they had not bothered to consult on it and it was so grievously flawed that they were forced to reintroduce it.
We see it again in relation to a process put in place seeking detailed and genuine consultation with the community in relation to supermarket competition. The refrain from the Greens is “Why bother consulting? Why not just get on with it and do it? Why don’t you just introduce a policy? No need to consult; no need to be transparent; no need to be accountable.”
Ms Le Couteur: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 118. I do not believe that the hot-water bill, Calvary hospital or anything else is actually relevant to the answer.
MR SPEAKER: Yes; the point of order is upheld. Mr Stanhope.
MR STANHOPE: Upheld?
MR SPEAKER: Yes. Please return to the issue around competition policy.
MR STANHOPE: Goodness me, Mr Speaker! I do draw attention to Ms Le Couteur’s body language, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you want to comment on that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .