Page 4282 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
policy which we gave the tick to. We were not against the sentiment in the policy, but we certainly believed a number of aspects of the policy were potentially actually anti-competitive and that in seeking to encourage more competition, in seeking to see more significant players in the market, there was, in our opinion, a blocking out of certain players—an exclusion of local independent supermarket operators from bidding for certain sites. We did not support the logic behind that. We think it was discriminatory against a number of local independent operators. That was one of the aspects of the supermarket policy which we saw as particularly flawed.
I think it has also become apparent as we have seen this debate develop that there have also been problems in the implementation. There are a lot of concerns around how it is actually being implemented. Concerns have been put by local supermarket operators about the impacts on the retail hierarchy. There have been significant concerns about definition issues. Widespread concerns have been raised by the planning authority on the interaction of the supermarket policy with the application of the territory plan, with the assessment of development applications and the conflating of politics and policy.
The views of Neil Savery about the interference of the government in the assessment of the development application of Giralang are very much on the record. In fact, Mr Savery’s concerns go far broader than supermarket policy. But this motion is about establishing a select committee to examine these issues. It would examine how this was developed. It would examine how it is being implemented. It would examine the implications of this policy.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure if that amendment to my motion has been circulated.
Mrs Dunne: It is being circulated as you speak.
MR SESELJA: I would love a copy if that is circulated at some point, thank you very much. There have been some discussions, so I seek leave now to move this as a replacement of my original motion.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, I believe it would be better if you move this as an amendment to your original motion.
Leave granted.
MR SESELJA: I move:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) notes:
(a) that ACT consumers are best served by policies that promote supermarket competition; and
(b) that development approval processes should be free from inappropriate political interference and offer certainty to supermarket operators and protection for ACT consumers;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video