Page 3461 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The alternative, of course, is that we say that we are not really interested in ensuring that the claims that retailers make about the products that they sell are in fact true. Further, if this really was an issue, it could have been omitted from the bill, and the remaining clauses relating to the display of prices could remain. That was an offer that I made to both parties. If they see that as a barrier, if, unlike other issues, where we work with New South Wales to get the services that, as a small jurisdiction, we do not necessarily have—if they really are fixated and concerned about that, I offered to amend the bill. That is the way parliaments are supposed to work. You are supposed to come together to try and build common ground, to get done what can be done and perhaps continue to debate other issues at a later time. One has to ask: if this was an insurmountable obstacle, why didn’t we simply get rid of that part and make progress on the price displays?
In relation to the issue of the cost for retailers, which has been raised, I received a letter from Woolworths claiming that a sign would cost $70,000. It may well be the case that a snazzy sign would cost $70,000. However, we believe that for the most part the changes will not actually require service stations to change their signs—just change the way they use them. The intent of the bill, and the way it has been drafted, makes that quite clear.
Certainly some signs may have to be changed, and this may involve some expense, but this is where we need to look at the big picture. I would make the point that in 2012 Woolworths made a net profit of $1.8 billion and Coles made $1.3 billion. Arguing against preventing the duopoly from distorting the market because they may have to install some signs that may cost them something in the context of that level of profits is somewhat perplexing.
The other members of the Assembly are saying that rather than ACT consumers being able to have the true price of petrol displayed out the front, they would rather protect those billion-dollar profits of Coles and Woolworths. That is what is being said if you want to make that argument. If that is the value set you want to subscribe to, that is your choice.
Mr Smyth touched on the issue of the start date, and somehow suggested that I had intended that service stations have 11 days to implement the rule. That is simply ludicrous. The date when we first drafted that bill was set when we were seeking to largely coincide with the New South Wales implementation of the rules; and when it was first drafted and circulated, there was sufficient time. I acknowledge that in the time it has taken to try and negotiate with the other parties in this place and get a space on the agenda to bring this bill forward, that date became unrealistic. My office and I have indicated that we would presume to amend that if there was support for the legislation. That is a perfectly practical thing. We have seen that happen on other bills in this place where it has taken longer. One has to sometimes change those things. I do not know whether Mr Smyth was being disingenuous or just rude, but to suggest that I would actually suggest that service stations should have 11 days to implement this is simply not the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video