Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

To explain what I am saying here I must use a specific example. In my home town of Mt Isa-Cloncurry—in Mt Isa an IGA opened up. Some will argue that suddenly there was a plethora of specials at Woolworths and Coles in Mt Isa. Whether that was the cause or not, whether that was the purpose of the plethora of specials and advertising, suddenly the IGA was closed down. Under the existing laws if the IGA bloke had had the money to contest it I think he had a very strong case under section 46. Similarly, in Townsville, at Garbutt, a large suburb in Townsville, there was a very big IGA there and it was closed down under fierce competition from Woolworths and Coles. Again, under the old act they had a very valid case. So the old act looked after Garbutt and it looked after Mt Isa—a big city and a small town.

Now, the new act strengthens the case for the IGA in Mount Isa. It says we do not have to prove purpose at all anymore. It is just an effect test. So, we are as right as rain in Mount Isa. We are much stronger—

See this speech in context