Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Boswell is right; there were even more absurd examples in Queensland.

The website also raised questions about the legitimacy of the tender process run by the ACCC, and I will come to that shortly. It was a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money, clearly demonstrating the government’s apparent disregard for obtaining value for money. Public funds should not have been spent in the way that they were, as GROCERYchoice has provided little information of use to consumers. That was confirmed by the number of hits on the website. They started off at over three million hits in August 2008, and how many were there by April 2009? There were 61,000 and the number was going down. How absurd! You could see that the consumers were talking with their feet and they had no interest in accessing the information on this fiasco of a website. The total cost to date of this failed experiment is directly $7.7 million with an estimated contingent liability of $700,000—although this may vary, depending on the deliberation over the government’s unilateral termination of the Choice contract.

We do not know and I do not know whether Choice will be taking the matter further in litigation against the government as a result of that unilateral termination. The status of any possible further litigation by Choice or, indeed, other contractors—and there were many contractors—remains unclear. So the government have clearly never learned their lessons from the failed Fuelwatch experiment. They should have learned their lessons but they have not. Recommendation 8 of the report is set out on page xi—there are eight recommendations—and I hope the government listens, reads and learns from this shocking experiment. We have recommended in this report that the government learn from this episode of waste and mismanagement and ensure that such inappropriate and careless spending does not occur again in the future, noting that now more than ever value for money for the taxpayer should be a priority. Are you aware of those costs? It is in the report: $73,000 worth of taxpayers’ money was spent on legal costs for a range of different purposes. The profligate spending of this government has got totally out of hand.

I would like to refer to some of the other recommendations, including the shocking waste of money with respect to the appointment of the data collection company. There was a $2.7 million differential between two companies that put in a tender, and the ACCC took the tender of the company which made the higher bid. It appears that at least $2.7 million could have been saved if the government had been more flexible and kept its eye on the ball. They had a launch date for the website which was arbitrary politically motivated. They set the date but if they had been willing to be a bit more flexible they could have saved up to $2.7 million. Come on. Will the government learn the lesson?

The report takes the ACCC to task, and it should be noted that we have recommended an Auditor-General’s investigation into the tender process undertaken by the ACCC on the data collection contract for the GROCERYchoice website. Let us make sure the Auditor-General gets to the bottom of whether the $2.7 million differential could categorically have been saved. The committee thinks there is merit in an inquiry. The ACCC should take more care in the future to monitor and assess the performance of contractors that undertake data collection on its behalf. The documents allowed for audits and in-field checks to take place but they did not occur.

The minister at the conclusion was the Hon. Dr Craig Emerson MP and the committee recommended that he and the government generally reveal their plans for an industry operated grocery price data website. The committee also recommended that the government note the unfair manner in which its contractual arrangements with Choice were prematurely terminated by Minister Emerson without affording Choice a right of reply and ensure that such unprofessional and discourteous conduct does not occur again. I am sure Choice would support that recommendation.

We made some reflections on the inappropriate conduct with independent retailers, and I notice Ken Hendrick from the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia is in the gallery today. The committee recommends that both the government and the ACCC note that the operation of the GROCERYchoice website was ‘prejudicial and unfair to independent retailers’.

Additionally and specifically the committee recommends that the ACCC apologise to the Tasmanian Independent Retailers for unfairly comparing independent retailers to major chain supermarkets in its price surveys for the GROCERYchoice website, thereby disadvantaging smaller operators and contributing to undeserved negative press in the Mercury on 7 August 2008.

More details are set out in the report. I do not have time now. But the committee recommended that the ACCC also investigate any potential breach of the Trade Practices Act in relation to the role played by the Australian National Retail Association in negotiations with Choice on the GROCERYchoice website. Further details are set out in the report.

At this juncture I want to say a big thank you to the Senate Economics References Committee secretariat, particularly John Hawkins and Meg Banfield. You have done a sterling job in the time available and pulled together a report. I want to thank the other members of the secretariat and also the chairman of the committee, Senator Alan Eggleston. I know Senator David Bushby and Senator Joyce have strong views in support of this report, as does Senator Mary Jo Fisher with her personal interest. We had hearings in Melbourne, we had them in Canberra—in fact, we had two in Canberra—and we have been very thorough in those investigations. The budget allocation to the ACCC for the GROCERYchoice website was $12.86 million over a four-year period, and that is how much money they were prepared to waste on such a fiasco and such a shocking experiment. Fortunately or unfortunately, they have only wasted about $8.4 million to date, it would appear.

The website was launched on 6 August 2008 and in less than a year it was terminated. The question is this: will the government learn from this experiment in waste and mismanagement? It has not learned from the Fuelwatch experiment. Will it learn from this? This report is comprehensive. It has made recommendations. We are asking the government to read them, respond to them and learn so that the waste and mismanagement can be expunged from the Australian Labor government’s processes. (Time expired)