Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 repeals the Petroleum Marketing Franchise Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. These acts cover only part of the petroleum industry, with well over 50 per cent of the industry by volume of sales not covered by the current acts. The acts also discriminate between classes of business, large and small. In the small business sector, franchisees are advantaged over commission agents and independent operators. In the large business sector, Caltex and Shell are advantaged through their arrangements with supermarket chains over other larger companies such as Mobil and BP.

Immediately after these acts were repealed, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources introduced a regulation under the Trade Practices Act 1974 to replace the retail protections provided under the repealed acts and to provide coverage of the whole petrol retail industry. The new regulation is an industry code to be known as the Trade Practices (Industry Codes-Oilcode) Regulations 2005. The Oilcode will provide better protections for and regulation of the petroleum retail sector than is the case currently. The Oilcode has been developed over a period of time. The current acts apply only to part of the industry. The acts have not prevented and indeed have encouraged the growth of retailing outside the acts’ ambit and the entry of supermarkets and independent import marketers into the industry. The acts have also restrained competition by limiting the ability of the majors to compete with retail operations.

It has been argued that the current legislation has advantaged small business franchisees over commission agents. The government sought to repeal this act back in 1998 but at that time it was unable to get support for a mandatory Oilcode and it would not proceed with the bill because the interested parties could not agree to an Oilcode. There has been a series of steps along the way to get to where we are today. In December 2004, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources announced that the government intended to proceed with reform. The minister outlined components of the Oilcode, which will introduce a nationally consistent approach to terminal gate pricing. It is important to note that currently only Victoria and Western Australia regulate terminal gate pricing and set minimum standards for new fuel reselling arrangements, with greater coverage of different forms of agreement and dispute resolution.

In March 2005, following an industry roundtable, a number of changes were agreed to. The important issue was to ensure that the tenure of pre-Oilcode franchise agreements would continue to apply until they expired. Once this and a couple of other issues had been agreed to, the government was able to proceed. In April 2005, the department held an industry briefing on section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, and from there we have come to the legislation that is before us today. I may return to that a little later.

At the outset of my contribution to this debate, I want to make it very clear that I am supporting the amendment that moved by the member for Hunter. Australians are hurting as a result of high fuel prices, and the government’s inaction has done nothing to remedy the situation. It took the Prime Minister until yesterday to come into the parliament and make a very belated attempt to remedy the problem. There is no denial that high oil prices have contributed to the rise in petrol prices, but the government has been ignoring this looming disaster; it has not planned for a future where oil prices would increase, with a subsequent increase in the price of petrol at the bowser. It is nothing new. It did not happen yesterday. It was blatantly obvious for a long time that the price of petrol was going to increase.

It is interesting to note that government speakers—or should I say ‘government members’; I cannot see any government speakers in the chamber—are so uninterested in the price of fuel that only one government member has bothered to come into the chamber and speak on a piece of legislation that I think is of vital importance. If any evidence were needed to show that the government is arrogant and out of touch with the Australian people, this is it.

The people in the electorate that I represent in this parliament—the people who live in the Hunter and on the Central Coast of New South Wales—are very disturbed and worried about the increase in the price of petrol. When only one member from the government speaks on the legislation—and currently there are no government members in the House—it is evidence that the government is not that concerned about petrol prices. Government members say one thing to the media and their electorates but ignore the issue of high petrol prices when debating legislation on it in the parliament. I have to say that I am very disappointed.

The first thing that I believe the government needs to address is a long-term energy plan. The energy plan outlined by the Labor Party looks at the diversification of the Australian fuel industry so that, as a nation, we can become more self-sufficient.

I mentioned earlier that it was obvious for a long time that petrol prices were going to increase. One of the most obvious signals has been the conflict in Iraq, which the government involved us in. To a large extent, it has been responsible for the increase in the price of oil. We on this side of the House were very aware that the invasion of Iraq would impact on the price of petrol at the bowser. I am surprised that it took the Prime Minister until yesterday to seriously contemplate where we were going with fuel prices.

It is also very important to note that the supply of oil is finite. One day there will be no oil left. So, as a nation, we should be thinking about what we can put in its place to deal with the eventuality that our oil reserves will become depleted. To think that it has taken us until now to fiddle at the edges in dealing with an oil shortage is absolutely disgraceful. Our government needs to have a long-term perspective on energy. We need a viable, long-term energy plan. I implore the Prime Minister to go back to his statement of yesterday and take it further.

We on this side of the House were pleased that he embraced part of Labor’s blueprint. We were very pleased that he has taken up the issue of converting cars to LPG, but there are many people in Australia whom it will not help. I do not think the Prime Minister should stop there, because Australian families are struggling with the rising price of fuel. More than ever, our nation needs a federal government with a long-term strategy to reduce our dependency on overseas oil.

We need to be an independent country. We need to be independent in all things, and oil is one of those things that is a very pressing issue for us as a nation. Our independence there will remove us from the shackles of high overseas oil prices. It is very easy for the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and say that the price of petrol is high in Australia because of the price of oil overseas, that it is influenced by the global market. That is obvious to everyone.

We are saying that we need to remove ourselves and put in place a strategy to relieve the impact of that overseas oil market—to be independent, to stand on our own two feet. We must increase the use of Australian transport fuels and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We also must develop and use fuels that will become cheaper in the future. Australians will not be able to afford to pay $5 or $10 at the bowser.

I know that the Prime Minister assured the Australian people that fuel prices will probably drop to $1.15 per litre, but I really cannot see how that will happen. I cannot see how any strategy that this government has put in place will lead to fuel prices falling to $1.15. I think it is much more likely that we will be paying $2 a litre by Christmas. I do not know how the Prime Minister is going to explain his rash promise to the Australian people.

We need some national leadership to develop existing alternatives like LPG, ethanol and biodiesel; emerging alternatives such as compressed natural gas, liquid fuel from gas and stored energy; and future fuels such as hydrogen. We need a government that looks to the future, embraces new technology and invests in research and development—invests in the future. We do not need a government that goes down the same track of supporting the tired old things of the past. We need a government of vision. We need a government that says, ‘No, Australia is not going to pay $5 a litre for petrol.’ We need a government that recognises our vulnerability and then puts in place strategies that are going to protect us from those external shocks. Australia needs to be much less reliant on foreign oil because not only is that affecting the price at the bowser; it is also affecting our trade deficit and foreign debt.

When we had the last interest rate rise, the Prime Minister was quite happy to blame our level of inflation on the price of petrol. He did throw in bananas as well—I cannot forget the bananas. When he blamed the price of petrol for the interest rate rise, why didn’t he decide to act immediately to make Australia independent and remove Australia from a situation where we are affected so greatly by external shocks? This is a Prime Minister who only acts when he is forced to act because he can see that it is going to have a detrimental effect at the ballot box. He is a reactionary Prime Minister, one who sits on his hands and does nothing until he is absolutely forced to do so.

I have brought with me today the statement that the Prime Minister made in this parliament yesterday. To say I was disappointed with it would be an understatement. He goes through and uses his—dare I say—weasel words to explain away the reason for the increasing petrol prices. Then he tacks in:

Since oil is a globally traded product, and Australia is a net importer of oil, there is no escaping the surge in oil prices.

Yes, there is, Mr Prime Minister. You can escape the surges in oil prices if you invest in Australian industries and try and make Australia a lot less dependent on imported oil. It would be good for Australia in a number of different ways. It would make us an independent nation. It would develop Australian industries. It would develop alternatives. It would be good for the environment. To be quite honest, I cannot see one argument against going down the track of standing on our own two feet and looking at alternatives.

We need to re-examine the depreciation regime for gas production infrastructure, and we need to allow selective use of flow-through share schemes for small operators. If they refer to the opposition’s blueprint No. 3 on Australian fuels, the government can get a number of good ideas about where they can go with their policy. They can look at making alternative fuel vehicles tariff free and at $2,000 off the price of hybrid cars. I really think we should be doing everything we can to encourage the research and development of hybrid cars, to see if we can make them not a rarity, not a curiosity, but rather something that is actually out there tackling the issues of high fuel prices and pollution. For hybrid cars to become a really viable alternative, the government need to work with state and local governments.

One of the failings of the Howard government is that they do not work with the states; they are more interested in blaming the states for everything that goes wrong. I think that the Prime Minister would be working in Australia’s interest if he actually sat down with the states and tried to look at some alternatives—giving city traffic and parking advantages to hybrid cars and examining the grants of tax rebates for converting. The government have done that. LPG is the part of our policy that they have embraced, and we congratulate them on doing that. We are happy to assist in any way we can with their policy development. A Beazley Labor government would conduct a feasibility study into a gas to liquid fuels plant in Australia—new technology, jobs for the future.

This government has failed the people of Australia in that it has led to increased fuel prices at the petrol pump. The bill before the House today is a bill that changes the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. This government needs to embrace the amendment moved by the member for Batman and take on board the Labor Party’s ideas in this area. We do not mind. What we want is the best thing for Australia, and the best thing for Australia is for the government to adopt the Labor Party’s policy.

See this speech in context