Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Kennedy is going to be given the call again, because I know he makes a worthwhile contribution to these debates. Let us go to the opposition. Interestingly, we have 60 members in the House; 23 of our caucus participated in this lower house debate—that is, over a third of our caucus participated in what we regard as a major debate. I will tell you why. This is not only a debate about the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 but also a broad-ranging debate about transport fuels and, perhaps more importantly and even more broadly, transport, oil security and energy security in Australia generally. It is for that reason we have moved further amendments. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has indicated to me he will be making some comments in respect of the issues I previously raised, going to the reform of the Trade Practices Act and the outcome of negotiations between the government and the opposition.

The member for Hunter has sought to move an amendment to beef up the government’s legislation and to keep the finger on the industry and on government with respect to the application of this legislation in a practical form. This is important, because the legislation also includes a new mandatory oil code. That mandatory oil code will seek to achieve a number of key objectives. Firstly, it will allow collective bargaining amongst independents to give them more market power. Secondly, it will introduce terminal gate pricing arrangements that are supposedly to provide greater transparency in wholesale pricing and open access to all customers. Thirdly, it will establish minimum standards for fuel reselling. Fourthly, it will establish an independent and cost-effective downstream petroleum dispute resolution scheme in Australia. The opposition support the intent of that oil code, and that is why we support the repeal of the current petroleum retail legislation. It goes hand in hand with not only the undertakings given by the government to the opposition on potential reform of the Trade Practices Act but also the additional issues raised by the member for Hunter.

Our amendment is about further improving the whole range of legislation that goes to protecting the Australian consumer and making sure the petroleum retail industry is competitive. For that reason, just as we have to from time to time check up on all aspects of life, we believe that the Trade Practices Act ought to be given some additional powers. That takes me not to the performance of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources but to the non-performance of the Treasurer. The outstanding trade practices legislation does not sit in the responsibilities of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources but solely with those of the Treasurer. It ought to be the Treasurer in the House today, not the minister for industry, addressing this issue. It is his responsibility.

The worry of the opposition goes to the manner in which the Treasurer undertakes his duties. I want to make some specific comments about these issues. The opposition’s very firm view is that the Treasurer has been sitting on his hands for three years. We say that because he has failed, despite numerous requests—not just from the member for Hunter but from a range of people in the Australian community, especially the business community—to introduce the 2003 Dawson recommendations and 2004 Senate recommendations on trade practices reform. He likes to talk about how he is assisting Australian industry. I tell you what: Australian industry is crying out for this legislation, and it is sick and tired of the non-performance of the Treasurer and his failure to bring forward this legislation. We contend, as business says to us privately, it reflects the height of laziness not just of the government but perhaps more importantly of the Treasurer himself. I believe this is exceptionally important. It is not just about industry. It is also about the rights and responsibilities of this government to Australian consumers. We are elected to this parliament to try and do our best for the people we represent, and that includes Australian consumers. I believe Australian consumers deserve more from this government, not only in relation to petroleum marketing but across the board.

I go to the Dawson and Senate recommendations. Those recommendations go to the crux of the debate before the House today, because they refer to strengthening section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. (Extension of time granted) That strengthening of section 46 is exceptionally important, because section 46 goes to the abuse of market power. That is what this legislation is about. It is about a change in structure of the petroleum retail industry to make sure we avoid an abuse of market power. That is about trying to make sure that we conduct ourselves so as to look after the interests of consumers in an appropriate way. It is not just about the retail sector of the petroleum industry; it goes across the industry generally. In broad terms we accept that the government supports the strengthening of section 46. We want to see the colour of its legislation. I do not think we are asking for too much. We are simply asking to see the outcome of the Treasurer’s work. Surely it is sitting on the Treasurer’s desk at this time. I say this to the Treasurer today. Get your act together. Your performance to date with respect to these key proposals is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the Australian community, it is unacceptable to business and it is unacceptable to this parliament.

That is why we call on the government today to support the opposition’s section 46 amendments as moved by the member for Hunter. I will tell you why they are important. These amendments seek to allow a court to take into account these key principles which go to the basis of a free enterprise system, one that prides itself on the independence of the market: firstly, that the threshold of a substantial degree of power in a market is lower than the former threshold of substantial control; secondly, that the substantial market power threshold does not require a corporation to have an absolute freedom from constraint, it is sufficient if the corporation is not constrained to a significant extent by competitors or suppliers; thirdly, that more than one corporation can have a substantial degree of power in a market; and, fourthly, that evidence of a corporation’s behaviour in the market is relevant to a determination of substantial market power. These principles must be enshrined in legislation. We depend on the independence of the courts, but it is a requirement of the government to give the courts the power to actually act. We are about beefing up some weaknesses in the existing legislation, as is the responsibility of legislators. The government have not taken into account these factors, which seem very fair and clear to me. If you want an example of that, just go to the Boral case referred to by the member for Hunter.

The other important point is that the government should ask the ACCC to formally monitor petrol prices—what is wrong with that?—and accordingly report every six months on price movements, particularly in regional Australia; which is so often spoken about by not only the member for Lyons but also the members for Kennedy, New England and Calare, the Independents who have appropriately spoken in this debate. I am at a loss to understand why the government is opposed to this concept. It is about transparency and accountability. That is what the minister in his second reading speech said the change in the legislation is about; it is about a new competitive model guaranteeing transparency and accountability. Last year the best explanation the competitive watchdog could come up with was, and I quote, that ‘something funny is going on with refiner margins’. Let us give the appropriate authorities some capacity to actually make sure that ‘something funny’ does not occur in the future.

I simply say in conclusion that motorists deserve a better explanation. It is in the interests of industry and in the best interests of government that we are able to prove what we argue in this House. After all it is the industry’s reputation that is being damaged as motorists blame them for price gouging—not just the government. In response to the Prime Minister’s statement on transport fuels, could the minister advise—because I am sure that this work was done in the costings—what expected take-up the government sees for each of the next five financial years in LPG with respect to the conversion of vehicles and the production of new vehicles? What expected growth does it see in each of those five financial years in the spread of ethanol and biofuels? I do not think you need to mandate them; they will stand on their own feet if they remain price competitive. (Time expired)

See this speech in context