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

On behalf of the opposition I indicate that we support the amendment with respect to the operative date, the operation of the act and the new Oilcode. In doing so I would like to make a few other comments, because there are some outstanding undertakings the government made to the opposition with respect to this legislation. We all appreciate that there was a need for reform of the petrol retail marketing industry in Australia. It was long outdated and I think we are all pleased to see this legislation moving towards a point of finalisation, with the operative date of 1 March 2007. It is about bringing back into the industry a sense of fairness and also equality of opportunity with respect to petrol retail outlets in Australia. The record will show that the existing act discriminates unfairly between classes of business, large and small. For example, in the small business sector, franchisees are advantaged over commission agents and independent operators. In the large business sector—and the Labor Party does not carry a candle for any major oil retail company—Caltex and Shell are advantaged through their arrangements with the supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths or, alternatively, BP is disadvantaged.

It is for that reason the government knew that to achieve significant reform the opposition was open to the legislation that is currently before the House, with the outstanding issue being to carry an amendment going to the operative date. However, I also want to emphasise two issues. Firstly, the government now has to bring in a new regulation which goes to the operation of the Oilcode, which is exceptionally important to provide the protections for and regulation of the petrol chain sector that currently exists. Secondly, in working out this legislation, a very clear undertaking was given to the opposition by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources which also requires action by the Treasurer. And the worry of the opposition is the tardiness of the Treasurer with respect to his ministerial responsibilities.

In life, it is about keeping your word. I therefore request any advice from the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources as to the state of play with respect to his endeavour to get the Treasurer to do something about outstanding reforms to the Trade Practices Act which are central to the legislation currently before the House. In essence, a deal is a deal. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources understands the importance of keeping your word, especially when it is so much on the public record and is also part of private discussions leading to an agreement between the government and the opposition for what is a major legislative change. I remind the House today that the government indicated its willingness to introduce changes to the Trade Practices Act to implement a response as soon as the trade practices bill No. 1 of 2005—the Dawson bill—was passed through the parliament.

In getting some recalcitrant National Party senators on board, I note it seems the government can do it on media law, which undermines the strength and independence of the Australian media, but when it comes to reform of the Trade Practices Act they seem unable to drag, for example, senators from Queensland representing the National Party to the altar. So I think a little bit more hard work is required. If they can do it on changes to the operation of the media in Australia, then surely they can do it to look after small business in Australia.

The government’s amendments to section 46 are to clarify and improve the operation of the provisions of the act. Specifically, the amendments go to: firstly, providing that a corporation must not take advantage of a substantial degree of power in that or any other market; secondly, providing that, for the purposes of determining the degree of power that a corporation has in a market, the court may have regard to any market power the corporation has that results from contracts, arrangements or understandings with others; and, thirdly, including two new elements to be considered in relation to determining a breach of section 46. These elements are: firstly, whether the corporations are selling relevant goods or services at a price that is below cost; and, secondly, whether a corporation has a reasonable prospect or expectation of recoupment—that is, of being able to recover the losses it suffered by selling the relevant goods or services at a price that was below cost to the corporation. I raise these issues and, in doing so, indicate the opposition’s support for the amendment going to the operative date of the act. But I simply say that, in conjunction with the Oilcode, these changes to the Trade Practices Act are imperative. They are part of an agreement going to the operation of the new act. (Extension of time granted)

I simply say in conclusion that it is not about grandstanding. It is about delivering on a whole package—you cannot have one without the other. That is how life operates. People enter into good-faith negotiations. That is the intention of the act with respect to the operation of the Oilcode and changes to the petrol retail marketing arrangements in Australia. I simply request that the minister indicate in no uncertain terms to the House today that this legislation is in the pipeline and when it is potentially going to be introduced into the House. I say in conclusion: your word is your bond. If you can deliver Senator Barnaby Joyce on issues of changes to media ownership and diversity in Australia then it is about time you delivered your recalcitrant friends from cocky corner on other legislation.

See this speech in context