Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

notes:

(a)

the Government’s failure to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to formally monitor the prices, costs or profits in the petroleum industry;

(b)

the comments made by Mr Brian Cassidy, Chief Executive Officer of the ACCC, to Senate Estimates that the ACCC would need formal price monitoring powers to gain access to information from the oil companies to adequately monitor profits, margins and costs; and

(c)

that Labor’s announcement to appoint a national Petroleum Commissioner, with the sole responsibility to formally monitor and investigate within the ACCC would ensure Australian motorists are getting a fair go at the bowser; and

(2)

calls on the Government to provide the ACCC with a reference under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to formally monitor fuel process in Australia.

There must be an election coming on. On Friday the government finally acted—finally gave the ACCC a direction to hold an inquiry into petrol prices in this country. After a mountain of calls from every peak motoring body in this country, after almost daily calls from the opposition and after anger from motorists across this country, the government finally acted. The government say they have acted because Graeme Samuel told them it was appropriate to hold an inquiry into petrol pricing. The Australian people are entitled to think that it has more to do with Mark Textor saying it is appropriate to hold an inquiry into petrol pricing. Let’s have a look at the history of this matter.

In 2005, the chairman of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, said there was ‘something funny going on’ with petrol pricing. Mr Samuel was reported on 9 September 2005 as saying:

… the commission did not have a formal role regarding fuel prices, only advisory but there were strange occurrences regarding price margins.

In January this year, the chairman of the ACCC was reduced—again because of his lack of powers from this government—to pleading with petrol companies; as the front page of the Daily Telegraph in Sydney said, ‘Stop petrol rip-off now’. In the last fortnight, the ACCC issued a press release saying that reductions in the Singapore price of oil are not being passed on to Australian motorists. On each of these occasions, the government took no action—not in 2005, not in January, but only in June. Why? Because we are a couple of months from an election. At least this time they took some action. The only thing that is different is that an election is coming up. This government, which has had a tin ear to the concerns of Australian motorists for the past 11 years, suddenly feels their pain.

Now, is it the first time these concerns have been raised? Of course it is not. Australian motorists and consumers, the Labor Party and peak bodies have been raising these concerns. The Labor Party have been listening. We recognise that the biggest impact on petrol prices in this country is world oil prices. We have always said that. But we also say that, when petrol is so expensive, the government has an important obligation to make sure that Australian motorists are not paying one cent more than they need to at the petrol pump—and the ACCC is the best and, in many ways, the only mechanism for achieving that.

We recognise that petrol has a huge impact on people’s bottom lines—a huge impact at the bowser and a huge flow-through impact at the grocery store and the supermarket. We recognise that the oil and petrol industry in this country is concentrated, and concerns have been raised by no less a person than the chairman of the ACCC, somebody for whom I have a high regard, someone who has been saying since 2005 that there is ‘something funny going on’ with petrol prices. Yet the government only act in 2007. How did they act? There will be a temporary inquiry, an inquiry that will finish in October, an inquiry referred to the ACCC under section 95H of the Trade Practices Act. Is this good enough? No, it is not. Why don’t we actually adopt Labor’s plan and have formal monitoring on an indefinite and rolling basis under section 95ZE of the act? Let’s give the ACCC the power to formally monitor petrol prices on an ongoing basis. Just because we know now that there is ‘something funny going on’ with petrol prices, why limit the inquiry to this year just because it is an election year? Why not give the ACCC these powers on an ongoing basis?

Another interesting thing about the government’s decision to refer the powers under section 95H of the Trade Practices Act is that it is a return to petrol price regulation to some degree. This is something the government were keen to explore at Senate estimates. They were keen to explore it; they got it wrong. They thought that, under our policy, petrol prices could not increase while the inquiry was going on. Wrong. But, under their policy, oil companies have to apply to the government to increase petrol prices if they rise higher than they have over the last 12 months. It is a return to regulation, a path the Labor Party have avoided the temptation of going down. But, in their political desperation, at the last minute—after 11 years of saying, ‘We’re not going to return to regulation,’ after 11 years of saying, ‘There’s no problem,’ after 11 years of saying, ‘We’re not going to give the ACCC any more power’—they have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. (Time expired)

See this speech in context