Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The amendment made by the Senate to the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 specifies a starting date for the repeal bill, and effectively the Oilcode, of 1 March 2007. The government does not oppose this amendment. The government looks forward to the commencement of this legislation, which will usher in a new regulatory environment for the downstream petroleum sector by providing all industry participants with a national approach to terminal gate pricing. It will also set minimum standards for a wider range of contractual arrangements and provide access to downstream petroleum dispute resolution schemes.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to 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 It was long outdated and I think we are all pleased to see this legislation moving towards a point of finalisation, with the operative date of 1 March 2007.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.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will address his remarks through the chair.

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

Yes, but they’re pretty effective!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will address his remarks through the chair to the minister, not directly across the table to the minister.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Batman, I rise to support the Senate message and the amendment put in place by the Senate. Indeed, the amendment came from the opposition out of our concern that the operation of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 should not come into effect until the government has come forward with those relevant and appropriate reforms to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. Of course, we sought a deferred date because we were not all that confident that the government would be forthcoming on its word, at least not before the repeal bill came into operation.

I do not need to go into Labor’s support for the repeal of the sites and the franchise acts—our views on those issues are well documented. Suffice to say that we do believe that an outdated, 26-year-old regulatory regime is applying a brake to competitive forces in the petroleum retail market and therefore, along with many other factors, is putting upward pressure on petrol prices. So our support for repeal of an antiquated and outdated regulatory regime is without question. But we have always said that the repeal of the sites act and the franchise act must be done in conjunction with the arrival of an efficient and effective Oilcode. I am not sure we have Oilcode 100 per cent right now but, as the minister knows, when you are dealing with various parties in these negotiations you will never get an absolutely perfect outcome. I suspect it is as perfect as we are going to get it, but what gives me faith is that we will have a review of the Oilcode one or two years down the track which will allow us to finetune that document to ensure it is delivering the outcomes we all hope for.

But the other condition, of course, was that the repeal must happen in conjunction with reforms to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. We in this place all, surely, know by now that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act has lost its effectiveness following a number of federal and High Court decisions, among them the Boral case, the Safeway case and the Rural Press case. They are probably the standouts. What has hurt section 46 of the Trade Practices Act most is the inability of the courts to find (1) whether a corporation in fact has the substantial degree of market power that the act is looking for to prove that it therefore has the opportunity to abuse that market power and (2) the definition of the question of ‘take advantage’; or in other words whether, once substantial market power has been established, a corporation has taken advantage of that substantial degree of market power to the detriment of a competitor. It is quite clear that it is very difficult now for the ACCC to prove either of those points, and in reality the ACCC has now effectively ceased taking cases under section 46, in particular on predatory pricing, because of its view that it is not likely to secure a prosecution on that basis.

The minister for resources has made a commitment here in this place that the government will move quickly to bring forward legislation to reform section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, but there are two concerns with respect to that commitment—and I do not question his word in any respect. What I am concerned about in the first instance is the attitude of his colleague the Treasurer, because the Treasurer seems to be insisting on a certain course of action which requires that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act reform does not come until we have dealt with another reform issue with respect to the Trade Practices Act, and they of course are those reforms contained within the Dawson bill.

As members of the House know, the Dawson bill is currently stalled in the Senate because of a bit of stubbornness on the part of the government, particularly in the area of merger authorisations. The Labor Party has put forward some very appropriate and sensible, and minimal, amendments to the authorisation changes put forward by the government, and we still await the government’s concurrence with that amendment. When the government sees fit to concur with that minor amendment we will be happy to pass the Dawson bill through the parliament.

That main point is that there is no connection between the Dawson bill and reforms to section 46. There is no strong argument—there is no argument whatsoever—that you cannot seek to reform section 46 until you have dealt with the Dawson bill. This is just the Treasurer’s stubbornness. He has decided that small business and independent players in the retail petrol market do not matter sufficiently for him to put his stubbornness aside and deal with section 46 issues prior to the passage of Dawson in the Senate. We know Dawson will go through at some point in time; there is too much pressure from the big end of town for the government to sit on Dawson forever. So the time must surely come when the government sees fit to accept the opposition’s minor amendments.

But the key point is that you do not need Dawson through before dealing with section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. What the government is effectively saying by saying section 46 cannot be done until Dawson is dealt with is that the big end of town matters more than the small end of town. He says that he cannot afford small and independent players in the market appropriate protection until the big end of town gets all it wants on Dawson. That is an inappropriate approach, and I would like to hear the minister come to the dispatch box and indicate that he will do all in his power to persuade the Treasurer that it is absolutely unacceptable to be holding the small and independent players to ransom so that the big end of town can get all it wants on mergers changes in this country. I will invite him to do so.

The other point I want to make is on recoupment, to get this on the record again. We want positive reform to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act; we do not want, in the form of government legislation, section 46 going backwards. It is my view and the view of many trade practices experts, including a range of academics, that, if the government is prescriptive about recoupment in the legislation, section 46 will go backwards. Recoupment, of course, is the concept that you must be able to show that the larger firm or the aggressive firm which was holding prices down with the intention of driving a competitor out of a market was capable of recouping the losses at a later date. Of course, recoupment is a concept which the courts have always taken into account when trying to determine whether a firm with a substantial degree of market power has taken advantage of that market power by holding down prices, possibly below cost, with the sole intention of driving a smaller competitor—or any competitor, for that matter—out of the market.

Of course they would take recoupment into consideration. Of course it is something always in the minds of the court when deliberating on these issues. But, if you write into legislation that recoupment may be taken into consideration when deliberating on these issues, inevitably the courts will feel an obligation to make recoupment a priority consideration in their broader determinations. It is unnecessary, and I fear it is an issue that will force section 46 not forwards but backwards. I urge the government not to be prescriptive about recoupment in the act. Let the courts determine the extent to which recoupment is an issue to be considered in the cases before them.

To summarise: yes, the opposition has supported the repeal of the petroleum retail sites act and the petroleum retail franchising act. We think the 26-year-old regulatory regime is outdated; it is a brake on competition in the industry. In fact, we think the repeal should have happened some years ago but government incompetence in getting agreement on Oilcode has delayed that repeal. But it must be done in conjunction with an acceptable Oilcode and it must be done in conjunction with reforms to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. Let us not hear any more of this, ‘Well, we will not deal with section 46 until Dawson is passed through the Senate.’ There is no nexus between the two; it is just stubbornness on the part of the Treasurer. He needs to put his pride aside and put the interests of the small and independent sector first, get on with these reforms and bring in a package of reforms to section 46 that are acceptable and that take that section of the act forward in a positive way, rather than take it backwards as I know many at the big end of town would desire.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment, but I will use this opportunity to raise a number of points in relation to the government’s approach to petrol pricing, particularly its impact on the regions. The amendment is not the problem. In essence, Labor have consistently supported the repeal of the two acts that both the member for Hunter and the member for Batman have referred to, but we have always said that that repeal should be subject to two important conditions. One is the introduction of an oil code. Had that code been introduced in advance of this, these two acts would have been history well before this, because Labor had consistently indicated its support for repeal subject to the introduction of an oil code. The second condition that we have attached to this, which the government acknowledges but again is tardy in acting upon, is reform of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act.

I often hear the Prime Minister say, ‘There’s nothing the government can do about rising oil prices.’ It is true. We are subject through world parity pricing to what happens on the global market, but it is not true to say that the government here is defenceless when it comes to protecting consumers. There are two things the government can do. One is to reform section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, not just recommended by Labor but recommended by the Dawson inquiry, recommended by the Senate and effectively agreed to but not acted upon by the government. If the government is serious about doing something to keep the pressure on competition and therefore downward pressure on prices, it must act. I join with the member for Batman in challenging the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources when he responds to tell us where the legislation is amending section 46, why it has not been brought to us now and when it will be brought, because that was an undertaking given to us and an undertaking that they must discharge if they are to be seen to be credible in moving to put downward pressure on oil prices.

The government must strengthen section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to develop a comprehensive approach to retail pricing and provide greater scope to deal with the abuse of market power. They need to bring in amendments that clarify what sort of behaviour constitutes an abuse of market power and to provide a line in the sand, if you like, to defend small business. We also need to have amendments that will lower the threshold for the ACCC to prove that an abuse of market power has occurred. We want to know where that legislation is. It is an undertaking that the government has made.

The second point where the government can make a difference goes specifically to the question of the differential in prices in the regions. It is very interesting that in the context of petrol prices today—checking the recent data—New South Wales regional towns and centres are paying between 3c and 13c more a litre for their fuel than the capital cities. It is the same story in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria, and the Northern Territory paid on average $1.48 a litre in September. We all know that people in the bush and in the regions pay more for their petrol. What can be done about it? The government says, ‘Nothing.’ We say they are wrong on that front, and that is why we were successful in having the Senate inquiry, which is currently undertaking its work, look at some options.

One issue is the application of the GST, because in essence it is a tax on a tax. The government claims virtue in freezing the excise on petrol, but what is the advantage—what is the virtue—in freezing the excise if the GST applies as a movable feast on rising retail petrol prices? When this government introduced the GST, it said it would not be introducing a tax on a tax. It has, and it should be looking at that dimension of the problem.

Another aspect that the government could be usefully looking at goes to the question of a replacement for its failed Fuel Sales Grants Scheme. At the time the government introduced that scheme as the compensatory mechanism for the price differential in regional Australia, we said that it would fail. Now they have conceded it. They have run up the white flag but they have put nothing in its place. The minister at the table smiles; he knows we are right. We have proven them to have introduced a failed scheme, but they have not had the wit or wisdom to come up with an alternative.

We hope that, in the submissions and the recommendations that come from the Senate inquiry, maybe something can be looked at, but I pose a suggestion for the minister at the table. We saw the government embrace the notion of targeted tax rebates for low-income workers in the last budget. We have heard the Prime Minister argue that you do not compensate people for fixing the indirect tax mechanism; you compensate them for things like rising petrol prices by doing something through the direct taxation method. Why not review a targeted rebate—for example, the zonal rebate? If the argument is that something is to be done through the direct tax system for people on low incomes, why not recognise the low income in regional Australia—the disadvantage that they are under—and do something about it?

This is a government that has got back revenue of some hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the abolition of the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme. It argues that the money has gone to roads, and it has, but there is no guarantee that it has gone to the roads in the regions. So we have a circumstance in which regional Australians, since the last budget, are paying more for their petrol as a direct action of the government’s abolition of the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme, with no compensation and with no guarantee that the money saved is going to their roads.

This is a government that has sold out regional Australia. The National Party sits by as a paid-up branch office of the Liberal Party, letting them get away with murder. It believes that it can solve its problems by dipping into a honey pot just before every election. Regional Australia deserves better than that. We have forced the inquiry in the Senate on the government. We hope that through that some sensible recommendations come forward that give relief to motorists in regional Australia.

This government has a capacity to act. It has a capacity to introduce the mechanisms under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act—which, if they were in place, would have had a downward pressure on petrol prices. There is no question about that. The government’s failure to act has essentially allowed prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been. The government has failed to compensate regional Australia. We support the amendment but we condemn the government for its failure to act in the interests of motorists in this country, in particular the motorists in regional Australia, who are being slugged yet again for this government’s incompetence.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those opposite for their support for the amendment and ultimately their support for the passage of this legislation. I reaffirm the government’s commitment to introduce changes to section 46 on the basis that the Dawson legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate is passed. I suggest to those opposite that if, as they suggest, the passage of the section 46 amendment is so urgent, they should agree to the passage of the Dawson legislation as it currently stands—for it is they who are holding up that legislation. It is they who have opposed the proposals put forward by the government. As soon as Dawson is passed, section 46 will be put in place.

Before closing, I also say that this government have done more to lower fuel prices than any government before it. We are the only government who have cut excise to business.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is not a motorist who believes that.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They should believe it, because it is true. We are the only government that has cut excise to the transport industry and we are the only government that has frozen excise. That, along with a whole range of measures, including the $1.3 billion package we introduced recently for alternative fuels, has seen Australian motorists well served by this government in the area of fuel.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was keen to allow the House to get on with the business of the day, but I am provoked by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on a couple of accounts. First of all, I am very disappointed that he was not prepared to come to the dispatch box and acknowledge that the condition that Dawson be passed through the Senate before section 46 changes come into this place is unacceptable and inappropriate. I know he is in a difficult position, because I know he is dealing with a recalcitrant Treasurer, a lazy Treasurer, an arrogant Treasurer and a Treasurer who is unprepared to put first the interests of small business and independent players not just in the petrol market but in industry generally. What the minister has just asked the opposition to do is to give a leg-up to small and independent players by supporting section 46 reforms but to give them a big whack by allowing Dawson through the Senate without insisting upon our very sensible and responsible amendments. He thinks we should give small business something with one hand but take away with the other.

Let me take you through that. Amongst other things, the Dawson reforms make significant changes to merger laws in this country. First, they bring in a formal arrangement under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, moving away from the current informal arrangements, which were hated by big business in this country because they gave business no formal decision on which to appeal to the Competition Tribunal, in the first instance, and, in the later instance, to the courts. So big business has been given that formal process. Somewhat reluctantly, the opposition has supported that measure.

The second change is a change to the authorisation process. If a big business cannot get the tick from the ACCC under the competition test under section 50, it then has the right to go to the ACCC under authorisation on the public interest test. In other words, it goes to the ACCC and says, ‘We accept your decision under the informal arrangement that you will not allow this merger because it is anticompetitive.’ Why do we make those decisions? We make those decisions because any competitive mergers are bad for the economy and are particularly bad for small and independent players. So a business goes to the ACCC and says, ‘Look, we accept that decision but we think that, notwithstanding the fact that the competition rules have not been met, it is still in the public interest for this merger to proceed.’ That has always been the law and it is a good balance. But what the government wants to do is to take the ACCC out of the authorisation process. How do you have a public interest test without the ACCC being involved? Without the ACCC’s involvement, who are the experts who will determine in the future whether the public interest, the interests of small business and the interests of independent players will be met?

The opposition would like to dig in and say that the ACCC must remain as much a part of the system in the future as it is now. But we have been more responsible, because we know how the Treasurer operates. We do want Dawson through because it contains some other important reforms. So rather than dig in, we have simply said this: ‘We think the ACCC should remain the key gatekeeper on the authorisation of mergers.’ We want to allow them to stay in the process at least for the first 40 days real.

I say ‘real’ very deliberately. Under the current arrangements, whether it be because of gaming on the part of the applicant or because the ACCC has been constantly requiring further information, the 30 or 40 days now required under the act can blow out to 100 or even 300 days. If after the first 30 days the ACCC says, ‘We will actually need some more information on this,’ and the party goes back and gets the information, that takes another 60 to 90 days and it can blow out to a considerable period of time. That of course presents some problems for that applicant.

So Labor proposes this: you make the application and after 30 or 40 days—to be honest I forget which it is—in real time, you get a deemed refusal. If you do not have a result from the ACCC in that short time period, you have the right to go to the Australian Competition Tribunal. There could not be a more responsible and agreeable proposal than that. Yet this is the basis on which the government holds up important section 46 reforms for small business. It is because the Labor Party wants to make a minor change to its legislation. And we know how the Treasurer operates: if it is not his idea, he will not accept it.

The Treasurer is prepared to cut small business loose. (Extension of time granted) He is prepared to repeal the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act without the necessary additional protection of section 46 reforms because he is not prepared to accept the most minor of amendments to his merger authorisation proposals in the Senate. We must remember that this Treasurer has now had 10 years to make the Australian Competition Tribunal a creature of his own. We see many debates in the United States about Supreme Court appointments. The Treasurer has his own little Supreme Court sitting in this country, and it is called the Australian Competition Tribunal.

He has now had the opportunity to appoint or reappoint every member of that tribunal. Therefore—and it happens in politics—people are appointed or reappointed who are of like mind to him. It is just not good enough for the Australian people. It is not good enough for the small business sector in this country to have important merger authorisation decisions determined by the Australian Competition Tribunal before the ACCC has had an opportunity to test the merits of the case on public interest grounds. So I appeal to the minister to talk to his Treasurer and tell him to put the pride and the stubbornness aside, to think about the small end for a change and about the impact on the economy of giving everything to the BCA that it asks for on mergers but not coming forward and giving the small business sector what it requires under section 46.

I heard a bit of a whisper that the government had a meeting yesterday with some of the representatives of the small business constituency. I would be very delighted if the minister were prepared to share with us the attitude of small business representatives in that meeting and what they thought about the Treasurer’s idea of holding section 46 reforms back until Dawson is passed. So I invite him back to the dispatch box to tell us what transpired at that meeting and to tell us how pleased small business must be at the moment in response to the government’s approach to these issues.

In closing, can I say something about petrol prices, which are very relevant to the Senate message we are considering today. How extraordinary it is for the minister to stand here and say that this government has done more to bring petrol prices down than any other in its time. It is an extraordinary statement from the minister, and he must know it is not true. No-one in his constituency believes it, and the member for Hotham was absolutely right. The government came into this place and said: ‘We concede the GST is a tax on a tax on petrol. In regional areas it has a compounding effect because of transport costs and greater levels of competition in rural areas, so we will introduce a grants scheme of 1c, 2c or 3c, depending on how remote you are, to compensate.’

We said at the time, as the member for Hotham indicated, that it would not work, that it would go straight into the pockets of the major oil companies. What has the government now done? It has admitted all these years later that there is no way of knowing that the grant is being passed on to the consumer, and therefore it feels compelled to repeal to grant. But, again, as the member for Hotham said, there is nothing in its place. So, having conceded back in 2000 that the GST is a tax on a tax with a compounding effect and a much greater negative impact on rural and regional motorists—and he represents one of those regional electorates in Queensland—the government is not prepared to do anything about it. How does that work? He needs to come back to the dispatch box and either apologise to his constituents or put forward some positive proposal to deal with that issue.

He also mentioned the government’s policy, which I think he might have called the biofuels policy or energy policy, the centrepiece of which was the LPG conversion scheme. What an extraordinary centrepiece that was. The opposition of course support measures to promote the use of LPG in this country. In fact, we support all measures to promote greater diversity in our fuel mix, including ethanol, biodiesel, and the list goes on. But the LPG grant scheme is just crazy. I have made the point here a number of times that less than three per cent of motor vehicles in this country will have access to this scheme.

The Prime Minister came into this place this week and admitted that already the government has spent more on advertising the scheme than it has paid out in grants. The advertising budget has been larger than the value of the grant scheme. That is despite the fact that demand is always going to outstrip supply, and therefore there is no need to advertise the grant scheme because not everyone who wants to access the grant scheme will get access to it anyway. So it is just a farce. It is blatant misuse of taxpayers’ money in promoting the government, not promoting the LPG scheme, and the government should hang its head in shame. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before putting the motion I wish to say that, while it is not the desire of the present occupant of the chair to make advisory rulings or observations, this morning’s debate has tested the chair regarding its relevance.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is only out of my good spirit that I did not challenge it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Debate on a message from the Senate is treated the same as a consideration in detail debate. While these remarks might seem to be directed to the member for Hunter, I understand that he knows his obligations and very carefully tries to intertwine his remarks so as to be relevant. But as the minister, outside of the standing orders and by way of interjection, has indicated—and the member for Hunter knows that on other occasions I have made this observation—the chair’s tolerance is guided by the mood of the chamber. On this occasion, that tolerance, while tested, was allowable. As a general rule, the chamber should realise that the debate on a message from the Senate is not an opportunity to reopen a second reading debate. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.