Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

This disallowance motion regarding the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 2006 relates to the government’s downstream petroleum reform package and the introduction of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006, which has the effect of repealing the 1980 sites and franchise acts.

As part of the process of introducing the reform package, the government has made regulations to omit regulation 3 of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Regulations 1981. The effect of this amendment is to suspend the reporting and compliance obligations that currently apply to the major oil companies under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act. This act is therefore effectively inoperative unless the regulations are subsequently withdrawn or disallowed. That is the context of the disallowance motion standing in the name of Senator Joyce.

Labor is supporting this disallowance on the government regulation. It has the effect of removing the four major oil companies from the scope of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act. Labor’s principal argument with the government on this issue is one of process, not substance. Before I go to the issue of substance, I want to reiterate the point that the regulation has the effect of repealing the sites act before the parliament has had the opportunity to consider the merits of the repeal bill. We on this side of the chamber see this as an unacceptable abuse of power and an attack on parliamentary democracy. Labor is very concerned about when the government might choose to use this method next: perhaps on matters of national security or immigration. Who knows? But on the substance of this issue, which is where we really do feel at odds with the government, Labor is prepared to repeal the sites act provided that the government strengthens section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to maximise competition by protecting small and independent petrol station owners. We heard from Senator Joyce this morning how important it is to do that.

While Labor and the government disagree on the scope of the amendments necessary to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, the government has not even agreed to bring forward the amendments it said it would in response to the March 2004 recommendations of the Senate committee. When the Senate Economics Legislation Committee considered the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006, Labor senators, in our additional remarks, called again for those recommendations in relation to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to be brought on as part of the oil code and the new bill.

Senator Joyce certainly acknowledged section 46 in his speech today, but it is our argument that he needs to do much more than support the disallowance. He must call for reform of section 46 to be included as part of the government’s reform package. I must say that on process the government has got into a mess of its own making. Despite Senator Minchin’s contribution this morning, when he tried to defend the process, the problem is quite simply that the government has had three years to reform the 26-year-old regime which regulates the retail petrol industry. Because it has been incapable of producing an acceptable model, it wants to repeal the sites act through the back door. To do so would offend the rights of the parliament and would risk putting upward pressure on petrol prices.

The government should immediately bring on the repeal bill for debate. We have asked for it, we have prepared for it and we are ready to support it—but only if we can actually see it, and the proposed oil code—so that we can see whether the government is prepared to strengthen section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to maximise competition by protecting small and independent petrol station owners. Instead, the government has sought to undermine the sites act and the will of the parliament by undeclaring, by regulation, the major petrol retailers from the operation of the sites act.

Labor cannot support this late and unilateral act, which does not provide the Trade Practices Act protection that small service station owners need. It does not even meet the need for improved Trade Practices Act protection that the government has accepted is necessary. That is why Labor is supporting this disallowance motion. In doing so, Labor appreciates this puts one of the major retailers, BP, in an unenviable position. BP has many licence agreements with small service station owners that are due for renewal. If the sites act is not repealed, BP may be forced to enter into new five-year licence agreements in order to continue supply to the motoring public. Clearly, BP would prefer not to be forced into this position in relation to some licences. But BP’s problem is entirely of the government’s making. It could have fixed it two years ago. The government’s actions in undeclaring the major petrol retailers are simply not appropriate, for both process and substantive reasons. They are not even consistent with the government’s stated policy.

Petrol market reform is about enhancing competition and putting downward pressure on petrol prices. As it stands, the government’s package could lead to the demise of many independents, a reduction in competition and higher petrol prices. Senator Joyce went to that issue very clearly in his contribution to this debate. To resolve this matter once and for all, the government should bring on the legislation to repeal the sites act and the amendments to the Trade Practices Act. Only this would give operators in the market the certainty and protection they need. The government could easily achieve this before the parliament rises next week.