Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 which has now seen the light of day. This piece of legislation is a bit of a catch-up, as has been outlined not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate this afternoon by opposition and other non-government speakers. The issue dealt with in the legislation is how to approach the misuse of market power and get compliance. It has taken a long time for this piece of legislation to get to the parliament. This issue was raised some years ago and it has taken—as my colleagues both in the House of Representatives and here have outlined—a long time for this legislation to get here. It seems that the government has only just discovered that there might be a misuse of market power not only by the oil companies but also by the major retailers and the suppliers.

When you and I were growing up, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, there were seven oil companies which used to retail in this country. I was trying to remember the other three as I got to my feet. They were: Esso, Ampol and Golden Fleece. Together they used to make up the ‘seven deadly sisters’ that used to manipulate the petroleum and oil market in this country. Now we are down to four and both Coles and Woolworths are using their market share to manipulate and control the market. If people do not think—when they see that 4c a litre discount when they drive into Caltex or Shell—that Coles and Woolies have not in some way or another made them pay that difference in another area while they have been shopping there then they are a bit foolish. Other speakers have questioned the continued relevance of what the government is putting forward here this evening. Nevertheless, it does recognise that there has been a change in the nature of retail, the marketing and the supply of this vital energy source.

I take note of Senator O’Brien’s comments this afternoon and his foreshadowed amendments. It seems to me that there are few parties in this parliament that have recognised that there is a looming crisis and that we need to do something about it. I welcome the fact that the rural and regional references committee gave an interim report in which it in essence begged that we start preparing for our falling and failing oil suppliers. The government has not done that. If you observed the government, particularly in the passage of what has been proposed in this bill, you would see that the government’s inactivity and inertia seeps through the ranks. It seems to be a case of ‘it’ll be alright mate; it’ll be alright Jack’—a case that these problems are not here to be addressed. It is almost a case of ‘Let them eat cake.’ That is what it seems like to me. There is no outline or plan to deal with the possibility that within three years we will be paying $2 a litre for fuel.

What are we going to do then? Are we going to continue to pay the price for 10 years of neglect by the Howard government? What are we going to do when it appears that our energy supplies will be the whims and fancies of undemocratic regimes in either Africa or the Middle East? How is the government proposing to guarantee our oil supplies and our standard of living for the future? What are the initiatives of the government in this field? Clearly, I cannot see any. Maybe government speakers or the minister, when speaking in reply, may outline some. But it appears to me, and to a growing number of Australians, that there is an inertia amongst the government, a lack of attention to this, and that this inactivity will make us pay in the future, particularly as we start to pay $2 a litre for fuel. That is what potentially could happen within the next few years. As we pay more to fill up our vehicles, we will reduce our lifestyle and that will place enormous pressure on the home. I am sure that the government does not particularly wish to see that—nor do we—but there is no answer.

For 10 years now the government has been in power. It is no longer going to be relevant for ministers or backbench government MPs to get up and say that under the Keating-Hawke governments this, that or the other thing happened. At least in the Hawke and Keating governments there was initiative for reform. Some of it was painful for not only the government but the Labor Party itself. Nevertheless, over those 13 years they did grasp the nettle and did act in accordance with what they thought was in the best long-term interests of this country. But, in this particular area, there is no evidence that that is occurring. In fact, the consequences of this lack of initiative by the government are these: we have labour shortages, we have an erosion of our skills base, our infrastructure is choking and we have inflationary pressures—all as a result of a lack of initiative by the Commonwealth government under John Howard.

What has been the government’s answer to this looming energy crisis? Only recently the Prime Minister made an energy statement in which the emphasis was on LPG. One of the problems, as outlined by previous speakers, is that, for a start, not many places are available to convert vehicles to LPG or repair those vehicles. In fact, there are hardly any places in regional or rural Australia—and it is good to see some National Party senators in here this evening who may be able to reply to that.

As I said, there are no outlets. In fact, there is not a skilled workforce available out there, particularly in regional and rural Australia, for these conversions or the repair to those vehicles to occur. It has been highlighted that, in some cases, if one wishes to take up the option that has been provided by the government, one may wait up to two years for this to occur. This initiative was in response to the growing fuel crisis. One would have thought that the spin doctors, who are so well paid—there are so many of them—within the Howard government would have checked what may have been the situation before they put the Prime Minister in the spot he has been put in. But that did not occur. The fanfare was announced and, of course, once the details were exposed to the Australian community, it was seen to be the farce that it was and is.

Over the past few years Labor have put forward alternatives to the current fuel situation. As outlined in our amendments, we do not want to have our country held ransom to these undemocratic regimes in Africa or the Middle East. We do not want to be blackmailed by people who do not share the same values as us. In the 1993 budget, Paul Keating introduced 18c a litre production assistance for ethanol. John Howard, in his government’s first budget, withdrew that assistance. Since that time, the Howard government has changed the excise regime for LPG and other biofuels at least on three occasions. In May 2002, Peter Costello said that applying an excise on ethanol and LPG was a bad idea, and he did just that in the 2003 budget. In that period, between May and December of that year, it left the LPG industry in turmoil.

Our amendments offer a road map: they offer a vision of what needs to be done. That is not outlined either in the legislation to fix up a piecemeal bit of operation that is now before us or in any of the Prime Minister’s statements on our energy needs in the future. We in the Labor Party know the urgency of this matter. We know that it needs to be addressed, and we cannot put it under the carpet and hope that it will be dealt with by the next government. We know that we have to come up with solutions so that we can prevent blackmail of our country in the future. That is what is in our amendments.

If we are deprived of energy security in the future, as Martin Ferguson, our shadow minister, has said, it could be the commencement of a Cold War where, in a figurative sense, we are denied or deprived of food and fresh water or a safe and comfortable hearth, and where the certainty for trade and commerce will be removed because of the growing difficulties within the international situation. This will be the commencement of that difficulty. It will be a threat to our lifestyle and our standard of living. That is what is at stake, and we are calling on the Commonwealth to be far more broad and far reaching in its grasp of what the future energy needs of this country are. That is why, as I said, the government needs to understand this looming crisis. It needs to address it—and it can be addressed, in a small way, by the support of our amendments that are before the chair.