John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I hear that Senator Minchin suffers from the same indignation as me. However, clearly, this is of real concern for people out there and it must be addressed. We as an opposition have put forward, in a sensible manner, the issue that we see as the key in this: the misuse of market power by the wholesale and retail sides of the petrol industry. However, we will not be satisfied with that alone.

Labor has dealt with this bill in a fairly positive manner by putting up a second reading amendment that sets out a constructive approach that we believe needs to be adopted post the repeal of this legislation. I will refer just briefly, therefore, to the second reading amendment. I do not know how many of my colleagues have referred to this amendment already, but it seems to me that some of its points are quite logical and sensible indeed. It calls on the government:

... to require the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to report to the Parliament annually, commencing in August 2007, on the measures taken and the progress made—

in a number of areas. I will not read the amendment in full, but in part it reads as follows:

... increase market penetration of ethanol and biodiesel, LPG and CNG ...

and we all know the role they will play in the future. The amendment also states:

(b) secure new investment in biofuel, LPG and CNG production and supply infrastructure in Australia; and

(c) secure investment in new alternative transport fuel industries in Australia, including gas and coal to liquids.

So it is not a carping second reading amendment; it is an amendment that brings a positive sense to this debate, because everyone realises just how important this debate is to the future of Australia and, of course, to Australians. The second part of the second reading amendment calls on the government to:

... review, in 2009, the proposal to introduce excise on ethanol and biodiesel, LPG and CNG in 2011—

So it calls for a review and to—

... consider whether or not there is a case for delaying the introduction of excise, depending on the progress made ...

The second reading amendment then lists a number of important areas, which include:

(a) in increasing market penetration of biofuels, LPG and CNG;

(b) in securing new investment in biofuel, LPG and CNG production and supply infrastructure in Australia; and

(c) towards achieving the 350 million litre biofuels target in 2010.

So, again, that is not an unreasonable expectation to put down and it can be met reasonably by government.

However, the third part of the amendment does have a bit of a sting in its tail. It rightly criticises the government for its tardiness in moving on petrol retail reform—and I think that would be supported by the vast majority of Australians. The government has been very tardy. The government has not responded in a positive way and its tardiness has been shown by the response that has been received right across Australia on this issue.

That particular paragraph in the second reading amendment then criticises the government for:

... bypassing due parliamentary process in introducing a regulation to “undeclare” companies under the Sites Act ...

There is no reason why it could not have been done in other ways, but again that seems to me to be valid commentary on the way that this government from time to time chooses to do its business. It would have been much better to do it in other ways. The next point in criticism of the government is for:

... failing to introduce amendments to the TPA to implement the 2003 Dawson and 2004 Senate recommendations for reform ...

Again, this is very much warranted, because the government has to remember that the broad community out there are very price sensitive to what happens with petrol.

As I said in my earlier statement, the buying public can be faced with not just a daily change but an hourly change—and not just an hourly swing of 1c or 2c. I have driven by the same station not far from my office in Brisbane and I have seen swings in the order of 10c to 15c on some occasions. People wonder why the public at large get upset, but it is very easy to understand. If there were some commensurate changes to the Trade Practices Act, the public may start to get some confidence that there is a Trade Practices Act which has teeth. This is not going to the issue of price fixing—no-one is asking that—because that is going to the issue of justifying the behaviour of these oil companies in certain circumstances.

One cannot fail to remember the occasion when the petrol price spiked because it was a public holiday in the eastern states but in Western Australia, where there was no public holiday on the Monday, for some reason absolutely beyond anyone’s imagination the price did not spike at all. One can understand why there is no lack of cynicism out there amongst the public. Some reference to clear guidelines under the Trade Practices Act would be helpful indeed.

The third part of Senator O’Brien’s amendment criticises the government for ‘failing to act to reduce Australia’s dependence on foreign oil and improve its transport fuel security’. Again, our dependence on foreign fuel is well and truly on the public record, as has been canvassed by a number of my colleagues here. That is the sting in the tail of the second reading amendment, if one wants to call it such, but it is delivered in a positive vein. This government needs to wake up to the fact that there is a need to look at this issue critically. The repeal of this act of itself is insufficient. There is a need to make changes, as suggested by my colleagues, to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. This would build some confidence out there in the public that in Australia we are not going to see yoyo oil prices reflected in petrol prices on an ongoing basis.

On a recent visit to the United States I was told by a number of politicians that the pressure point in the United States was going to $US3 a gallon. If $US3 a gallon is the pressure point for motorists in the United States becoming extremely irate, we have well and truly broken through that barrier given that that equates roughly to about 75c a litre. It depends where you buy here in Australia—I saw $1.14 on the weekend in my state but it has been as high as $1.35 and $1.40, and that is per litre. As Senator Hutchins was mentioning, undoubtedly the price of $2 per litre will become a psychological barrier for people if there are not some checks and balances placed on the powers of the oil moguls.

There are some other parts of the second reading amendment moved by Senator O’Brien that, again, are positive statements. Point (4):

Calls on the Government to immediately conduct a feasibility study into a gas to liquids fuels plant in Australia, including—

and he again lists positive things—

(a) consideration of Petroleum Resources Rent tax incentives for developers of gas fields which provide resources for gas to liquid fuels projects—

and so on. Again, the positive element comes out in the second reading amendment of my colleague. In conclusion, I believe that the bill—as my colleagues have said—is rightly being supported. However, there needs to be a counterbalancing protection for the consumers in our community because many of them can least afford the charges that are coming about at the petrol pump in this day and age.