Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

Clearly: if the government is not prepared to take these actions then the government agrees with the courts’ interpretation of the legislation and the limitations on enforcing the courts’ power on anticompetitive behaviour. That is the test that this government will have to pass in considering its position on this legislation. We will support this amendment on the basis that it is identical to the majority of our amendment on sheet 5028. We think it ought to be carried. If it is not carried, we will continue to press our own amendment with that additional amendment about parliamentary monitoring powers, if I can put it that way. But we think it is important that this matter be tested, and we will be keen to see the position of all parties in relation to this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Murray’s) be agreed to.

I formally move the amendment on sheet 5028 circulated in my name:

(1)    Page 3 (after line 9), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A—Amendments to deal with abuse of market power, unconscionable conduct and price monitoring in relation to petroleum marketing

Trade Practices Act 1974

95ZEA Directions by Parliament to monitor prices, costs and profits of an industry

Commercial confidentiality

Public inspection

As those who have been listening to the debate will have noted, our amendment is identical to the amendment which has just been debated in this chamber, moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats, with the exception that we would propose that a new section 95ZEA be inserted into the legislation so that a direction may be given to the commission. It says:

                 …         …         …

                 …         …           …

Frankly, we have heard all sorts of excuses from the current Treasurer about why he did not authorise the ACCC to conduct a proper investigation into the structure of petrol pricing in this country—all sorts of excuses but no action. This is a new amendment. It was not referred to in the Senate committee report that was referred to in relation to the previous amendment, which was indeed relevant to parts 1 to 6 of the amendment proposed by the opposition.

It is based on section 29(3) of the Trade Practices Act in that it allows either house or a committee of either house to give a direction to the ACCC to engage in formal price monitoring, something which the Treasurer could have done but has chosen not to in the entirety of his stint as Treasurer—so much for being the world’s greatest Treasurer! In an environment where we are seeing horrific petrol prices hurting the Australian public, the Treasurer has chosen to do nothing. Currently the ACCC engages only in informal price monitoring. It just looks at the published bowser—I should say ‘pump’ as bowser is actually a brand of an old pump—prices. It is a sort of computer based or Google price monitoring where the ACCC gets computerised services from price-monitoring organisations and relies upon those.

Without an authorisation, a direction from the Treasurer, the ACCC does not have powers to require the oil companies to open up their books and to allow the ACCC to look behind the petrol prices to look at the components of the petrol prices, to look at the relationship of terminal gate pricing to the other factors: the margins in the industry, the prices at which the petrol is being supplied to the service stations, for example, and the variety of prices in that context, as the petrol might be being supplied in different sections of the market. It does not have the power to require the oil companies to open up their books, but this amendment will give the ACCC that power, a power which the ACCC could have if the Treasurer had agreed to formally give that price-monitoring authority under the legislation—that is, under section 29(3) of the legislation—to the ACCC. Why are we asking that it be referred to either house of the parliament or a committee of the parliament? It is because we think this is important. We think that the issue of the way that petrol is priced in this country and the effect that has on various communities and various businesses is important and that there should be power which is not controlled by the executive government—power within this or the other chamber or within the committees of either of these chambers—to require the production of that material.

I have already debated our earlier amendments. I do not propose to touch upon them again other than to say that we have just seen the government take a decision which flies in the face of their claimed affinity with the interests of small business. We have seen the government vote down, albeit by the narrowest of margins—that is, a tied vote—amendments which would have given the ACCC the powers that it has been asking for to deal with anticompetitive behaviour in the market: a deliberate action by the government and they stand condemned for that action. They ought to be ashamed of the action that they have taken in denying the ACCC the powers to deal with anticompetitive behaviour in the petrol market or indeed in any market. They have chosen not to support those amendments.

But we are giving them a second chance here. What we are giving the government is a chance to reflect on that decision and also to reflect on the fact that their Treasurer, supposedly the world’s greatest Treasurer, has failed for a decade to give the ACCC the power to investigate properly the pricing of petrol, the performance of the oil companies and the relationship between the various markets from the terminal gate on in the petrol industry and to report to the public, as well as to the parliament, so that they can understand what is going on. Here is a Treasurer that has been lying down on the job, ignoring the interests of Australians while pretending to care. We are giving the government a chance to show that they care by supporting these amendments.

If they do not, frankly, the charge which can justifiably be levelled against the government is that they are all talk but that, when it comes to action—when it actually comes to giving effect to legislative change which can have an impact on a market that is punishing many Australians—they are found wanting and run away from the task. The only conclusion—which Senator Murray invited me to draw earlier and which I must say I totally agree with—is that, because the government really do not have any concern about ordinary Australians and the effect on them of the petrol market and really do not have any concern about the dominance in the market of the big players, and therefore are quite happy with that circumstance, they are happy with the status quo.

Here is a chance for government senators to stand up for what they claim they believe. Otherwise, if you stand up in a debate after this and claim to support small business, we will know and we will be able to say quite clearly: ‘But you voted down legislative amendments which had the best interests of small business at heart, indeed in many respects amendments which the ACCC has been asking for so that it can enforce the Trade Practices Act and give effect to the intention of the parliament.’ So I urge senators to support this block of amendments. We will be seeking to display to the Australian public how individual senators have voted on this.