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

Of course, I can understand why the government would say that. They would not want to seek the executive power that is held over the ACCC. Let me say that the Senate committee is severely limited in the way that it can inquire into this matter. But, if the Treasurer had empowered the ACCC to use section 29(3) of the Trade Practices Act, then the inquiry would have been much more effective, I would have to concede, than a Senate inquiry. But, of course, no matter how many inquiries we have, the fact is that the Treasurer has refused to use the power that he has to empower the ACCC. The minister is saying: ‘But it’s only appropriate for the executive of government to have that power, not the parliament, because we can choose not to use it. The Treasurer has chosen not to use it and, for that reason, we are opposing the parliament having this power so that the Treasurer can refuse to use section 29(3) of the act to investigate matters that the Senate committee cannot get behind.’ But the Senate does not have the power to require the production of the detailed material that goes into the pricing of petrol that the ACCC would have.

I think the government were quite pleased to agree to a Senate inquiry, as cover for the fact that they were doing nothing. Their justification to the public was: ‘We’ve agreed to a Senate inquiry into petrol pricing.’ But the shame of the matter is that the government could have taken action—the Treasurer could have taken action—by writing and signing a letter to the ACCC, saying, ‘Under section 29(3) of the Trade Practices Act, I want you to conduct an inquiry into petrol pricing.’ Did the Treasurer do that? No, he did not. He sat in his office, hiding behind the door, pretending that it was not a problem that he could do anything about, when we all know it is. The government say that it is not appropriate for the parliament to have these powers. Let us hear from the government why it is appropriate for the Treasurer not to have exercised the powers that he had. If it is not appropriate for the parliament to have the powers that the Treasurer has, why hasn’t the Treasurer used them? What justification can the government give for the Treasurer not using the powers? That might be a cogent argument for why the parliament should not have the powers. If the Treasurer clearly is not prepared to use the powers, and the ACCC is there willing to take up the challenge, then what is the justification for the government opposing the parliament having the powers? That is what I would like to hear.