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

If Senator Joyce wants to debate how he changed his mind from the commitment he gave before the election to vote against the sale of Telstra to the metamorphosis that brought him to the point of voting for the government’s legislation, I am happy to debate him at the appropriate time. I just say that it is a bit rich to ascribe to the opposition all sorts of motives, without hearing what we had to say on this legislation. I found that a remarkable contribution.

Some interesting questions ought to be asked about this amendment. What does the term ‘prescribed independent fuel retailer’ mean? How will it be interpreted by the courts? Can Senator Joyce assure us that it will be interpreted in the way that he intends? Is there a definition in the legislation which the courts would rely upon? Senator Joyce sets out sites in subclauses 4 and 5 of his amendment. I am not certain, but I take it that they are operated by Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd—Caltex—BP Australia Holdings Ltd, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, Shell Australia Ltd, Coles Myer Ltd and Woolworths Ltd. If they have been supplied their 75 per cent of the market, say, 20 days into the month and the independents have not taken up all of their 25 per cent, I have interpreted this to mean that there would be a breach of the law if the oil companies kept those sites supplied. If those sites that had been supplied ran out of petrol, they would simply have to shut down while the suppliers waited for the independents to take up the balance of that supply—that is, the 25 per cent. So, for the next 10 days in the cycle, if they did not take it up, those sites would shut down. Is that what Senator Joyce is saying? Or would they be fined, would they have to pay a penalty to be able to continue to operate their businesses? What would happen—and perhaps this is the intent of the proposed amendment—if those independents said, ‘We’re not buying the fuel unless we can get it for 50c a litre less, so your sites will have to shut down unless you sell us the fuel for a massive amount less than the market rate’?

It is all very well for Senator Joyce to come in here with good intentions but, when he does not do his homework and he does not put up a proposition which is supportable, it really is not appropriate for him to cast aspersions on other parties in this chamber which try to get a workable piece of legislation through. I am happy to have a debate. Senator Joyce wants to ascribe motives to everyone. Let me suggest that many people could ascribe the motive that this is just grandstanding. It is something that Senator Joyce knew would never get up, it is something that Senator Joyce knew he could have a rant about while we are on broadcast and it is something about which Senator Joyce could say: ‘I’ve defended the faith; I’ve defended the independent wholesalers.’ Frankly, that is just a hoax.

Here we have a provision which, if implemented, would be totally unworkable. I understand that, in Goulburn, not far from here, there are 12 service stations. There are a variety of service stations. What would happen if three-quarters of those had sold all the petrol that their supplier would give them under this measure because they decided they could do better with margins in other places? Let us say that nine of the 12 service stations had to close while three remained open. This is really sounding like the old soviet state command economy. We are talking about saying to businesses: ‘Lay off your staff, close your doors, lock up the pumps. Those three businesses remain in town. They can keep trading for the rest of that month, until the others start at the beginning of the next month.’

There will have to be some massive policing of this, so we can understand just when the 25 per cent limitation kicks in. When in the month do you stop supplying the stations that are run by these companies? Which parts of the community will run out of fuel because they are only supplied by these companies and not by the independents? Which of these places where you have to drive 75 kilometres each way to get fuel will be on the receiving end? The petrol stations in their town are all closed and they have to drive 100 kilometres up the track to an independent who will sell them fuel at $2 a litre, because that is all that they can get. These are the sorts of unintended consequences—I am certain that Senator Joyce did not intend this—that ill-considered drafting can lead to. Frankly, if Senator Joyce wants to cast aspersions and suggest that people are motivated by improper motives, he had better have a good, hard look at the proposition that he puts before this chamber and asks people to vote for and then castigates them for not voting for it.

We are happy to consider reasonable amendments and, indeed, we support reasonable amendments. Senator Joyce voted for Senator Murray’s amendments yesterday and then had himself paired, so that he did not have to vote for an almost identical amendment last night, and walked out of the chamber. Frankly, I was prepared to let that go through to the keeper. But, after that performance, I do not think it is fair of Senator Joyce to expect us to ignore the way that he behaves on legislation if he is going to ascribe the sorts of motives he ascribed to the Labor Party in relation to this matter.

Our bona fides are clear. We have been proposing improvements to the regulatory regime through amendments to the Trade Practices Act. We have supported—as has Senator Joyce—certain other propositions going through in terms of the competitive model through the Trade Practices Act, and we continue to support that and we are expecting the government to give effect to the legislation that has been passed through this chamber which will have some effect in this regard. We think there are further improvements to be made. But we will not be supporting a proposition which is totally unworkable.

It does not matter that the legislation might be passed through here with the best of intentions. If it is not workable, if it leads to catastrophe in the market and to chaos in the marketplace, if it leads to the closure of businesses and to towns shutting down, and to the sorts of consequences that Senator Joyce referred to—the inability of some markets to be supplied—how can we vote for it? That is the reason we will be opposing this amendment: it is not workable.

It is well-intentioned but, frankly, Senator Joyce needs to put up a better-thought-out proposition—one which has behind it enough detail to give it a chance of success. I suspect the difficulty that Senator Joyce faces is that that is a very difficult thing to do—even for an opposition party, let alone a member of the government who is taking his own path on a particular piece of legislation.

I respect the fact that Senator Joyce is well-intentioned, but I think he ought to think very carefully about how he addresses the intentions of others in this place when it comes to amendments such as this. There is no way that this could be given effect without major rethinks and major bureaucratic intervention at every step of the way and, subsequently, major change after it had been trialled. By all means, Senator Joyce should pursue his intention of making sure that independents have a place in the market. This is not the way to do it.