Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

A couple of questions have been rightly asked in this committee stage debate on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006and I now intend to answer them—about what happens if the independent volume falls below 25 per cent. Senator O’Brien put it that this would cause trauma in the market—if the independent portion of the fuel fell below 25 per cent, imagine the trauma that that would cause to the major oil companies! The major oil companies would have to reorganise all this stuff. I agree: if the independent section of the market fell below 25 per cent we would have a major problem, because it would mean that the overcentralisation of the oil retail market was absolutely imminent. It is about to happen.

We have drawn a line in the sand at 25 per cent because you have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Somewhere in life you have to make a stand. Somewhere in life you have to stand up and say, ‘No, we can’t allow it all to go to the major oil companies and the major retailers.’ So, yes, it is a line in the sand, and it is there for a purpose, because below 25 per cent we know that the end is nigh. And when the end is nigh there are ramifications for the price of fuel. We will lose fuel discounters in the market. The price leaders in fuel discounting belong to the independent sector. Everybody acknowledges that. I do not know how many inquiries we have been to—umpteen?—where they have asked, ‘Who are the price leaders in discounting?’ and the answer has been, ‘The independents.’ The independents lead price discounting.

Beyond that, if it goes below 25 per cent, we will know there has been a disenfranchising of the Australian people of their right to be in the retail trade. We know that that manifest right that we hold to be so dear—your right to be in business—will be lost, if this goes below 25 per cent, from yet another sector of our economy. I will be saying to my kids: ‘No, you won’t have the opportunity to be the owner of your destiny, to be the owner of your business, because that was lost, that was in the past; in the past they put in legislation that actually protected that, but it is there no longer. You can have other jobs—you can work for one of them, but you cannot actually own and operate one. You used to be able to be in the grocery market, you used to be able to own a fuel station—you used to be able to do a range of things, but you can do those no longer.’ So there is a specific line there. Yes, if it falls below 25 per cent, there will be traumas for the major oil companies, but there will be a far greater trauma for the Australian people. I think it is right that this parliament draws a line in the sand.

We also heard that it is totally unworkable. Who told you that? We have a sites act and a franchise act that have been around since 1980—26 years—and all of a sudden you are won to the argument that something that amends them is totally unworkable. You have swallowed the line that that proposition is totally unworkable. Why would it be unworkable? We do not know what your argument is, but you are swallowing the line that it is unworkable because it suits your purpose and your purpose is predetermined. I suppose you can say anything today.

The thing is that it is not actually unworkable. It is totally workable because the current amount of fuel that is being utilised by independents—‘What are independents?’ they ask; well, they are actually defined in here—as advised by the NTAA, is around that margin, and that will not cause a problem. So it is a workable proposition. If it serves your rhetorical purpose to say that it is not workable, I suppose you can say that, but it is just not the truth.

They ask: ‘What is an independent?’ It has been clearly set out here: it is every service station that is not operated by one of the oil majors or one of the major retailers. In the future, if issues change, surely we have the acumen in here to change with them. Not for one moment do I say that the Oilcode does not need amending—of course it needs amending, but amending in a form that protects the right of the Australian people to go into business. That is how it needs to be amended. What we are going to get is an absolute approach that knocks the complete stuffing out of the independent sector. Where will they go? What protection do they have? What are we offering them? If we say we are a party of small business, let us put our cards on the table—let us show it.

If you own a small business and you are watching today, it is going to be a bit hard—the Labor Party are not going to support you; that is completely evident. Maybe they are proving their credentials to the big end of town. Maybe that is it. Maybe families have to realise that that is the price you pay: you will not get much support around here anymore. But it is a shame. We could make some minor changes to this that would make a clear statement that we take the role of small business seriously.

I suppose that, after this, there is going to be nothing to stop Coles and Woolworths buying up more stations. There is going to be nothing to stop BP taking over independents. I know that, as soon as leases become available in the appropriate areas, they are not going to renew them. They are not going to renew a lease in a valuable corner of the market to an independent, to a family—they are going to take it over themselves.

There are no guarantees in here of supply to regional towns—none. There is no guarantee that, if the company so wishes, they cannot just decide: ‘You’re an inconvenience, town of Surat. You’re an inconvenience, town of Tambo. We don’t need to supply you fuel.’ What do we say about the social structure of those towns? What do we do? Do we just say: ‘Oh, sorry, it’s just that we had to get the support of the major oil companies. We had to show our credentials for the next election. Tambo: you have to understand our position—we’re in a terrible position’? So we say to them: ‘If you want to go to the doctor, I suppose you’ll just have to catch a bus, get a lift or hitch—if you can find someone else.’ The fundamental concept of a pensioner having a fuel station in their town? We are moving past that. So it is going to be an interesting vote.

There is an amendment here. I can read the tea leaves. I know which way it is going to go, obviously, but there is an amendment here that would protect some of those rights, that would make a statement that, even if it is not perfect, at least we are making an attempt to look after them. If this is not the right attempt to look after the independents, I am willing to take suggestions from other people around the chamber as to what that attempt should be. It is a free debate. We are in committee—you are welcome to stand up, have your say and tell us how we are going to protect the independents.