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

Madam Chair, they brought these two sets of amendments in here and they are both on the record; they are quite obviously different. We all heard Senator O’Brien tell us they are exactly the same, word for word. They are not. The reason he says that is that he does not know what his own amendment is. He is just saying it for the purpose of the argument. He comes in and talks to me about my amendment, but he obviously does not know, word for word, what his was. That is fair enough. I know which way you are going, so we will not pursue it. You have had your chain pulled, you are voting with the big oil companies—good luck to you, God bless your cotton socks, off you go.

There is a belief that there are some big independents in Tasmania. Great! If there is a big number of independents in the market, then this amendment will have no effect and you will not have anything to worry about. This amendment only kicks in and has effect if there is not. It is the parachute if there is not.

Talking about parachutes, we have heard about the passage of the trade practices amendment bill No. 1. Give us protection so that before we jump out of the plane we have got the parachute on, and you will get that through. But do not tell us to jump out of the plane without strengthening section 46 and a range of other things when you leave people vulnerable. It is simple logic: get the parachute on before you jump out of the plane.

The other argument that has been brought up by Senator Colbeck is this case of red tape. When in doubt, say that the red tape will cause an increase in price—that is the line. It is like we have just arrived at Kafka’s palace and we are going to be subdued with red tape, and some poor old lady will be staying up until three o’clock every morning vigorously typing away as she monitors fuel services. I do not think it is like that at all. I think it will be easily handled. Companies that can handle things such as GST, diesel fuel rebates, grants schemes, tax returns, compliance measures and occupational health and safety officers probably have the capacity and the aptitude to handle this. We are talking about the major oil companies that sell fuel here. I think they have the capacity to know whether there is a fairly good suggestion that less than 25 per cent of their sales are going to independents. I am going out on a limb on that one, but I reckon I am going to back myself in. I reckon they can do it. If they can refine fuel, turn oil into petrol and get the sulphur content right, I reckon they can handle this. This idea that that will be moved on and, all of a sudden, the price of fuel—we are using Tambo or Surat—is going to go through the roof specifically because of this amendment is not correct.

Let us suggest there is a cost component. What is your choice—no fuel? Is that what we are going to put up instead? Are we going to say, ‘We do not want you to have the administrative component and the costs incurred with this process, so we are going to give you no fuel at all’? That is blatantly ridiculous. That is an absurd proposition. If the choice is nothing or the administrative component, I will take the administrative component every day of the week, to protect our position. Once more, what came out so clearly in the committee stage of the debate is that the Labor Party accused me of not understanding my own amendment when they obviously did not understand theirs and they have gone on the record saying something that is completely and utterly wrong about something they wrote themselves.

If we have got a strong independent sector, you have got nothing to worry about, because this amendment will not have any effect; the problem will be fixed. It is only there to protect you if it falls. As for the argument about red tape, I suppose it will do, but it is not right, because it is not going to sink the boat. If your choice is a slight administrative charge or no fuel at all, I will take the slight administrative charge.