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

I acknowledge the arguments of the minister on these issues. What we have today, though, is a clear statement by all that the terminal gate price is really not where it is at because, if we have to disclose the discounts, the discount is where it is at, not the terminal gate price. Everybody is in agreement on that issue. Having open and transparent disclosure of the terminal gate price really does not mean very much at all, because everybody is agreed on that here today—otherwise, they would not be arguing against this.

However, when I drive down the road past the car lots I do not see on a big sign the price that they have purchased every car for. When I go into a supermarket, I do not see the price they have purchased every product for. When I go into any form of retail outlet, I do not have free and unfettered knowledge of the price they purchased their product at. There is a position between the two, between having no knowledge and having unfettered knowledge. I have a concern that this amendment gives you unfettered knowledge of a product. I believe that creating a position for an independent ombudsman, on whom people could rely for commercial-in-confidence protection of their information and whose process for keeping the market fair would be reviewed and assessed by the parliament, is the middle ground that should be looked at.

As Senator O’Brien agrees with this without qualification, he therefore agrees, no doubt, that in any market, anywhere, everybody should have the ability to know exactly what price a person buys a product at. I am not saying I will not support this—I probably will—but I just say that it is clumsy and we could do it a lot better. There is a middle ground, and the middle ground is to have an independent ombudsman so that people could have some confidence that not everything about them is known to the public.

When I go to an independent service station, I need to know it is there, but just think about it. Let’s use another analogy: I can go into a jewellery shop and I can find out on the internet exactly what they purchased all their stock for. I can go into any store around town and I can find out exactly what they purchased their stock for. Is that a step too far? I think it is. I think there is a middle ground here. However, I have not put up the resolution that shows the middle ground. The overwhelming sentiment is that the terminal gate price is used to manipulate and drive independents out of the market. Independents can show you that they do not have the capacity to buy fuel at the price that one of the majors is selling it. That is obviously intrinsically unfair and will throw them out of the market. That is the issue that needs to be dealt with.

So on this issue we have agreement now throughout the room. Everybody has agreed that the terminal gate price is not where it is at. The terminal gate price is going to appear somewhere, but it is the discounts that matter. Everybody has agreed on that point and it is good to have that on the record. What that obviously states is that we have to find some mechanism to deal with the monitoring of the discounting—not get rid of the discounting but make sure that discounting is not used as a predatory pricing factor to force independents out of the market.

My reservations are that I do not believe that everybody has a right to know the exact price that people purchase a product at. Let’s take it to an agricultural analogy—not that I have any cattle, but imagine I do. When I sell cattle, do I have to announce to everybody what price I purchased them at? It does not stand to reason.