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

I suppose that is where the quandary is. There is a strong belief that the market is being manipulated. If you just look at the fundamentals of where the price of diesel is—I know this is drawing a long bow, but it is interesting to have it on the record—the price of diesel in Iraq at the moment is 3c a litre. There is a lot of latitude between what we are buying it at and what they are buying it at. I know that there are government taxes, profits and transport, but the person in the street has some serious queries about how it comes about that all these oil companies, from 3c a litre in Iraq, go to $1.20 or $1.30 here and manage to arrive within a couple of cents of each other. That suggests to a lot of people that there might be some manipulation of the market.

This amendment does give greater powers. We are heading towards an oligopoly relationship. The proof of that is there for everyone driving down the street to see: that incredible scenario where, within an hour, they all move up by the same price on the same road—apparently without communicating it to one another. It is remarkable: petrol stations have an innate sense of what their competition is doing and they follow it innately! The argument goes through the public over and over again as to whether we can get more stringent on this. You have to look through the Trade Practices Act to find the section that does it, because the sentiments about price surveillance that the public reflects to us are dealt with in this section. In the Trade Practices Act 1974, it might have been ships. There might have been a problem with peanuts and spuds—I do not know—but the belief of the public now is that there is a problem with fuel. This amendment does not change the world; it just hands the power to the minister to have a greater capacity to look through what is happening in the fuel market. If he believes that there is not a reason to do it, he will not. But if he believes that there is a reason to do it—and hello to the kids up in the gallery!—then he has those powers at his disposal.

I suppose the argument that we need to consider is: why would the minister not want those powers of review and the ability to say: ‘I am the minister, I can go on a fishing expedition. I can monitor this for a period. I can dig up every detail. I have the power. I have been elected by the Australian people. I have a responsibility of office to ensure that the people of our nation are being treated fairly, and I will do that.’ You do not have to worry about the ACCC stumbling across something or something being brought to their attention. He can actually say: ‘I’ve heard what the people have to say. They have a problem with this—bingo, here are the powers. We’ll have surveillance on the petroleum products for the period starting here and ending there, and we can clear the air on this one.’ Then no longer will we have to listen to talkback radio talking about people being touched, because the minister will be able to clearly lay down the law. I think the oil majors and the major retailers will sit up and pay attention, because it will no longer be under the direction of the ACCC. It will be under the direction of the minister. There is greater power under part VIIA and in using section 155 of the TPA. This can actually assist in providing clarity and confidence to the Australian motoring public about the fairness in the marketplace. I know it is an old analogy, but if they do not find anything then isn’t that a better scenario? They monitored it, they found nothing. Then you can go back to the Australian public and say: ‘We looked at it, the minister has looked at it and he found nothing.’ It is a scenario that suggests, ‘We do not want to give ourselves those powers, because we might find something,’ and that is the issue that is dealt with in this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Joyce’s) be agreed to.