Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

So that those listening who are not part of the Senate procedures can understand exactly the importance of the third reading vote, I will explain that the proposition before the Senate is that the bill, as amended, be passed. The rules of the Senate mean that in the case of a tied vote the proposal would be lost. So, if all non-government senators plus one senator from the coalition vote together the proposal would fail. Therefore, the decision of the Labor Party to support the bill is critical.

However, it is not for me to reflect on their vote, because they have to account for that with their constituency and their voters. The Labor Party, in conjunction with other non-government senators, have tried to put before the Senate, or have supported, propositions which would have strengthened this bill with respect to small business needs and would have strengthened the hands of small business in a market which will be more deregulated than it has been in the past. That is the importance of what is before us.

I and my party are always wary of great power, whether it be great political power or great corporate power, and in the petroleum market there are no players greater than the mighty transnational oil companies and our very own Australian supermarket chains. Therefore you need restraining mechanisms. In some respects this is a touchstone debate because, like me, the Australian people enjoy enormously the tremendous variety, quality and diversity of products and services provided by the great corporations which service Australia. Australians, like me, are very glad that there are big companies out there from which we can buy products and services. But, like me, they have a view—I believe I reflect a common Australian view—that small business has a value of itself, that competitors need to be promoted in variety and in number, and that independents and small and medium sized businesses add to the great fabric of our commercial and social construct. Because of that it is important that we devise legislative and policy mechanisms to ensure that the weak in the commercial world are able to fight fairly on the commercial stage.

Therefore it is incumbent on us to recognise that the handicaps that small business and independents face need to be recognised and adjusted. I will say again that the position of the Democrats is that we support this bill. We think that the time has come for the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 to be repealed and replaced with different regulatory mechanisms. We support a revised Oilcode—subject to its final shape. That should be mandatory. We support the ACCC having greater powers and we support the Trade Practices Act being strengthened with respect to small business.

So in the ordinary course of events we would have supported this bill. I respect and acknowledge the commitment that the minister has made. I think he will use his best endeavours to bring those bills that we want—the two trade practices bills—to the Senate to be discussed before March 2007. But my colleague the Greens senator Senator Milne is quite correct in saying that, however much we respect the honesty and truthfulness of Senator Minchin’s commitment, it is not in his power to give; it is in the power of the Treasurer and the cabinet. In fact, in shorthand, that is exactly what Senator Minchin said. He said that he can give a commitment here but in the end he must defer to the portfolio holder and to the cabinet.

In summary, we would support this bill if it were accompanied by strengthening provisions for small businesses with respect to the Trade Practices Act. As it is not, despite the fact that we hope it will happen, we will oppose the bill on the third reading.