Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Oilcode.

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

You are welcome to stand up. You have a chance after this—in fact, I look forward to your standing up, Senator McGauran, and putting your position on the record. That would be a brave thing to do. So we are going to hear from Senator McGauran. He is going to tell us how the independents are going to be protected and how we are going to deal with this issue of protecting families in regional towns. It is going to be an interesting debate. I think I should let him have his say.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot let Senator Joyce misrepresent reality, let alone our position, in relation to his amendment. I really think that Senator Joyce should sit down and read the proposition that he has put before the chamber and attempt to understand it:

… not less than 25 per cent of the volumetric supply of petroleum products in the market—

which I take it means the whole national market—

within each calendar month is available only to prescribed independent fuel retailers.

Is there a crystal ball to tell the suppliers that this is the cap and that they can supply no more to the so-called non-independents? Or do we take the liberty of saying that, if the major companies lease their stations and enter into a contract to supply their oil to an independent operator, they are then an independent? This has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look like a very solid object. It is, as I said before, a prescription which is probably incapable of enforcement. I do not know what the enforcement is intended to be, looking at the amendment, but I just cannot see how this can be enforced. I say again: if Senator Joyce wants us to seriously consider this proposition, he is going to have to do more work on it rather than putting up the sort of proposition that he has put up. Frankly, the corporate world, if they wanted to, living under this proposition, could shoot holes in it.

Senator Joyce is apparently making an honest effort to do something, but he should not castigate people for not being prepared to vote for something which is demonstrably unenforceable, which demonstrably cannot lead to the outcome that he is talking about and which demonstrably, if it were interpreted as strictly as he would like us to believe it could be interpreted, would lead to some petrol stations and possibly some towns being denied fuel. It would lead to shortages in the country. As I said earlier, it would be like the Soviet command economy in some parts of the country, where the supply of fuel, depending on the predictions that the suppliers made, would be cut off because there would be a fear that they would exceed the 75 per cent limit on those companies set out in subclauses (4) and (5) of the proposed clause.

We notice sometimes that these statements are made when we are on broadcast, and if Senator Joyce needs to make those statements while we are on broadcast so be it, but please do not misrepresent our position and make things up to make your argument. If you have some facts we are happy to hear them, but I have not heard many so far.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard much better attempts by the Labor Party to cover its defence of the big oil companies and the big end of town than that one. Senator Joyce has brought forward a prescription for keeping independent petrol dealers in the business and is looking to the interests of small towns as a consequence of that. It shows he has a bit more experience there than the Labor Party. The first thing to be said about this is that the Labor Party, on my reading of it, is going to defend the cross-media ownership rules from changes proposed by the government, and that is all about percentages. That is all about sections of the market. That is all about how many media outlets big corporations can own. It restricts them from the city right through to the smallest places in the bush. So Labor is defending a prescription for what is, if I heard Senator O’Brien correctly, a Soviet style—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I didn’t say that at all. I said we weren’t going to vote for it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does not like it much, but the fact is that when it comes to the media you can have restrictions on the big corporations to defend the number of outlets but apparently when it comes to petrol you cannot, and that is nonsense.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is not about the number of outlets. It’s about volume.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is total nonsense.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien is not taking this too well.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brown, you have the floor. I will ask you to continue, and if Senator O’Brien wishes he may make a response later on.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is talking about volume. He needs to turn his volume up if I am to hear it—and I should not listen to it, should I, Chair? Thank you very much. The fact is that we in this country have lost track of the fact that parliament is here to look after small business. Parliament is here to look after those people who are prepared to set up shop in small towns to sell essential services. Parliament is here to look after people who are prepared to go with less—because that is what it means in the bush, in terms of income—to be part of a community, to service that community and, as result of that, as Senator Joyce was saying, to keep other entities and communities going. But the big parties have over a number of decades now simply pandered to the market as a whole range of small businesses got squeezed out.

I can remember being in the Tasmanian parliament when there was a perfectly good roster system for petrol stations in Tasmania—and Senator O’Brien will remember this. The local petrol stations in Hobart, Ulverstone and Launceston were on a roster system. This meant that family proprietors could get home to their families on weekends. Where you could go to get your petrol was in the daily newspaper, so you drove to one of the on-roster stations. And it worked well. The oil companies did not like that, I can tell you. They wanted a seven days a week grind for the business. They got their way. The legislation was brought in, this system was knocked out and now the big oil companies are serially buying up the independents, often simply to close them down as nothing else replaces them, and aggregating their petrol outlets.

In an age where we are concerned about the consumption of fossil fuels because of the huge impact it is having on the environment, we will end up with people from Tambo driving to the next biggest town, Longreach, to get their petrol. Either that or they will have to store it back in Tambo. The same applies to small towns. It is in the interests of these big petrol corporations; efficiency and profit is what they are about. So they close down the small businesses and make the public come to the centralised place. And of course when you get there you have groceries and a whole range of other goods, which deny other small businesses the ability to survive.

You can mischievously call this ‘Soviet command’ economy and ‘centralised’ economy. But that is what the big oil companies are into: centralising the economy in downtown Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and so on, with the profits going there, and everybody in the regions having to do what they say. I agree with Senator Joyce on this because I think it is this parliament’s responsibility to look after the people of this country and not leave it to the Stock Exchange and the big oil companies, who are preponderantly foreign owned.

A good debate is being had here, but the lowest common denominator would be to say: ‘Senator Joyce, your legislation’s got holes in it. There’s going to be difficulty if that is passed as is.’ That is not the argument. The argument being used here is that Labor and the government do not like the sentiment that Senator Joyce has brought into this chamber.

If there are problems with the wording of this amendment they can fix that. That is not the argument; that is a spurious argument. The reality is that they do not like the sentiment that 25 per cent of the product should be kept for independents. Whether you fix the figure at 20 per cent or 30 per cent or even 10 per cent, there should be some line. I have heard the argument that, if enough independents get out so that there are not enough to supply 25 per cent, woe betide us. Do we not have the facility to come in here and look at that situation and debate it again? Of course we do.

You do not legislate by buying in all the possible problems in the future. Parliament legislates for now, with the ability to come back and fix up things if new contingencies arise. So the sentiment is right. It is an honourable sentiment. It is a sentiment that is good for the people of Australia, particularly for regional Australia, and it deserves to get more support.

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

The argument put forward by Labor would hold water if I could go through this pile of papers on my table and find the Labor amendment that talks about the protection of independent petrol station owners. But I have been through it, and it is not there. Maybe they do not feel that it is important. We have heard their protestations about why this amendment is not good enough. But their amendment is not there. They do not believe in this. It is a convenient argument to say, ‘Your one’s not right.’ But if my one is not right, your one does not exist. Yours is just a blank sheet of paper: tabula rasa.

Labor do not believe in the protection of independents and are all over the shop. The next week you will be back talking about how you think there should be controls on the cross-media laws. You are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Make up your mind. What do you want? If you believe that we should be protecting against the overcentralisation of the media market, what has happened to you today? Do you realise how foolish you look? Yes, you are on broadcast and the public are hearing this. It is good that they are hearing this. It is good that the Australian people are hearing what a completely mixed-up, all-over-the-shop ship you are. In the next couple of days, every time we hear you talk about protection to stop the overcentralisation of the media market, we will just laugh at you because you are not for real.

You have had your chain pulled by the right people in town and you have listened to them. You are going to look a complete and utter fiasco: insincere, no-one can take you for real. You have gone through with this and you do not realise the bind you have got yourselves into. You have got yourselves into a hole that you cannot dig yourselves out of. I disagree with it. At least these people are constant: they believe in no regulation anywhere or any time. But you: you are here somewhere today and somewhere else tomorrow.

Maybe somewhere, coming up, will be the Labor Party amendment to protect the independents. Maybe it is still on the way. Maybe if we hang around here for a little while longer it will turn up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at your next party meeting. It is just going to be fur and feathers everywhere, because you have made such an absolute fiasco of this one. The Labor Party has no motion on the books to protect the independents, but they are going to charge in here next week and start talking about the protection of the media market.

The whole of Australia will read about this tomorrow. Even your arguments do not hold water. When you say, ‘What is an independent?’ it is there: the independents are the ones who are not the major oil companies and not the major retailers. It will work in a similar fashion, I imagine, to the way it works at the moment in the sites act and the franchise act. It is a case which I think we have the competence to deal with. I really do think that. I think we are smart enough to do it. If we can build this building I reckon we can manage this. I know I am going out on a big limb, but if there is something slightly wrong with it I think we have the capacity to bring it back and amend it. I really do.

The Labor Party are of the view that you legislate from now until eternity. Everything that happens now will happen for eternity. That is an interesting proposition to have. It would suggest that if they ever win government they will not change anything: if they are ever given the power they will never change anything. Maybe they think they are not capable of changing anything; maybe they think they have not got the acumen to change anything; or maybe they think they cannot go through a piece of legislation and suggest better changes. It will be a very interesting time.

On the record is the fact that the Labor Party are going to vote against this amendment. They will be voting for the bill. They will be voting for the major oil companies who pull their chain. They will say that it brings about a socialist type of economy, or some other palaver that they have just dreamt up because they have not had time to have a good think about it. Next week they will all be back in here and trotting out, one after the other, talk about the evils of cross-media ownership laws. Here they come. It is going to be like a circus. It is going to be the funniest show in town. That argument and your arguments today—get ready for them—are all going to be quoted back to you.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would Senator Joyce let the Senate know whether an entity—who is not named in subclauses (4) or (5) of the new part to proposed section 51AE—that leases a site from one of those named companies in subclauses (4) or (5) and contracts with them to purchase petrol is a prescribed independent fuel retailer?

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

It says ‘a prescribed independent fuel retailer means any fuel retailer except those operated’—‘operated’ is the key word there. It is in there; you just have to read it. It is a bit difficult, but have a go.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can read, but I wanted to be sure of what you intended, Senator Joyce. So you would accept that, if the oil companies arrange leases to other corporate entities to sell their petrol at a price they nominate, they will be able to fill that 25 per cent that you say should be set aside for the prescribed independent fuel retailers and that there would not need to be any other entities in the market for that 25 per cent to be satisfied. Do I understand you correctly?

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

It is the obscurum per obscurius—‘to get myself out of here’—type argument. That is an interesting way of doing it. Let us make life so complicated that we cannot possibly do anything but throw up our hands and commit harakiri. The same argument is going to be quoted back to you on the cross-media ownership laws. Are you suggesting that the major oil companies will try to take over all the independents? Are you suggesting that all the independents are going to disappear and that oil companies would devise such a plan? Pray tell, where would you get ideas like that from? That cannot be right. The Labor Party cannot believe the sentiment that all the independents are going to disappear. Are you suggesting that the oil companies would be so clandestine as to devise ways of pushing the independents out of business?

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

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

If you are suggesting that, you should be suggesting a way to protect the independents. Rather than talking about the affliction, you should be thinking about the cure. It is an interesting approach to take. We will have a whole raft of these obscurum per obscurius suggestions of how we can possibly get around something that is quite simple and painted in black and white.

If the major oil companies or the major retailers operate the site that has been noted as a lease, then it is not written in stone. At some stage in the future, they can change it, amend it or do what they like to it. They are not the independent sector of the market. This amendment is the only suggestion that we have here at the moment. We looked at the Democrats amendment. Family First have put up some good suggestions, and there are possibly others to come forward. However, I have not seen the Labor Party suggestions; they are not there. But we do get a lot of suggestions about what is wrong with protecting independents.

That is what you are talking about today: what is wrong with protecting independents. It is because you do not want a socialist type economy; you want one that is controlled by about two organisations. Instead of big government controlling the world, you are quite happy for a couple of organisations to control the world. You do not believe in the freedom of people to go into business, and you are not going to protect them. It is quite obvious that you do not; otherwise, you would have put forward an amendment. I have answered your question, but I am waiting for the next obscurum per obscurius type suggestion—and here it comes.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Joyce for referring to the Democrat amendment that he thought was a constructive attempt to deal with these matters. I would remind Senator Joyce that the Labor Party moved an identical amendment, but he had walked out of the chamber and did not vote for it. This was after he had voted for the Democrat amendment. So I am not surprised that he has forgotten that the Labor Party had a proposition which was in identical terms to the one that he supported that was supposed to deal with some of the competition problems.

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

Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order. He said it was ‘identical’. I do not think it was.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, you will allow Senator O’Brien to explain and then, if you wish, you may respond.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce is technically correct. There was an additional proposition. However, Senator Joyce is apparently saying that he did not want the ACCC to be empowered by a vote of the Senate or the committees of the Senate to inquire, but he has some prescription in his next amendment about petroleum products price monitoring. The senator asked what the Labor Party’s proposition was. In essence, on the competition model, it was identical, word for word—

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

No, it was not.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it was. In relation to the competition model it was identical, word for word, with the Democrat motion that he supported. If the senator conveniently forgot that, I am here to remind him.

If we put up some serious concerns about his proposition and he cannot deal with them, so be it. But for him to castigate the Labor Party because we cannot vote for a proposition that demonstrably will not have the effect that he is talking about is just grandstanding. Senator Brown came into the chamber to take advantage of the fact that we were on broadcast. He made a contribution, but clearly he did not understand that the proposition that we were putting forward was about a volumetric control on the market, not a control on the number of sites. He changed that during his contribution, so I accept that he has corrected the way that he had approached the matter.

But, frankly, the Labor Party’s position on this legislation and on competition in this industry stands up to every bit of scrutiny. The fact that we do not put up a proposition of this nature because we think it is unworkable does not demonstrate that we do not think small business has a role in this industry. We think that small business has a role in this industry through a proper competition regime. That is why we put up the amendments that we put up. Those amendments are in many respects amendments which have been requested by the ACCC to give them a stronger hand to deal with the competitive regime. The government voted against them. Senator Joyce voted for them when they were moved by Senator Murray, which therefore demonstrates that, to that extent, he supported the Labor Party proposition. So it is a bit bizarre for him to suggest that we did not have a proposition in relation to competition to assist small business in the industry. If he wants to imagine that that is the situation, I cannot dictate what goes on in his head, but I am here to tell the Senate and the Australian public that it is a fantasy.

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

They are obviously in a spot of bother, aren’t they? You can see that they are in a spot of bother. Rather than going down this red-herring path, let us get back to talking about independents. But we will deal with the issues so they do not say we are avoiding them. Senator O’Brien has said that his amendment was identical, word for word, to the Democrat amendment. That is either going to be the truth—and I will check—or it will not be the truth. I stand to be corrected—I will read it—but I do not think it is. Nonetheless, let us go back.

First of all, if that is the sentiment then I have supported it. I have voted for it. I crossed the floor on it. You cannot support it much more than crossing the floor to support the sentiment. Secondly, the Democrats actually approached me—they rang up, went through it and well and truly discussed the issue. You have well and truly discussed this issue right now, so do not try and use that as an avenue out. You are telling me all the things that you think are possibly wrong with it, and we are proving you wrong on all of them, but the only thing you are proving to us is that you have never actually come up with an amendment to protect the independents. You have come up with an amendment to protect—and we have laid it on the line; in fact, I crossed the floor to bring about the Dawson review—provisions in the Dawson bill. So I am on the record there as well. I crossed the floor to support your sentiment then, and I also crossed the floor on the other issues—I voted with you to protect small business on the other Dawson provisions by taking out the mergers and acquisitions power. So my position is pretty clear on the record. I think everybody in Australia knows that.

Your position is also totally clear: you have absolutely nothing on the table, not one amendment, to protect independents, to protect regional towns and to protect the freedom of people to go into the business. You have nothing. What you have on the record is the fact that, when required, the Labor Party will play to the tune of the major oil companies and if they have to walk over a few bodies on the way they will do that. We know that absolutely. If they have to make hypocrites of themselves by calling for a certain argument, they say, ‘We must let the market reign supreme today, but—wait for it—next week our views will be different.’ But I am going to sit back, because you really have got my interest. I am going to grab your amendment and the Democrats’ amendment, and I am going to check them word for word. If they are word for word correct, I will happily stand up and say, ‘Yes, they’re word for word correct,’ but I have a funny feeling that they will not be.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) moved by Senator Joyce on sheet 5045 be agreed to.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a very interesting debate to sit and listen to. We have heard a lot of discussion about the support for small business and also for regional Australia. I was fascinated to hear Senator Milne talk about her place in regional Australia, with her vantage point from the third or fourth floor of the Marine Board Building overlooking Constitution Dock in Hobart—but perhaps it is about perception from one’s own point of view. I do not think too many of us would consider that to be—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wow, that was a strong point, that one!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I might move to Senator Brown’s comments about the petrol market in Tasmania. It confounds me how little the Greens know about what is going on in their own state, particularly in relation to a range of issues we saw during the discussion on marine protected areas—in fact, the lack of engagement from the Greens in relation to marine protected areas surprised me. I heard in my conversations with the fishing industry, with whom we work very closely, that they never met with the Greens. The Greens did not seek a meeting with the fishing industry in relation to marine protected areas.

In relation to fuel sales, it has only recently been announced that Mobil sold all its sites in Tasmania to an independent, to United. So there has been a significant change in the market in Tasmania in favour of the independent sector. I think one of the largest petrol stations in my home town of Devonport, which sells fuel from Ampol Caltex, is a privately owned, independent service station. In relation to the rostering arrangements, that particular business took the opportunity to open 24 hours, seven days a week, and that is one of the things that has made it a successful business. It has taken advantage of the operation of the market. In fact, in the last two years, it has been one of the Prime Minister’s employers of the year for employing people with disabilities or people with return-to-work issues.

The Greens get up in this place to make comments about what is happening in their own state—quite sadly, uninformed statements. It is perhaps pertinent that Senator Brown has got up and made those uninformed statements on a day when parliament is broadcast and there is an opportunity to let people in my home state know that there are inconsistencies in the comments that the Greens put on the record. I also refer to the comments that Senator Milne made about her being in regional or rural Australia from the vantage of the capital city, in the centre of Hobart.

Commenting on the protection of independents: the mandatory Oilcode already contains provisions which will prevent wholesale suppliers from unreasonably refusing supply. That provision is currently in the legislation and provides the support that Senator Joyce in particular is looking for in relation to independents. If you consider the comments that I have made about where things are going in Tasmania, you will see there are movements in the retail sale of petroleum in regional Australia, in particular regional Tasmania, towards opportunities for independents and independent supply. In fact, the price of fuel in Hobart is very low at the moment, based on the competition that is being put out by the supermarkets and also on the entry into the market of the independent sector through United. That has made a significant difference to the price of fuel.

In relation to government support for the small business sector, as we discussed earlier in this debate, the government has already announced its intention to strengthen section 46 and it is very keen to see that legislation introduced as soon as the Dawson bill has passed through the parliament. We hope we can do this in a timely manner. We have already had one crack at it. We would like to see that done so that we can get those protections in place. We have a very clear and obvious view that we would like to see measures such as a small business capacity for collective bargaining. That is quite clearly contained in the provisions of the legislation that we have brought to this place once before. Obviously, we have a position on that and we would like to see it passed. That is our intention: we would like to see that passed. So I think it is a bit disingenuous for people to get up in this place to talk about our lack of support or otherwise for small business or for regional Australia.

One of the concerns that I would have about this amendment of Senator Joyce’s is that there is going to be a significant cost attached to monitoring and processing this whole deal. And guess who is going to pay? Regional Australia will pay the cost or the independent sector will pay the cost, because it is going to be applied, quite reasonably, to them. So much for the effect of trying to keep fuel prices down, which we have talked about in this place today! There is going to be a negative impact on that through the very significant red tape that will be tied around the proposals, such as those being discussed by Senator Joyce in this particular amendment, particularly in a climate where we are looking to reduce the amount of red tape that applies to the overall market. So there are some pretty significant questions that need to be answered in relation to this.

Senator O’Brien has raised, quite correctly, some of the very practical matters in relation to the operation and allocation of market share through the 25 per cent of the volume of fuel proposal that has been included by Senator Joyce in this amendment, but I think that it goes even deeper than that. There is no question that the independent sector will be made less competitive by a process such as this, because it will pay the cost. The cost of monitoring and the cost of application and the cost of managing this whole process will be applied, quite reasonably, to the independent sector. That is just a fact of business.

If, as Senator Joyce is implying, this is largely about small country towns in regional Australia, then the effect of this is that he will be imposing additional costs on fuel in those small country towns. I know that is not something that he wants to do—I do not apply any motive to him in that respect—but, in the context of this amendment, there are a range of issues that should have been much better thought out. I do not think that they were explained to either Senator O’Brien or the chamber effectively enough when he was putting this particular amendment to the committee.

So the government will not be supporting—and the opposition has expressed its opposition—this particular amendment. I think Senator Joyce already understood that that might be the case, but obviously he is intending to continue with his amendment. It is quite obvious that there is a range of practical and also business based issues that need to be resolved for this proposal to be effective and, quite frankly, I do not think that they are resolvable, particularly some of the issues that Senator O’Brien has raised in relation to allocation of the 25 per cent quotas. I think that really does create some very difficult situations. Senator Joyce really should have given some deeper consideration to the particular elements of this amendment before it was brought before the chamber.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck does tempt one to look a little bit at his and his party’s record in Tasmania. I remember a couple of elections ago when at state level they promised they would protect shopping hours because there were hundreds of jobs at stake. But within six months of the Liberals getting in they had broken that promise and hundreds of jobs went west as a result.

It is interesting that Senator Colbeck has been supporting tax breaks for the huge combines which want to put in plantations, closing down small businesses—small farmers, potato growers and dairy farmers—right across Tasmania. They do not get the breaks but Gunns and the big plantation owners do—that is what Senator Colbeck supports. It is interesting to note that, when I brought legislation in here to have fair labelling so that ‘Made in Australia’ meant made in Australia, Labor and the Liberals voted down the anticheating legislation, so that people in supermarkets see ‘Made in Australia’ and buy a product thinking it is made in Australia when in fact very often the ingredients are not. Of course that puts farmers right across Australia at a disadvantage compared to the big combines, the multinationals who bring in cheaper produce from elsewhere around the world.

When it comes to the fishing industry, Senator Colbeck did not know that the government had in mind some reserves around Tasmania, and he was not consulted. When the government announced it, there was a backlash and he found himself in front of protest meetings by fishermen, trying to explain it and change it around. The Greens were not involved in dumping that without consultation with the community, but the government was, and he can defend that as best he can.

Everywhere you look in Tasmania, the Greens have a superior record to that of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in defending small operators, locally owned businesses, small farmers and small producers. But what is germane at the moment and what is testing the big parties—and what they do not like—is Senator Joyce’s amendment to give the independents some protection against the expanding market share of the big companies. When it gets down to it, they are not arguing against the rationale, because they know they cannot defend their position on that. They are arguing with the wording of his amendment. Senator Joyce has said, ‘Well, fix it up.’ The time-honoured practice is that, if there is a good amendment and it is accepted by the government, we pass it. If there is to be a terminological change to it or a closing of loopholes, that is done in the other place, it is brought back here and we accept it. That is the way it goes with private amendments.

There is a spurious debate going on here by the Labor and Liberal parties. They oppose this amendment. They oppose protecting the independents in this way. We will see that in the vote in a moment. When all is said and done, it is the vote that counts. Senator Colbeck can get up and take on the Greens. I am happy to debate him, because in the end he will lose on who defends small business and on who looks after Tasmanians at home. We can really get into some good debates on that—I would welcome it—but this is not the place to do that. We are debating Senator Joyce’s amendment, which has merit. I have not heard either Labor or Senator Colbeck state that they do not support the merit of his amendment. They are saying that it is not written the right way, it is not this and it is not that. That is a spurious argument. They are either defending the protection of independent retailing, which this amendment goes to, or they are not. And the truth is that they are not.

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

I am not going to be pedantic, but it just goes to show: what have turned up here are the Democrats’ amendment and Labor’s amendment. Senator O’Brien, you are not right, mate. This part is in yours, and you can see that it is not in theirs. It is different. You cannot come in here and say that they are word for word, that they are exactly the same—everybody here heard you say it—when they are not. You are telling porky pies.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, please address your remarks through the chair.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hesitate to take up additional time, but if Senator Joyce was being accurate he would have reflected that the difference between the opposition amendment that I moved from sheet 5028 and that which was moved in a later prepared sheet—sheet 5038 revised—is identical in clauses 1 through to 6 but that we had a seventh clause which deals with a different matter. If Senator Joyce recalls, what I said was that we are identical on those matters and we inserted a provision in relation to the monitoring of prices. If Senator Joyce wants to hear what he wants to hear and try and make an argument from what he wants to hear, that is fine. I am satisfied, having put that on the record, that the amendments are identical to that extent and that is what I reflected—which was that our amendment in that respect was about the protection of small business and competition. That is all that I was attempting to put on the record. I will not be misrepresented. Frankly I do not think that it does any credit to have addressed the matter in the way that Senator Joyce did.

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

We can go back to the Hansard and check exactly what you said. I am sure you said word for word, exactly the same. If that is the case then I support the Democrats amendment if it is word for word. That is all that needs to be said. It means that ultimately I have supported what you wanted.

Question put:

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