Page 2996 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are several other ways that we have mentioned. What we have said is that, before proceeding further with its intention to release sites to independents, the Government should re-examine these other ways in which the committee believes that we would get a better and longer-term downward trend in the price of petrol - not at the expense of our small business people, but with the burden falling more broadly or falling elsewhere. So, we are suggesting to the Minister that he should have another look at all of the alternatives by which the price of petrol might be brought down. We are suggesting - I know that the Minister and the Government will not like this - that, because a limited number of small business people in this Territory, as a direct consequence of the Minister's decision, may well have to walk away from their businesses, losing every cent of equity they have in them, the Government should honestly consider the possibility of having to compensate them. There is plenty of precedent for this. If the Government takes a decision and there is a direct adverse consequence for a limited number of people, then the Government can consider compensating those people. It was a political decision. Mr Connolly said so. Political decisions often involve a price.
I find it hard to believe that the Minister can expect 15, 20 or 25 - whatever is the number - small business people to carry the total impact and walk away from their businesses with not one cent of the investment that they have made accruing to them when they walk out, without the Government contemplating some form of compensation. If the decision had been otherwise, then one could say, "Well, people are in business. They take their chance and they wear the consequences"; but this was a change that was absolutely and irrevocably beyond their control and one which the Minister acknowledges was a political decision.
It is the Minister's intention to release a further three sites. The committee had difficulty in determining how the Government is going to ensure that true independents take them up. The evidence suggests that there is only one independent who is interested in coming to Canberra.
Mr Connolly: No, that is not correct.
MR KAINE: You can say that it is not true. You should read the evidence. Mr Sorbello gave evidence that he had approached two others. There are not very many people that fall into the category of so-called independents. Bear in mind that nobody is truly independent. They exist only on sufferance of a major. Burmah Fuels exists as an "independent" only because it has a special deal with the Shell Company. The other two contenders indicated to Mr Sorbello that they could not guarantee supply. It is one of your prescriptions, Mr Connolly, that whoever gets lease sites has to be able to guarantee supply.
Two of the others - I understand that there is a fourth, but it operates out of Western Australia and is therefore probably not in contention - who operate on the east coast have indicated that they could not give such a guarantee. Since none of them are truly independent, in that they have their own source of fuel and are totally independent of the majors, I do not know how you are going to get more than Burmah Fuels to bid for the three sites that you want to put out there. You have already said, I understand, that no one contender will get them all. So, I think you have established a bit of a conundrum for yourself.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .