Page 2997 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The question is: What is an independent? I do not believe that you can say that Burmah Fuels is truly independent. We were given evidence by experts in the field that the only reason why companies like Burmah buy their petrol from the majors at discounted rates is that there is a surplus coming out of their refineries and they have to get rid of it in some fashion. Why they do not get rid of it through their own existing retailers and let everybody get the benefit is beyond me; but they do not. The point is that we were also told that the world surplus of fuel is likely to disappear in 1995, one year from now. If there is no surplus coming out of the refineries, are the majors going to continue to support companies like Burmah who allege that they are independent?
Mr Humphries: Will that be before 18 February or after 18 February?
MR KAINE: I think it might be 19 February; but it does not matter. The fact is that these companies are not independents. So, we are a bit concerned about how the Minister is going to pursue that. We recommended that he flesh out his policy on this in a bit more detail. We were even told by the Minister's own officials that they were having a bit of trouble implementing the policy. One said, "We can overcome the problems"; but the fact is that they indicated that they were having trouble implementing the Minister's policy and applying the prescription that he determined as to who was an independent and who was not and how they could get into the business. So, there are real problems.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the recommendations that we have made are sensible recommendations. They are not political considerations. I believe that the committee looked very carefully at the facts of the matter and, given that we believe that the Minister acted in good faith, we examined them to see how the Minister might be able to achieve his laudable objective in a better way. That is all the report does. It does not attack the Minister; it does not attack the Government; but it does set out some alternative options and some things that we believe the Government should seriously look at before Mr Connolly proceeds further with his policy of introducing independents. I think that that is a legitimate thing. (Extension of time granted)
I understand that the two dissenting Labor members acted in good faith in standing aside from the general opinion of the committee. That is their right. They have reservations, which they have expressed. I would like to comment on one or two of the things that they have brought out in the report. For example, Ms Ellis said:
... I do not believe it is at all far fetched to draw the conclusion that additional pressure on those outlets by the majors over the past few months could be a manipulative tool used to undermine the Burmah arrangement.
I can understand that she might think that that is the case; but I have to say that it is merely an assumption. There was no evidence given to the committee that said that that was the case. What we tried to do in the committee was to draw only conclusions that could logically be drawn from the evidence that was presented to us, and there was no evidence to suggest the kind of reservation that Ms Ellis has. I can understand why she might hold the reservation. Later on she says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .