Page 3001 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This inquiry has in many ways been more interesting than is usually the case. We have seen a level of vehemence and, in some cases, I believe, zealousness not quite matched in other inquiries in which I have been involved. Obviously, we can observe that the players concerned felt so strongly that they presented their evidence in this way; but I am sure that other participants in other inquiries have felt equally strongly about their particular issues. In public hearings we heard evidence claiming collusion, favoured treatment and improper influence, in many cases aimed at public servants. None of those allegations were substantiated by the committee. All were made under parliamentary privilege. As a committee member, I have to say that I do not find this sort of contribution at all helpful when attempting to hear and sift through evidence and material on a matter that is already complicated and controversial.
The committee report draws certain conclusions with which I personally cannot agree. Before I go into that, I want to refer to earlier parts of the report which set the theme somewhat. As the Attorney-General told the public hearings:
During 1993 I was getting increasingly frustrated in dealings with the [oil] industry. I have met, I think, with the Chief Executive Officers or their representatives of just about all the majors during that period. They all came into my office and they all told me: "Minister, there is no way we can be competitive in the Canberra market. You cannot have competition in this market". I kept saying to them that the Government found that unacceptable, that I did not want to intervene.
Another very relevant quote was from the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association. They said - and this is only a small part of the quote:
Our position would be that if an independent wishes to come into a market on a normal competitive basis, good luck to him, but we do not want them to come in.
Let me get back to the conclusions of the committee. There has been acceptance of evidence that large numbers - for example, 30, but I have heard other numbers here this morning as well - of local service stations will close because of the Burmah arrangement. There has been acceptance of the argument that very large property losses have occurred and there has also been acceptance of the argument that franchisees and local owners of the service stations in the ACT are suffering huge loss of income, again because of the Burmah arrangement. As a result of the acceptance of these arguments, there is a recommendation that the Government should consider financial compensation where the direct cause can be attributed to it.
There was a wide range of evidence given to the committee which makes it impossible for me to accept that recommendation. The entire petrol industry was well and truly on notice for some years that both the consumers and, on their behalf, the Government were demanding realistic and fair petrol pricing in Canberra.
Mr Humphries: That justified unfair practices?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .