Page 3002 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS ELLIS: You all said that you wanted to hear my views. I would appreciate it if you paid me the courtesy of listening to them.
I find it impossible to agree with the comparisons drawn by the committee in their argument for compensation. While there is argument for cause and effect in relation to the Burmah arrangement, there is, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence which points to a different conclusion being drawn. It is a fact that service station closures were already occurring in the ACT. That is undisputed. It is a fact, on evidence to the committee, that the major oil companies have begun a program of rationalisation of their outlets with a view to reducing their number and increasing their individual sizes. This is already of concern to me when I consider the viability of local service stations adjacent to local shopping centres.
On this basis, I question the recommendation that the Government consider increasing the amount of non-fuel retail space permitted in service stations. If the majors continue with the very strongly stated policy of rationalisation, it is probably reasonable to investigate the effect of service station closures on the planning concept of local shopping centres. That is recommendation No. 6. We also have recommendation No. 9, which is that the Government consider increasing the amount of non-fuel retail space permitted in service stations. If it is argued that, because of Burmah entering the market, smaller fuel outlets in local shopping centres will be, or are, forced to close, then why are we suggesting that we allow fuel outlets to have more retail space open to them? I understand the arguments for and against all of these positions; but, when you attempt to lay blame for certain outcomes, I believe that you really need to be sure of the argument you are putting.
I also need to say that I found the evidence which outlined and more fully explained the contractual arrangements between oil majors and their franchisees most alarming. The oil majors are not to be regarded in any other way than this: They have in the past done, and will continue into the future to do, whatever they need to do to achieve their end. They are powerful, and they demonstrate to me a ruthlessness in business that we cannot ignore. In fact, I do not believe that it is at all far-fetched, as I said in my dissenting report, 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 or attack the Burmah arrangement. I do not believe that anyone can disagree that they will do whatever they can to protect this great little market called "the ACT". Of course, none of them want to see independents given a true opportunity to break into this market. It is an historical fact, and, in coming to conclusions on a report such as this, we cannot ignore or leave out of the equation those sorts of considerations.
Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12.39 to 2.30 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .