Page 3042 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If a government makes a decision that directly impacts upon the livelihood - we are talking now about food on the table, roof over the head type of livelihood - of small business operators in the ACT, then I, for one, believe strongly that the government should compensate them. If $9m, $8m, $7m - whatever can be demonstrated - came out of the pockets of small business operators in the ACT or, for that matter, property owners in the ACT, as a direct result of a political decision made by the Minister, then it is the responsibility of the Government to pay. You simply cannot do that; you cannot cost shift in that sort of way.
If the Minister wanted to bring down the price of petrol in the ACT, as his own bureaucrats told the committee, there were a number of options available to him. It is not my comment; his own bureaucrats said that. They said that the Minister had made a political decision, and this was the one he wanted. That is fine, but then you wear the ramifications. In the committee report we have spelt out some options that could actually create a competitive market in the ACT; others would just bring down the price by about the same amount, by about 3c.
The Minister continually talks about a competitive market in Canberra. From all of the evidence presented, we do not have a competitive market in Canberra now. All the Minister has achieved, according to the evidence and according to the report, is to give one particular operator substantially smaller oncosts so that that particular operator can do business cheaper - - -
Mr De Domenico: Than the locals.
MRS CARNELL: Than the locals.
Mr De Domenico: The fifth biggest company in England can do it cheaper and better than the locals.
MRS CARNELL: Yes. Because their oncosts are lower, they can sell petrol at a cheaper price. We have a one-price town. Initially, I found it rather unusual that that would be the case. It turns out that that is the case everywhere. Even a city the size of Perth ends up being a one-price town. In fact, apparently, even Fremantle is at a similar price as well.
We have to accept that, if you give one operator extremely preferential treatment and they are able to sell their product at a cheaper price, then everybody else is forced, by the nature of the market, to bring their price down. That is not competition. There is no competition in the marketplace because nobody else is in the same position. Competition is about level playing fields; it is about people being able to compete because they are in a position to. Nobody else in the ACT is in a position to do anything except match the prices that Burmah can offer because the Government has given them a direct subsidy. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is the Government's obligation to compensate them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .