Page 3043 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee has gone on to recommend that the Government should not continue with the other independent sites until they have had a look at our recommendation on compensation. Therefore, Minister, the committee has said that, before issuing any licences to other operators, the Government needs to flesh out details of its policies on the further independents in light of compensation required. What is likely to happen with the other independents is that the situation will be made all that much worse for the existing operators. There may be some competition between the four independents, although there are likely to be two of each, I understand - two companies competing. But what happens to the other 82 operators in the ACT that are not competing from the same base? They will slowly go broke. That is the responsibility of the Government.
The committee has gone on to suggest that we need desperately to investigate the effect of national fuel supply agreements, with a view to assessing the most appropriate arrangements to ensure the lowest fuel price possible in Canberra. That seems totally logical, but it is something that the Government has not done. I would like to finish by actually quoting from the Industry Commission's draft report on petrol products, which I think really sums it up. It says:
Prices are again relatively uniform across Canberra.
It is speaking about the advent of Burmah. It continues:
It is not clear why in the longer term Burmah would continue to hold its prices down to the same extent other than to help ensure renewal of the existing site's licence, and to ensure that its applications for further sites are viewed favourably.
That is what the Industry Commission says. (Extension of time granted) So, what we have is a situation where the Industry Commission says, "Look, this might work in the short term, while it is in Burmah's interest to do so - - -
Mr Connolly: It is a good thing that at least you are there to support your leader, Mr De Domenico, because nobody else is.
MRS CARNELL: That is because Mr Kaine is upstairs doing an interview on this subject and bucketing you. It goes on:
Non-discriminatory rules are necessary for both efficiency and equity ... adopting policies which discriminate between firms could adversely affect the level of investment in Canberra, and thus the long-term interest of consumers, by creating uncertainty as to future government treatment of firms complying with existing legislation.
That is what the Industry Commission says. They were not exactly set up under a Liberal government, to my knowledge. What they are saying is, "If you go down this track - if you go down the track of discriminating in favour of particular firms - then you are going to upset investment in Canberra". What is that going to do? It is going to not be in the long-term interests of consumers or in the long-term interests of Canberra generally. It will cut the guts out of investment in this city. That is what the Minister has done.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .