Page 3620 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
whom they have their franchise, they will lose their franchise. But their franchise agreement technically allows them to do it. If the Minister had read the recommendation and had had a look at the subject, instead of just brushing it off as being too much trouble to examine, he would have understood exactly what we meant. He would not have misrepresented it here.
At page 5, in connection with the removal of the 3c a litre that was supposed to be taken off two years ago, he said:
It would be an artificial way to decrease the price differential between Canberra and Sydney ...
It would be no more artificial than what he has done, because all he has done is to take 3c a litre out of the pockets of our local small businessmen. If he thinks that that is a reasonable way to get some stability into the market and create competition, it indicates that he simply does not understand the marketplace. Finally, he said that the Government has no legal liability to set up a compensation scheme for those who lose money as a result of his decision, because the industry knew about it and the industry resisted change. I will come back to that in a minute.
When he talks about the industry, what he really means is the majors. But it is not the majors that are suffering now and it was not the little local businessman who resisted change. The little local businessman has to operate in this environment. He wants to sell his product and, like everybody else, he wants to make a profit. It is the oil majors that constitute "the industry" that Mr Connolly is attacking here that has resisted change, and he has had no impact whatsoever on it. The committee knows that the Government has no legal liability; but we are suggesting that the Government should accept some responsibility, whether it is legal or otherwise. It is not the industry that has incurred the loss; it is the small business people in this town. So, once again, the Minister has chosen to misinterpret what we said and set it aside as being irrelevant. It is relevant.
Finally, in terms of the tender document, which is supposed to attract tenderers to take up the three new leases that he is going to put out, he said that the Government will table the document. That is interesting. He has not done so. But I know that it has been out on the street since 1 October. When does he intend to table it here? He obviously does not intend to, because he knows that it is going to attract some attention. It is going to attract some attention all right. I happen to have a copy of it, even though the Minister chose not to do what he said in his own response he would do and table it. There it is. It is a very interesting document. It is another example of how the Government stuffs up everything that it lays its hands on.
That document was advertised from 1 October. The document was not even available until 6 October. Six days after it was advertised, inviting people to express interest, they could not even get hold of the documentation. Interestingly enough, when the documentation went out, it said that submissions would not be accepted after 30 September - six days before the document was even available. What sort of smart game is this hot-shot Minister playing here? He puts out documents, and you cannot put in a submission after a date six days before the documents were even on the street.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .