Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1623 ..

build another new large supermarket”; but I am not sure that people would say that if one person wants to sell a small business it should not be able to be purchased by another existing small business operator. That does seem to be a quite dramatic step. It can have an impact, I would imagine, on the market by limiting who can buy a petrol station.

By saying that a person who is an existing franchisee cannot sell even a 50 per cent interest to another franchisee, you are significantly interfering with the market dynamics of selling those small businesses, and I do caution the Government. This is not something that necessarily falls within the purview of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, but I do caution the Government that this legislation may well be sailing very close to legal challenge on the basis of acquisition of property because of the impact on the ability of the small business person, the franchisee, to sell that business. It is one thing to say that an oil company cannot force people out of business and cannot acquire that way; but to limit the ability of the franchisee to sell that franchise to even another franchisee - in effect, to say that you cannot trade within the retail petroleum market - could well be the subject of legal challenge on the basis of impacting on a property right, and, more to the point, could well result in compensation claims if the market can be shown to be affected. They are very substantial issues that the Opposition thinks need to be looked at in relation to the amendments. I am not in a position today to guarantee Mr Humphries that we will support those amendments.

We did say last year, however, that we had no difficulty in principle with legislation to limit multisite franchises. Indeed, we said that it was something we would contemplate. Therefore, we have no difficulty with the Bill in principle and with its broad thrust. We would, however, like to hear the views of the market. We would even be interested in hearing the views of the oil companies, although it is certainly a fact that the oil majors are no particular friends of mine, or I of theirs. I think this is something that needs to be looked at.

This is very substantial legislation. It is having a marked impact in a market. One could even draw the bow a little bit long, but not very far, and say how ironic it is that Mr Humphries is coming into this chamber and nationalising the oil industry. That is not something that one would expect to see from a Liberal. In a free market where a small business person operates a petrol station, he is saying that the Government will now dictate whether or not that person can sell that business, which does seem to be something like one of Stalin’s early new economic programs; but we will not labour that point. It is, however, a very substantial impact on the market.

This Assembly should be cautious about rushing this Bill through in a week, particularly given potentials for challenge. If the Assembly is minded not to pass it today, we come back in three weeks’ time, which is not a long time. I cannot imagine very many parliaments in Australia where retrospective legislation would be put through in three weeks. It is common in the Federal Parliament where retrospective legislation, particularly in relation to taxation matters, is almost the norm rather than an exception. It may be many months between the announcement of the Government’s policy and the final passage through the Senate. I do not think Mr Humphries can complain about our asking for a three-week delay.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .