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

None . . Page.. 1628 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am very happy to wear the tag. I am very happy for the major oil companies to be unhappy with our performance, but I can say to you that other people are not.

Mr Berry: About the only people who are happy with your performance are the French.

MR HUMPHRIES: Quite the contrary, Mr Speaker. The Motor Trades Association of the ACT has put out a press release indicating that it is very happy about - indeed, very supportive of - the decisions taken by this Government in respect of petrol pricing in the ACT. The Australian Consumers Association - do you remember that body, Mr Consumer Affairs Minister of the Year? - is strongly supportive of the decision we have taken in this legislation to bring forward a measure to counter multisite franchising. Every other State government in this country has asked to see this legislation in order to consider similar legislation in their own jurisdictions. Mr Speaker, I would maintain that the expression “the pressure is off” is considerably out of kilter with the reality.

Mr Connolly also suggested that we would be sailing close to the wind on a legal challenge on the basis of acquisition of property. That is an issue that the Government looked at very early in the process of developing this legislation, and I am very happy to show Mr Connolly the legal advice that I have received from my department on that question. I am not prepared to table it because I do not believe that oil companies ought to have the benefit of that information. Mr Connolly is free to look at this advice when I sit down. Incidentally, the reason why we talk in our amendment about dealing with an assignment under an agreement or an assignment of an agreement in the terms of this being a new agreement is that it is a reflection of the legislation as it stands at the Commonwealth level. We are not inventing a new wheel here; we are simply picking up the reference in the Commonwealth's retail franchising legislation and putting it into our legislation. That is why it is there in those terms.

Mr Speaker, I accept that there is unease about passing this legislation today. I also want to express unease at a delay in passing the legislation today. It has the effect of extending retrospectivity. The legislation would be retrospective for a month, or thereabouts, if it were passed today. It would be retrospective for two months if it were passed in October. Mr Connolly said that the Commonwealth Parliament regularly passes retrospective legislation. This parliament does not, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that we should pass retrospective legislation. Mr Connolly said that it was ironic that I was moving this Bill. The fact is that we have never absolutely opposed retrospective legislation. Mr Connolly might recall that last year we supported government legislation which was retrospective, namely, legislation on lotteries. The then Opposition, now the Government, freely supported that position, and we continue to do so. There are occasions when retrospectivity is required. However, I think it is also important that we limit the period that that should take place. I accept that it is not the wish of the Assembly to do this today, but I would urge members to consider that retrospectivity does impose a burden, and the longer we delay passing the legislation the longer it will be for people who are uncertain of where they stand under this proposed law.

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