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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 1861 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

one member and another member of the same family. Those are reasonable issues. I have supplied Mr Connolly with advice that I have received on that subject, to indicate that, first of all, on the question of transfer between family members, there is a capacity within the legislation, particularly a combination of clause 6 of the Bill and subsection 27(2) of the Interpretation Act, to lift the restrictions on a class of agreements or a class of cases dealt with by this legislation. It is possible for any such cases, should they be bona fide ones, to be varied. That, incidentally, reflects very closely a provision, as I understand it, in the Commonwealth's Petrol Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980.

The question of compulsory acquisition, or acquisition on other than just terms, is also clearly dealt with in the advice that I have received and have supplied to Mr Connolly. Briefly, previous cases indicate that the question of acquisition is not in issue where, in a sense, what the Government does is render less valuable someone's asset or possession. I indicate, first of all, that the Government does not concede that we do render the assets any less valuable by virtue of this legislation. I could make a comment on the effect of legislation a couple of years ago, the original fair trading legislation. I would certainly argue that it had the potential to render assets less valuable. Putting that issue to one side, even if it did render the assets less valuable, under the present case law - particularly Waterhouse v. the Minister for the Arts and Territories, a 1993 case in the Federal Court - the indication would be that the mere changing of the commercial setting of an asset does not make it having been acquired in any way by the Territory.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the legislation has been explored as thoroughly as possible from the point of view of the legal implications that it might have. Mr Connolly indicates that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation but obviously it does not intend to propose it either. I suppose that that is some sort of indication that there may be some possible effect from this legislation. I cannot be sure of how much effect it will have, but I am very keen for this Assembly to send a strong signal to oil companies. If it is possible for plans, the implications of which have not been clearly demonstrated to the ACT community, to be stopped through legislation, if there is an issue of whether legislation might prevent activities which are designed to reduce the effective level of competition in the ACT marketplace, then I believe that it behoves the Assembly to explore whether that legislation should not be passed.

If the worst that this legislation does is send a signal, I think it is worth while having it passed; but I think it will go further than that. I think it is legislation that will allow a number of people, extremely concerned about their future, to have some certainty that the Government and the Assembly as a whole are attempting to protect their interests. If inquiries such as that to be conducted by the Trade Practices Commission produce evidence or doubt, at least, about the efficacy and the effectiveness of these arrangements being conducted by major oil companies, there is a capacity for further action to be taken to remedy the harm or prevent the ill that might take place as a result of that action. I thank members for their support for the legislation.

Clause agreed to.

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