Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (1.10 p.m.)—I move:

That the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 73 and made under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, be disallowed.

I have moved this motion for the disallowance of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) because they completely disavow the principle set down by the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980—acts that still stand. Furthermore, the primary legislation is currently being considered, so these regulations bring in the intent of the legislation before its proper debate and passage. If you believe in small business operators, you have to allow a place for them to operate. It is no good saying that you must leave it up to the goodwill and trust of the independents’ competition, the major oil companies, to protect the commercial rights of independents, branded operators and franchisees.

These regulations, removing the restrictions on the number of sites the major oil companies can operate from, do not do anything to address the issue that Coles and Woolworths have, in their association with Caltex and Shell, circumvented the intent of the 1980 sites and franchise acts. In fact, the regulations exacerbate the pressure on the independents, branded operators and franchisees by allowing the major oil companies to actively campaign for the soft centre of the market currently protected by the sites and franchise acts. These regulations will allow total vertical integration, and this is never a reason to reduce prices in a marketplace. The fact that this market regulation has been removed is also a major impediment to getting biorenewable fuels onto the market. Independents are by far the most aggressive in this market. This town is a very good example of that. Of the four stations in Canberra that sell biorenewable fuel, E10, three of them are independents.

The change in the regulations will lead to a similar situation to what happened in the United Kingdom, where the independent fuel stations and other small operators were overtaken by the majors, leading to the loss of mum-and-dad operators, who had been beneficiaries of the profit generated from the fuel retailing trade. The closure of regional fuel stations, as happened in the UK, is another consequence of such regulations and one that should be a major concern for those who represent regional areas. The report by the All-Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group in the UK, High Street Britain: 2015, concluded that independent petrol stations were ‘very unlikely to survive’ in this market.

The argument will be put by some that none of the majors wishes to take over the independents, branded operators and franchisees share, but that is a counterintuitive argument to why they are busting their boilers to get these regulations through. The majors have offered no alternative plan as to how they will protect the independent, branded operator or franchisee sector of the market, which will be vulnerable to the regulatory change. We do not have the power under other mechanisms, such as section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, to protect them. If we let this regulatory instrument stand, we will be saying that the purity of a half-regulated market, which it is, is more important than participation by a wide cross-section of retailers. We will look rather hypocritical if we later endorse strict restrictions on who operates where and why in the cross-media ownerships laws.

I suppose it is who has the greater push in Canberra, and it is not the mum and dad operations when up against the might of motor oil companies. I understand that the conservative parties have a reason to say they promote the objectives of big business. I look forward to observing how this chamber will deal with the opportunity that has arisen to protect small family operations from the larger major oil companies. Maybe I am disconnected from this issue in Canberra, but that hardly explains those who have come to my office and lobbied absolutely vehemently to have these protections in place. These people are from organisations such as the NRMA, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the Motor Trades Association of Queensland, the Motor Trades Association of Australia, the Service Station Association, Renewable Fuels of Australia and myriad smaller organisations and operators.

So I am of the strong belief that I am representing key small business organisations that The Nationals in Queensland said we would represent at the election when we gave the promise that we would stand against the overcentralisation of the retail market. What this regulation does is bring about the oligopoly of retailing, which will be held by four oil majors in conjunction with Coles and Woolworths. They have an obligation to extract the best return for their shareholders, so relying on their good will in respect of the rights of independent, branded and franchisee sites to participate in the fuel market is against both their corporate responsibility and their optimum specific return on capital.

If the major oil companies get total control of a retail market, they have a corporate responsibility to exploit it so as to get the best return for their shareholders. If I were a shareholder of theirs I would expect absolutely nothing less. This was understood clearly in 1980 when the coalition government brought about the sites and franchise acts. It has always been the intent of the conservative side of politics to protect small business operators. The issue remains the same, but we are now changing. We are moving that which the coalition government set out to protect in 1980.

Since the repeal of this legislation allows the major oil companies the keys to complete control of the retail sector—and experience elsewhere, such as in the UK, says that this is what they will achieve—then naturally enough you are giving the oil majors the chance to put their margins up and maintain them there in the long term. In the current fuel price environment, I do not know whether that is what the public wants or will find palatable, that we are passing a piece of legislation that will give complete vertical integration and market control to the major oil companies, which are already exploiting their position in the market in such a way to extract a return that has brought about an up to 300 per cent increase in their parent company’s share price in the United States. I refer there to Chevron.

The 130,000 retail outlets represented by the Motor Trades Association of Australia have unanimously supported my position. That accounts for $113 billion in turnover annually. Ninety-five per cent of these outlets have less than five employees, which means they are the quintessential small business, non-unionised workforce and, as displayed by this regulatory change, they are not represented or supported by the major oil companies and those who have the major oil companies’ ear. A couple of nights ago on The 7.30 report was a Mr Jim Lamb, who represents only a handful of stations. He is the sole independent I have found who is on the side of this regulation change. I understand what he and all independents fear about the security of price and supply. They live by what the major oil companies supply them. Unfortunately, you do not have to worry about supply if you do not have a site to operate from.

Now, with your supplier also becoming your major competitor in the retail market, all I can say to you is good luck in the long term, especially if your site comes up for renewal. You have to remember that a lot of these site