What the M.P.'s were saying Wholesalers’ retail petrol outlets ‘unfair competition’

Press, 12 November 1979, Page 2

What the M.P.'s were saying Wholesalers’ retail petrol outlets ‘unfair competition’

From PHILIP WORTHINGTON

Continued control of petjrol retail outlets by petrol ■wholesalers showed that the (Government favoured the I “big boys” and unfair competition rather than free enterprise, said Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton) during the debate on the.,second ireading of the Motor Spirits ! Distribution Amendment Bill. J “We have five wholesalers lof motor spirits in New Zealand. and BP, Caltex. and (Europa directly or through i subsidiaries own or lease iseveral retail outlets which, (in turn, control a very high (proportion of the volume ! throughput of the industry,” she said. ! The bill had given the (Government the chance to (implement a recommendlation of the Commission of (Inquiry into the distribution (of motor spirit, that wholesalers should divest themiselves of their interests in retail outlets. The Government had failed to take that opportunity, she said. Evidence had been given to the Commerce and Mining Select Committee which suggested that the service ■stations owned by wholesalers could be, and were being, run to give them a distinct competitive advantage over independent private retailers. “The committee heard of the tied-house concept, and the disadvantages which are (well known in the liquor injdustry are equally apparent lin this industry,” said Mrs ! Hercus. ; “It is easy to see how the (vertical ownership and the ’profit and margins at both ,! wholesale and retail level i can cause unfair manipulation, to the disadvantage of the independent service station owners — the small ’businessmen and women (who are the core and the (heart of our business (world,” she said. ! Mrs Hercus said that four (arguments had been for-: ! warded against implementing (the commission’s recom-i jmendation: that the whole-; isalers legally owned the ser-i (vice stations, that the ser-! (vice stations were few in! number, that removing them! .from wholesaler control! :would do little to further’ ’competition in the market: place, and that retrospective legislation would be required. Legal ownership of the’ ’outlets did not destory the principle, nor the conclusion' to which the Commission of! (Inquiry came, she said. The] (service stations were few in I .number, but were large in (volume sales, and a study of( (the submissions to the select! (committee showed that com- : petition would be improved if the outlets were not tied to the wholesalers, she said. Retrospective legislation would not be needed and the Opposition would consider’ allowing an “arms-length” I relationship between the oil j companies and the retail outlets by leasing arrangements;

t- at commercial rates of rent-, >1 al, said Mrs Hercus. e ! Commercial rabbit farming e would not in any' way '■ diminish the rigorous cam-’ e paiga against the feral rabn bit population, said Mr R. L. ■|G. Talbot (Nat., Ashburton) “(during the second reading of s|the Agricultural Pests Destruction Amendment Bill. ; J Mr Talbot, who is Under(Secretary of Agriculture, said Uthat a dramatic change in , (attitudes to rabbit farming had occurred in the last four: “or five years. ri’ “I have received 241 indie I cations of support for rabbit’ •> farming and only 15 opposing it during the time we e have considered allowing D rabbit farming. Federated . Farmers now favours com-! f mercial rabbit farming proa yided that certain controls are introduced,” he said. “The main objection to’ a’the proposal was expressed: .-'by the Agricultural Pests] t(Destruction Council and the' (individual pest destruction n : boards, but 1 am sure that .(even the council will be pre-i h pared to co-operate in the e ( development of commercial _ | rabbit farming,” he said, e! “Several clauses in the: a : bill give an assurance that .(the Government will con-., Jtinue a strong campaign to. (control the wild rabbit, and’ fl that was made clear in the’ 11 select committee hearings. ;( “The bill spells out the! .(National Government’s apt’proach and attitude towards! s I the diversification of our! (agricultural industries. The! ; : greatest programme of’. ; ! diversification in farming: 1 y and agriculture in New Zea--1! land’s history is now oc-l. . (curring. We have introduced f ! legislation and incentives .’providing for deer farming, (mohair production, and., J milking sheep,” said Mr Tai>;bot. ;( “It is not the job of a , ’government, and certainly!: -.not of the National Govern- ( _!ment, to decide whether any.j rlof the diversification activi-J, (I ties will be viable. Individ- ~ . (ual companies and others’] .’concerned must make that r (decision for themselves,” he! (said. I Regulations to be drafted] (after the bill was passed; (would be as simple and un-l ’complicated as possible, said 'Mr Talbot. "Rabbit farming in a free’ (range will not be allowed.’ !We will ensure that there is! (a continuing strong and rig-’j orous campaign against the (feral rabbit, which had caused! (so much damage to the pas-(c itoral scene and to our live-’ a (stock over the last 100(1 (years. The problems caused-s | in the past will, not occur it again,” he said. jr Black market bunny i ' £ Black-marketing of New b Zealand’s feral grey rabbit n ’had become established since t |the market was developed] (for rabbit meat imported: t • (from China, said Sir Basil]e Arthur (Lab., Timaru) during Ip

■ the second reading of the Meat Amendment Bill. ■ Essential safeguards and! : regulations were needed now, before commercial rab- . bit farming got under way,! he said. [ During the committee! : stages of the bill, samples of • imported rabbit from China ■ were shown together with . samples of New Zealand feral rabbit and there had been little, if any, difference between them. Sir Basil said. ! “Some form of branding,! labelling, or identification, must be made on the carcase when rabbit farming (becomes legal, otherwise black-marketing will occur. It His essential that a brand of ■ some type is put on the carcase, to discourage retailers from taking the plastic bag (off the imported rabbit and placing the carcase of. the '(New. Zealand feral grey rabibit in the bag. I “This is being done at present to a limited extent,” he said. | Whiie there was no difficulty in seeing The difference between the Chinese rabbit and the farmed white! I rabbit, the Chinese rabbit: and the feral grey were! identical when placed in a plastic wrapper. “The Agricultural Pests ■Destruction Council told the 1 select committee that it is | impossible to tell the differ-1 ence between the imported’ !Chinese rabbit and the New! (Zealand feral rabbit when! (the carcase is unfrozen and! ■without identifying wrapp- ! ing,” said Sir Basil. ■ “Opposition members will 5 (support any steps to ensure; that the farming, slaughter-! ing, and marketing of the New Zealand feral rabbit is discouraged,” he said. “It is essential to take : (steps now, before the in-! dustry gets under way, to! (introduce regulations to! ensure that the branding or I ! labelling, certification, in-1 spection, or condemnation of! rabbits, rabbit meat, or rab-|| bit meat products is imple-j merited,” Sir Ba ' said.