Bills

Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:43): In the absence of any other speakers, I wish to make a few comments. Firstly, of course I thank all members for their contribution on the bill. I do not think there is any question that everyone in this parliament understands the significance of the cost of fuel within family budgets, at a personal level and also the cost to business. Energy and fuel costs are a significant component, and they need to have the attention of us here in the parliament. Just like water—for which the government has been very keen to introduce reductions—power prices and the like, fuel is another cost of living and a cost to business that we have to keep an eye on.

I thank members, and I do accept that there is a genuine commitment to try to introduce means by which we can keep consumers informed as to how they can best take advantage of the price imperatives in those budgets. The member for Giles raised some regional aspects, as did others. I will not go through them all. He pointed out a concern—and I think it is worth addressing— that the ACCC ought to be more vigilant in the monitoring and enforcement of compliance in this area, in particular to be alert and take action if necessary if there is any colluding between retailers in the offering of prices.

He provided information suggesting that, if he drives around the main town in his electorate, he will find repeatedly at multiple stations exactly the same retail price advertised, and that was supportive to him of the assertion that there was clearly collusion between retail operators. I think that is a far stretch. I do not come in here to jump to the defence of the ACCC; they can look after themselves.

He may be familiar with the Hon. Liz Penfold, a former member here, who I recall was a frequent writer to the ACCC—in fact, Deputy Speaker, she was a predecessor in your beautiful electorate of Flinders—about the practices she wanted to bring to their attention that she saw as depriving full benefit to her regional constituency, now yours. She would also complain that she would frequently get a rather short response or none at all and that they were not activating initiatives that she thought were meritorious and deserved their attention.

Having become the Attorney-General, with particular responsibility for Consumer and Business Services, we had a meeting of other responsible ministers in New Zealand last year, at which representatives of the ACCC attended, which I was pleased to see because I have never seen real people from the ACCC. I have had plenty of correspondence from them over the years, so it was quite nice to have some discussion with them. They were explaining to me the loss of a significant prosecution they had undertaken in relation to—and I cannot remember the particulars—a restraint of trade or some other breach they were asserting and they had lost. Of course, they were facing a significant legal bill as a result of it.

So I just tell the house this, for the member for Giles' sake: ACCC prosecutions, like any other successful prosecution, require evidence and obviously sufficient evidence to enable there to be, at least on the balance of probabilities, a successful outcome when they prosecute these matters. If the member has evidence of collusion between his retail outlets within his electorate, certainly they are matters that he could bring to the attention of the ACCC.

But it is not enough to simply say, 'They all have the same price, so they must be getting together on Sunday night'—and I am paraphrasing the situation—'saying it is going to be $1.09, so everyone agree to that and tomorrow morning that is what we are going to do'. I do not know what they do on Sunday nights but I make the point that it is not that difficult, especially if they all have the current apps, to be able to go online to see what is available in their town and to match it.

It may be that it is more likely that they are in a regional town and they do observe a price that is achievable for them to market their product at. They want to be competitive, so they match it. That may be a perfectly rational explanation. I am not the expert on fuel. In all my life, I have never understood how we have such huge fuel price fluctuations. They have all sorts of excuses and reports about these things, all these multi-ideas, and then there is the catchall, of course, about the wholesale oil prices and how the barrel price has gone up, and the Arabs want this and so on. We get all this anecdotally but, at the end of the day, it is probably something which is quite complex and there are a lot of factors which affect this. We are not going to be able to change that overnight.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member interjects to ask, 'What is the ACCC doing?' I have read a number of inquiries undertaken by these national agencies. I am none the wiser. The member may take the view that a body, like the ACCC, responsible for consumer law enforcement, ought to be following that up, and that may be so. Perhaps we just need another report. I am not sure that we are actually going to be able to have such an influence to do that. We are a big consumer of oil and fuel in this country. The member for West Torrens raised the valid point that oil refinery operations in Australia have plummeted, I think, to zero.

Ms Bedford: Four.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Four left in the Eastern States. The last one here was Port Stanvac, from which Mobil evacuated. They did not even clean it all up, but I think they left some fund—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Yes, not completely evacuated; they left quite a bit behind.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, they left. They left their rubbish behind, they left the tower behind and there has been a huge lot of clean-up needed. In fairness, I think Mobil paid for most of it, but it is still sitting there as vacant land and has not been developed into something useful for South Australians. I will just make the point that that has happened. I remember the Hon. Kevin Foley trying to give us all an explanation and excuses about what was going to happen there and what great aspirations he had for the site, but it is still a dead site. It will be another thing that our government has to fix up I suppose.

Moving on, I thank the member for Hammond for, as usual, his entertaining, educational illumination about the use of fuel for heavy vehicles such as tractors and the like. We had the spectacular water-skiing career outlined by the member for Chaffey, who also discussed how he utilised fuel. We all need it. We need it for our transport services. We need it for those heavy vehicles that deliver our milk and butter and everything else into our food supply.

Everything we buy and eat and the services we rely upon rely on fuel. Clearly, it is the necessary ingredient for our commercial and social survival. I do not want to slip over the others, as they were all meritorious contributions, but what has completely escaped me is any indication from anyone in the opposition as to why, in 18 years—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sixteen.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —no, 18 years—I have not heard anything from the Australian Labor Party about pursuing a Western Australian 24-hour price cycle in 18 years. They were in government for 16 years, and I heard the member for Kaurna discuss how difficult the high cost of fuel is for his constituency. In 16 years, none of them came in here with a bill of any model to say, 'This is how we're going to address this.'

Over the past two years, Leon Byner and I have had lots of chats with the RAA, which of course was a significant proponent of having a mechanism by which consumers could maintain some input into getting cheaper fuel, yet in that time there has been stunning silence from the opposition as to a model. From time to time, they come out and bleat, 'Oh, it has taken the Liberals so long to actually get on with this,' or, 'They should be hurrying this along.' If this was the hare and the tortoise, let me tell you, we are the hare. There was nothing from them for 18 years, no model indicating the Western Australian model.

I do not say that because I am in any way foreshadowing the government's opposition to the consideration of the member for Florey's amendments—I would not be so disrespectful. But, in the absence of there being any indication of its merit, it does beg the question why they kept insisting that we hurry up with the New South Wales model and that, when Queensland did theirs, there was no excuse whatsoever for not getting on with implementing that.

When the member for Florey raised a private member's bill to support a replica of the Western Australian 24-hour freeze model, they did not rush out to say, 'This is a great idea. We know we must have missed it since it has actually been happening in Western Australia since 2001, but even though we might have been blinkered and not listened, now that she has done it we think it's a great idea. We would encourage the government to do this.' Not a peep.

When we go through the consultation on the proposal ultimately, as recommended by the Productivity Commission, without excluding the Western Australian model in suggesting that it is completely unmeritorious, again there is absolute silence. The ALP do not come out and say, 'The member for Florey has got it perfectly right. She is spot on. We have to jump into this opportunity.' There had been public statements by me in the parliament and by the member for Florey that she was pursuing this model, and not a peep.

We encouraged the member for Florey to present her model to the Productivity Commission, because it is true that she has been quite tireless in her advocacy for this consumer matter to be dealt with. Since raising the model that she thinks we should pursue, she has been, I think—I hope—respectfully brought into the fold sufficient to ensure that she has been consulted along the way. In fact, she is mentioned in the Productivity Commission report outcome, so I think that has been an important initiative.

Now I hear glowing recommendations by members of the opposition that the member for Florey has not only been a champion of this cause but she has this stellar model which should be, I think, in the member for West Torrens' description, immortalised as being in the genius category. In fact, I was so interested to see the member for Torrens—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: West Torrens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —West Torrens' description of how important this model was and how attached he was to it that I thought to myself, 'I wonder if the member for Florey is writing this down to edit it for her next preselection speech.'

Ms Bedford: I don't need to be preselected to think about it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, you might be, of course, if you start your own party or something of that nature and you want to be preselected for that. It was just unbelievable listening to that. This is the man who was the architect of her removal from her seat—

Ms Bedford: No he's not. That's untrue.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, of the Labor right, who has done everything he can to get rid of the member for Florey, yet now I hear ringing endorsement of this genius contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General, I am anticipating the point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I have never done any harm to the member for Florey. She is someone I hold in high regard and I ask the member to withdraw that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I was about to ask—

Ms Bedford: I can tell you who wanted to get rid of me, if you want to know.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Florey, I am speaking. I was about to bring the Attorney back to the topic at hand. It seems the member for West Torrens has taken some offence to the member's comments. Attorney, would you be prepared to withdraw?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to withdraw and even apologise to the member for West Torrens if he is in any way offended at being in any way involved in the execution of the member for Florey as an ALP member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General, we will stay on topic.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Anyway, there it was, that ringing endorsement from one after another of this magnificent structure that is being proposed. I also want to make it clear that the commitments made prior to the election were by the Labor Party that they would have a fuel initiative—if I can put it as general as that, as I do not want to be tripping up on any little aspect of that—and that, from our side of politics, we would review all of what was there and that we would look at what we would introduce.

We did not want to simply come in and say, 'We are going to pick this apple or this orange and this is what we are going to do.' We made it very clear what our election commitment objective was. Very shortly after we came into office, it became abundantly clear that Victoria as a state was looking at the New South Wales model at that stage and how they were going and had done their review of it and took the view that petrol prices could go up and decided that they would not have a model at all; they would not have an initiative at all.

I suppose that threw a bit of a level of concern into what New South Wales was doing and whether in fact it was going to be effective. So it does not surprise me that we have some different models around the country. Nobody has picked up the Western Australia model, but nevertheless it suits the Western Australians; that is fine, they can do as they wish. They have had it for a very long time. Some jurisdictions have elected not to have anything at all because they are not satisfied even of the threshold issue that some kind of application via an electronic app is actually going to be useful.

This is picked up to some degree by the Productivity Commission because, when it became clear that we had different models and different data of reliability on this, we asked the Productivity Commission to look at it. I think it is very clear from their report that they are not 110 per cent confident that any kind of intervention is going to work anyway, but they say that, if it is successful, then the models they have examined are what we might rely on for the purpose of taking up a model. So we have done that and brought in the legislation.

Of course, meanwhile, what has happened is that there has been a plethora of applications available because, typical, there are some genius teenagers out there creating all these apps, as they seem to be very capable of doing. I am looking at one of my favourites at the moment—Ingo Block of my office is the genius who puts it on my phone and makes sure that I know how to work it—and it tells me that right at the minute apparently the cheapest place to buy fuel is at Thorngate and the closest to me is at West Terrace.

I can go to a little map and it tells me exactly what stations are around where I am at this point, or I can look all around the state. These are already out there. This information is already out there. There is a lot of other data that they give with it, but why then are we doing something else? What we are doing is we are making sure that by law everybody who sells fuel has to put that information in here. This is not completely comprehensive; that is the first thing. There can be retailers who decide that they are not going to be in these schemes and they are not going to provide that data. This is to mandate them to do it.

The second thing this requires under the new law is that, if they change these prices, they have to record that data within 30 minutes. I am advised (because I am not an expert on these things) that as the prices change—this is a push of the button exercise—obviously the outlets are all advised of what the new price is and various aspects in that regard. The retailers press another button, of course, for lots of other compliance obligations they have, and this will be one other thing by law they will be required to do.

It may only be a matter of seconds before that new information transmits to the central pool and then is available on this mechanism, but they have up to 30 minutes, and if they do not of course there are $10,000 fines, etc. I say to the house that, although we have had some rather interesting approaches now by the opposition on what they think is the answer to this, newly enlivened by the matter that has been brought to their attention in this debate, realistically we do need to give this particular model as per this bill a go.

I just conclude on that matter by saying that my office did a bit of an audit of all the people, including members of the public and MPs who have written to me about this matter during the last two and a bit years, and except for the feedback from the member for Florey, which has been prolific, where preferences are stated every single submission I have received, apparently, has been for a Fuel Check system. So that is exactly what we are proposing to implement in this legislation.

I have not yet identified whether any of those letters have come from any of the people in the ALP, but I will soon let you know if I find them. In any event, I suppose they are all a bit busy working out over there on the Labor right who is going to take over the ALP Victoria division—good luck with that. I just loved reading the front page of The Australian today, which was just beautiful. I might even get it framed actually. There are some magnificent quotes there about the way they address each other and speak so highly of each other.

Another aspect I will just mention is that the RAA (Royal Automobile Association, and I disclose that I am a member and perhaps other members of parliament are members as well) provides a service for motorists and it is the peak body. It has, as the peak consumer, been calling for a Fuel Check model, at least to my knowledge, since the latter part of 2017. I note that that continues, and again our proposal is consistent with that.

I think I have mentioned the Productivity Commission model as identifying the net benefits as best they can to the most number of consumers, as a net benefit. The crossbench has been personally briefed by the lead commissioner on why the model is preferred. Again, I respect the member for Florey's view that she maintains that her model, the Western Australian model, is the best, but in any event they have had the opportunity to meet with the commissioner.

While the introduction of the bill has occurred I have requested that regulations be prepared and made available for circulation to the opposition and the crossbench. That is not usual. I place on the record that that has not been done on the basis of presuming what the parliament will do with this legislation, but I have worked on the premise that there is a universal request for action in this area, and we are delivering it. Obviously, these regulations will be the subject of industry and retailers' consultation following the passage of the bill if it is passed.

Should alterations or modifications to the scheme need to be made, these will easily be able to be accommodated. I make the point that it is like some of the other legislation when you introduce a new regulatory regime: it takes a significant amount of resources to develop these proposals. Consistent with a number of things made by the Productivity Commission in its report, and the way in which the options are moving at such a rapid rate in the community as to what products are available, the trial period is really a safeguard.

What we do not want to do is to introduce something and then find that it is not as good as something else that has been developed and that we are already locked into something permanently. I say here in the parliament that if we have a mechanism, either in the form we are proposing or in some other modification of it, and it does not work and there is an opportunity for another option to be pursued, then I will advocate for that. I think that is important. I think we all agree that we need to have this service available to consumers. We think we are offering the best model; others think there is an alternative.

Ms Bedford: Do I have to wait two years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Two years, of course, is just a little tiny dot in time of the member for Florey's luminary career in politics. I make this point: if we just simply say, 'This is what we're going to have and this will be forever in place,' and we start signing up contracts, then we may find it very difficult to become flexible as to where we advance from there. However, I for one will be advocating for us to have an effective fuel price reducing model that is available to consumers for them to get the cheapest possible fuel on the most occasions for the most vehicles.

Another aspect I will place on the record is to remind members—and the Productivity Commission alluded to this as well—that for the scheme to be successful it also has to have a high level of take-up. I do not know how many members here in the parliament or members of their staff or family would take up the opportunity to check fuel prices every time they went to buy fuel for their domestic vehicles.

Obviously, especially those who might have multiple vehicles in their family or business may be more encouraged to follow this as it may be a bigger proportional aspect of their budget. But, because there are a number of people out there who are already taking up these options in the apps available—and there is a number of them like PetrolSpy and MotorMouth, and I could ask Mr Block to give me a list of all the others but I do not want to be here commercially promoting any particular product—I make the point that there are a lot of them out there.

If they already have a client base, what we want to be able to do if they want to stay with the product that they currently have for free is encourage them to keep using them. What will be saying to them is, 'You will have all the information in here. It will be a better service and it will be more timely.' That is obviously what we are trying to do: make sure it is timely, accurate and comprehensive.

With those few words, I thank members for their contribution and seek that the bill be now read a second time. I think there is a desperate aspiration and appetite to go to committee, as I foreshadow some amendments and a few from the government.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [DepPrem–2]—

Page 2, line 4—After 'Pricing' insert 'Information'

Essentially, this has been brought to my attention as necessary to make the legislation consistent. This has been identified as an omission in the drafting.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question is in regard to consultation and, specifically, who from industry participated in the consultation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The following parties provided submissions to the commission for its report: the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association, the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Caltex Australia, the member for Florey, informed sources, the Royal Automobile Association (RAA) and four confidential submissions. They were matters that we have taken into account in relation to the productivity aspect.

I think it is fair to say that Ingo Block of my office also made me meet with all sorts of different people who apparently are experts on fuel, including people from interstate. I recall having meetings with informed sources. Obviously, I had meetings with the member for Florey. There were some petrol retail personnel I met with.

All the way, we were getting a viewing and the extensive services not just of Abbie, who is sitting here next to me, but all of her team at CBS, who were frequently referring back to the Royal Automobile Association and what their view was in relation to trials and reports on other interstate matters, notably New South Wales, Queensland and Northern Territory. Comprehensive assessments were done of those by our CBS division.

Not long before the member raised the Western Australian model, there had been some viewing of that and I had been briefed as to how that program worked and how it had been operating. I was surprised to hear at that stage that it had actually been operating since 2001. In any event, I had briefings internally on that.

I am also advised that consulting on the regulations with major and independent retailers and industry has occurred and will continue because we are still only in draft form, which I think you all have copies of, as I understand it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which industry respondents to the consultation were supportive of the proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Of all the models that were out there, member for Lee, all of the respondents, except for the member for Florey, considered that the Queensland model was the most appropriate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to clarify, all industry respondents to the consultation were supportive of either the Queensland or WA models?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I am advised, of the submissions we have, if we were to intervene—that is, to impose a regime—the Queensland model was preferred.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How many consumer groups did the Attorney-General meet with?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apart from the business consumer group itself, there was also another group. I will just get their correct name because they are a lobby group or an association that sits within CBS. They have a room there, but they are actually independent people. They are Consumers SA. That was not their original name. Some of them are fairly mature in age. They meet on a voluntary basis and have meetings with me from time to time. We go through issues of the day and this is another matter they raised. I cannot recall them ever having any objection to us having some process to try to get fuel prices down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When the matter was referred to the South Australian Productivity Commission, why did the government not seek recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot recall specifically what the terms of reference were now, but the Premier formally referred the matter as an article of investigation for them to look at and to make an assessment of two things, firstly, whether there was merit in having an intervention at all and, secondly, if so, looking at what models were already out in the field and what should be taken up. I think they have done that.

I do not think they prioritised that you have to do it or recommended that you do this, this and this. I think they identified fairly clearly their concerns. I would not put it that high. They are not as confident that there is going to be an automatic reduction in price, but that level of transmittal, as I am advised, did not specify. I asked for recommendations, but the findings were made.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have to say that I find that answer unsatisfactory. The Productivity Commission was established by the government for a particular purpose. I would have thought that, in referring a scheme such as this to a commission such as the one the government established, the government would be interested in the commission's views about how this scheme would work and would seek recommendations, yet the advice I have is that the commission in its report said they were specifically asked by the government not to make recommendations. I do not think I have had a satisfactory answer from the government as to why. Why do you not want the Productivity Commission to make recommendations? As detailed in the second reading contribution by the member for Lee, I understand the report gave us a tick-and-cross scale—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Some double ticks.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and some double ticks in various colours for their approval or disapproval. I would have thought that any inquiry by any organisation independent of government that has expertise in this area would ultimately make recommendations, yet the Productivity Commission—and I do not want to put words into their mouth—seems to me was saying, 'In the normal course of events, we would have made recommendations, but we were specifically told not to.' That is the part that I cannot grapple with in regard to the government's handling of this.

I think it is important to note, as the Attorney-General considers her answer to this question, the Productivity Commission is populated with people of expertise. I would have thought the government and the parliament would have benefited from their views and recommendations on this matter. I can only speculate that perhaps they had a predetermined outcome in mind when they gave it to the Productivity Commission, and they were fearful of recommendations from the Productivity Commission being in opposition or adverse to the government's intention.

I hope that is not accurate, but I would like the Attorney-General to elaborate more to the house why a referral was given to the Productivity Commission and then an instruction—if it was an instruction—not to make recommendations.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To dispel the inaccuracies that are pitted through that contribution, I will read you the letter of instruction:

Dear Dr Butlin,

As you would be aware, my government is committed to supporting South Australians to manage the cost of living.

My government has been exploring options to increase transparency of fuel prices and support South Australians to access information that would enable them to take advantage of the cheapest prices.

To assist our work, I ask that the Commission investigate and report on potential models that would increase transparency of fuel prices and enable customers to make informed choices when purchasing fuel, having regard to:

a) the net benefits and effectiveness of models used in other jurisdictions, including the real-time fuel pricing scheme in New South Wales and the 24-hour price locking mechanism in Western Australia

b) current regulatory arrangements for fuel pricing in South Australia and how alternative models compare

c) the most cost-effective solution to increase transparency in fuel prices in South Australia.

It is recognised that the cost of fuel is influenced by many factors, including overseas and local market forces.

The commissioned report detailing the outcomes of the investigation is to be provided to me no later than three months after receipt of this letter. Per the Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular 046—The South Australian Productivity Commission relevant agency staff will be made available to the Commission to support it in undertaking this investigation.

I thank you and the Commission in advance for your efforts in relation to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Hon Steven Marshall MP

Premier of South Australia

Most importantly, there is no instruction that they cannot give recommendations. Clearly, it was open for them to do so.

I think it is very clear in their report that they had some question about whether anything like this, any intervention, would produce lower prices. Perhaps they were cognisant of the Victorians' review and their dismissal of whether these things even work, because in their case they were worried it was actually going to push prices up. That would be a disaster for consumers. But they have raised the concerns about that in their report. Notwithstanding that, they have identified the models that could work if they have a capacity to reduce fuel and that they may be workable. So here we are.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I understand you are trying to clarify a point on this. This will be your last question on this clause.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is very generous of you, sir.

The CHAIR: As always, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for giving me my three questions, as stipulated in the standing orders. It is very big of you.

The CHAIR: I took your second question as seeking clarification.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excellent; so I have some more. Thank you, sir. You are a good man. The government has produced draft regulations, I understand. Can I ask why the government has decided not to enshrine the scheme in legislation to provide certainty, rather than just by regulation, given it believes that this is the best model for motorists and retailers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For all the reasons I have outlined and the need to keep flexible so that we can make some adjustment if other methods and/or amendments need to be made to make this effective. We have taken notice of what the Productivity Commission said. We accept that there are myriad industry models out there, apps and everything else. We want to be able to be cutting-edge on this and responsive and flexible to make sure we have a model that works.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: You can take it as a given, sir, I will have questions on everything. Attorney, with regard to the Productivity Commission, they were asked to evaluate doing either of the two models or perhaps doing nothing. They could do nothing. They could recommend or give you the option of doing nothing. Did any of the submissions suggest doing nothing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, Informed Sources, which is a company that operates in Queensland. They are data aggregators, which is a generous way to describe them. They provide the base information and aggregate it for the purposes of these products that we see on our phones. I do remember meeting with a representative from the firm from Queensland, who came down to Adelaide.

His view was that it was not necessary and that this was a product they produce anyway. For arrangements with the ACCC, my understanding is that it is provided free as a service from them. So that was something that they did not think was necessary. I do not think they were opposing having apps and so on, but they were just saying that it was not necessary to mandate it by legislation.

Ms BEDFORD: Of course, this is one of the reasons why we have an interest in the whole thing, and that is, as it stood, the apps were not providing accurate, timely information for the whole of the city. That is why we welcome what you are doing in one respect because you are at least forcing that to become something that is an improvement. The problem is that the apps are not going to allow people to get to where they need to go if it is further than 30 minutes away if prices are fluctuating. That is part of the problem.

A number of submissions were received for the report, but four of them were kept confidential. Can the Attorney confirm that the four were perhaps even just from the fuel industry and perhaps why they had to be kept confidential? What is in these submissions that is so important that we cannot be privy to the information that is in them for the purposes of making a decision by evaluation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer. I am aware that there are four confidential submissions that went to the Productivity Commission. It is not a completely unusual circumstance that people put in submissions and then ask for their material to be kept confidential, so I do not know. They have not come to me. They were just presented to the Productivity Commission and, for whatever reason, they have elected to respect that confidentiality and not release them.

I think it was not to the Productivity Commission, but the highest number that I can ever recall of secret, confidential submissions that were put in was on the Mount Barker development. I know because I tried to FOI them all, and a whole lot were not able to be produced because of the confidentiality that had been offered and made available to the people making the submissions. So I do not think it is an unusual practice. What they said and who put them in, I do not know.

Ms BEDFORD: I just want to clarify whether the group called Informed Sources is also known as MotorMouth somewhere else, or if they are associated in any way, and if that is the same group—that is, MotorMouth—that has found to be involved in price collusion by the ACCC?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know. My understanding from Informed Sources when I met with them—and I do not know if they have an interest in MotorMouth; I think they provide data to a whole lot of app people. That is their job: they aggregate data. I am advised that it is a separate arm of the business. How they are interrelated I do not know, as I have not done a company search on them, but my understanding is that they aggregate data.

I think they also provide it, do they not, to populate the data in the Queensland model and New South Wales? I am getting a no for New South Wales. Apparently, Queensland use this data aggregate company. I might be underscoring their importance in relation to what other work they do, but that is all I know them as—a group that collate data, then they package it up and make it available for products to populate a service.

Ms BEDFORD: As a supplementary, can I just clarify if you have an email from Informed Sources that we can see?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: You do not have an email. Then the supplementary really is: if these two entities, MotorMouth and Informed Sources, are indeed involved with each other, and one of them has been found to be involved in price collusion by the ACCC, is that not a concern for us?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is a concern, member for Florey, for anyone who falls foul of any laws. Whether there is any integration between a data provider and an application service—I have not identified if On the Run or Caltex or any of these other companies have shares in other entities, but that is not an uncommon situation where there is a financial investment or relationship across wholesale, retail or service provision.

That in itself I do not see as sinister. I think if there was a circumstance where they were only providing to a certain application, and they wanted us as a government to look at only that product, like if you are saying there is some connection with MotorMouth, and they were trying to sell us that product, then I think there would be matters to be concerned about. But we are actually proposing a model that sets out a regulatory arrangement where we are not picking who they use.

It was a decision of the Queensland government, obviously, to use Informed Services (it is a Queensland company) to provide the data for their model. That is a matter for them. What we are doing here today is proposing to the parliament that we have an enforcement regime to make everybody put their data in, and in a timely way, and then you can use whatever product you want to to secure that because all retailers will have to be in. I also add that the South Australian aggregator will be subject to a procurement process.

Informed Sources are the ones I happened to see who were on the list who came to see us, but there may be other data aggregate companies that through the procurement process present and they think they should be ultimately selected. I just make the point that it was only this group that came to see us, I think, of that industry.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, that's correct.

Ms BEDFORD: On the indulgence of the Chair, just again to clarify beyond any doubt: are we not concerned that the decision, or the evaluation of the options which has resulted in you going down this path, has used information that could have been sullied in this fashion without going—to be perfectly clear that it has nothing to do with it being successful in one jurisdiction rather than the other?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hear what you are saying; that is, how can you rely on information they have given you for the purposes of making a decision in what we are doing? Well, I suppose in this instance that entity was one that said, 'You don't need to do this,' so we have actually not listened to them. We are actually doing something that is inconsistent with what they say needs to be done.

I would start to be a bit concerned if they were the ones who said, 'You have to do this,' and we are doing what they want and then everyone else said no, and then we find out they are a party to a potential procurement process. That might raise some concerns. But they are the ones in this instance who have said, 'You do not need to do this.' We have obviously taken a different view. We think we do.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Just getting back to the confidential submissions, how can we be certain that anything that was discussed—and I understand that you do not want to know the names and who put the submissions in—but how can we be certain that anything that was put to the commission with suggestions or whatever was taken on board in their report without identifying who may have suggested it? That is the issue. I can understand not divulging who may be interviewed but, if it is not commercial-in-confidence, take all that other stuff out about the recommendations or whatever is discussed with those four submissions, could I get an assurance that it is in the commission's findings?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not the author of the report, so I cannot say that specifically. But I urge the member to note two things. Firstly, the four submissions have been identified as confidential submissions. There has been no indication whatsoever by the commission that they have just ignored them or said, 'They did not give their name on the bottom, so we have just ignored them,' or, 'They have raised some ideas but we are just going to dismiss them.'

I think by listing them we can start with the presumption that they have read them and, if there is something in them that is useful, they will have taken that into account. I think otherwise in fairness I would have expected that they would say, 'We received these submissions but they were too late,' or, 'They were off topic,' or, 'They were just some rant,' and, 'We have not addressed it.' But I think in the sense of disclosure, it is reasonable that the Productivity Commission makes clear what they have taken into account, and that is the disclosure of the submission process. I think we would have had an indication from them if they felt they were of no weight or merit.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Attorney has supplied draft regulations to be made under the bill's provisions if passed. Can the Attorney indicate what consultation will be undertaken in relation to these regulations prior to their being made?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, all of the industry groups. That particularly relates to the people who have to comply with them, and there are a number on that list that I read out before. Basically, the retail operators need to disclose they are going to be putting their price up. They may come along and say, 'What happens if we have multiple outlets and we are 31 minutes late on one of them or multiple of them? How is that going to apply? Do we get $10,000 fines on each?' These are the sorts of things that are teased out in regulation. I am also foreshadowing some amendments to allow for the capacity for prosecution as an expiable offence to deal with what we would expect to be the minor infraction of that. But we are also happy to provide a full list of who they are as retailers. I have a whole list here somewhere.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 2.

Ms BEDFORD: Should this bill pass, Attorney, when do you anticipate Adelaide Motorists will have access to the new fuel pricing information?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am hopeful, subject to it getting through the house in some timely manner. Obviously, in this next session, we have July before the winter break. Obviously, we need to go out to procurement and get the regulations in order. So I am still very hopeful that before the end of the year we will have a process in place which will have the mandatory obligation and will populate the extra information to make our current apps both timely and fully accurate.

Ms BEDFORD: Can the Attorney indicate what discussions have already been had with interstate governments and market operators in anticipation of the procurement of an aggregation system and, in particular, Western Australia's system which, as we know, is older? In fact, the Productivity Commission said to me that that was one of the problems with it, that it was old and had not been reviewed. As you probably know, it was brought in by the Court Liberal government at the time. Will the Attorney be speaking to Western Australia about theirs as well?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not, personally. I have spoken to various people in government during the time we were looking at different models but Mr Soulio, the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, obviously has regular meetings in terms of keeping an eye on what models are available. He has also been a key person to consult with the RAA; they both get various pieces of information about how those models are going.

However, all the discussions that are to take place in relation to the procurement process are handled exclusively by CBS. It would obviously be entirely inappropriate for me—and frankly I could not even tell you who are in the data aggregate business—

Ms BEDFORD: It will be a relief for you to know that I do not know either.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No; in any event, for the purpose of this model that is what has to go out to procurement, and that is the process that has to have various integrity regimes sitting above it.

Ms BEDFORD: In terms of the two-year pilot the government proposes, can the Attorney indicate if anything would make her review it faster than two years? If it went to the full two years, how would she expect that review to be undertaken, what evidence would it consider, and how would its independence and credibility be assured?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think there is an opportunity for it to be earlier. If, for example, there was a new product and it became clear it was going to be better, that may happen.

Ms BEDFORD: As in an aggregating system?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As in a completely new system. It may be that Victoria, which has not taken up any system, decides that they progress something and come to us midway through next year and say, 'Look, this has been brilliant. We recommended it around the country.' Obviously we would not ignore that.

The advice we have is a two-year trial; do not have something for six months or a year. I think they had a year in Queensland. We did not think that was long enough, and I think they are still working through how they are going to review that sufficiently in that initial time. I think December last year was the—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was two years? I beg your pardon. I thought they were going to do an interim assessment after—no, I am getting a no; it is two years. I was mistaken. I thought Queensland was doing it after a year. We have picked a two-year trial, and that is just the advice we have as to sufficient time to implement something, obviously get someone interested enough to do the job, and also be able to give it a review.

In terms of how you review these things, quite frankly I do not have the detail of that. The most pressing objective of this is to make sure that prices do not go up; that is the first thing. The second is that we give the chance for a good number in the community to have access to cheaper prices. They are the two big things we want to do. If it turned out that this model does put prices up—which, I think, is a possibility foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission—then we will have to think about whether we abandon that earlier, I suppose.

All I can do is indicate to the member that I am committed to providing a product that will help people get access to cheaper fuel. If this one does not work I would advocate to the government they look at any other model that had a demonstrable success rate. So far Queensland has been the stand-out, and that is what we are following.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the Attorney-General just tell the committee that, as the Productivity Commission suggests, this model may push prices up?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was trying to paraphrase what they are saying. They have raised the fact that there were concerns about other models and the price going up, because when New South Wales was reviewed—they also have a model similar to this, as distinct from Western Australia—their review, that Victoria took notice of, suggested there was a real risk of there being a sustained increase in fuel prices. That is, it would have the directly opposite effect.

It seemed they were so concerned about that, from the commentary they made, that they said, 'We're not going to go down this line at all. We are just going to abandon this.' That was back in 2018. I do not think the Productivity Commission can dismiss that. Queensland has continued and is still working to the idea that it can work. I think time will soon tell as to whether or not that has had a deleterious effect.

I think it is pretty clear from the Productivity Commission report. They are not saying that a program like this will work; they are saying it is something you have to assess. It is difficult to quantify their benefits, but I am saying to the member for Florey, and indeed to all members, that our government's objective is to provide a system that actually gives people access to cheaper fuel. That is our objective. If it turned out that any of these systems actually forced prices to go up and we had reports saying that, we would have to think about what else we could do.

Ms Bedford: Not in WA; it went down.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know the member for Florey is passionate about WA. They do not have oscillating prices in the ACT either. My understanding of their system is that they have a fixed regime and their price continues. They do not get the benefit of changing fuel prices, whereas we do. We hear all the stories of people who are irritated by that, and who get annoyed that they did not get the 99¢ fuel in the morning and see that it is $1.10 when they drive home. However, we do not hear complaints from those who are driving along in the morning and see that fuel is $1.10 and then it is 99¢ when they go home in the afternoon.

Ms Bedford: There are not that many of them, that's why.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, people who actually want to watch the prices and take the benefit of when prices are low and not at their peak are effectively denied that in the ACT. They are not denied it in Western Australia, but they know they have a freeze for 24 hours. I know the member is keen on that one. I will just make the point that there are pluses and minuses to these things.

The ACT, let's face it, has a high level of public sector employment and a lot of people probably have fuel cards as well. I do not treat Canberra as being representative of Australian country towns; nevertheless, it is a system they live with. I think other regional towns have a very different dynamic. They do not have a critical mass of government money in them and they certainly do not have as generous an amount of money applied as Canberra has. It has a territory government with commonwealth benefits. Moneys flow in Canberra.

Bendigo in Victoria or Whyalla in South Australia, which is another major regional town, do not have anywhere near the infrastructure and benefits of somewhere like Canberra. It is hard to identify those benefits, but I hope you are clear about what we are saying: the benefit is cheaper prices of unleaded fuel.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I just put to the Attorney-General—and I am not accusing her of misleading the parliament or anything like that—that she just gave two contradictory statements. She said to the parliament that if, as the Productivity Commission suggests, this system puts prices up, the advice the government has received is that this may do the opposite to the intent of the government. What advice are they relying on that this will lower prices?

Those two statements about the government's intent and the advice they receive do not make any sense. If the intent is this program, and the advice she has received is that this program may increase prices, then the intent is not to lower prices; the intent is just to have a fuel watch scheme. If you want to lower prices, you would implement a system that the advice says will lower prices. The Attorney is telling the parliament that the advice she has received from an independent agency that has been asked to inquire into this is that it may push prices up, and the government presses ahead anyway in the hope that it will lower prices.

So it seems the strategy here is not a fact-based piece of work but hope: 'Despite the evidence, we hope it will work. Despite the expert opinion, we hope this will lower prices, and if it does not, we will change it.' I have to say that concerns me—the process concerns me. These are not my words: these are the Attorney's words. The Attorney has just told the parliament that the advice she has received from her Productivity Commission is that this may have the opposite effect to the government's intent. If it may have the opposite effect, firstly, why are we doing it, and secondly, do you have any other advice about any other schemes that may not increase the prices, other than do nothing?

The opposition have committed, if these amendments are unsuccessful, to supporting the government's legislation. So we are relying on the government—because they have access to the experts, and even geniuses, according to the Attorney-General; you can put that in the preselection pamphlet later on—that this will work, despite the Productivity Commission's concerns that it may not work. If I could ask the Attorney-General to come back to South Australia—not Queensland, not New South Wales, not Canberra and not Western Australia: does the advice that she has received say or not say that the scheme will lower prices?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take most of that as a comment, but I would urge members to review page 5 of the report, where the commission sets out the task they are given. It states:

In addressing the task, the Commission has confined its analysis to retail petrol prices. Diesel and autogas are excluded because neither has demonstrated price cycle behaviour. That said, diesel and autogas information could be included in any price transparency [agreement South Australia] might decide to adopt, which is consistent with the approach taken in some other Australian jurisdictions.

The Commission considers four tests must be met to justify government intervention to increase fuel price transparency to consumers (motorists). The intervention must:

improve the scope, quantity and integrity of fuel price information available to consumers;

be taken up by consumers;

be acted on by consumers; and

provide benefits to consumers that exceed the costs of regulation to retailers and government.

That is what it set itself to achieve in that task. In doing that, it has looked at exploring the options and has ultimately identified—I think as best it can within the envelope of not being certain as to how these things are going to work—that the intent is to improve transparency and access to the information about the cheapest local prices, as I am directly advised.

Essentially, that is the best we can do. I want to thank the Productivity Commission for undertaking its work promptly and helping us to try to make some assessment. It is not just as simple as going to a furniture shop and working out which couch you are going to buy. This is complicated—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: And that's hard work.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It may be hard work for the member for West Torrens, but I will make this point: we are not certain about how these things are going to work. The apps, as they are, I think people apparently use quite a bit—

Ms Bedford: They are not accurate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member says they are not accurate. Well, it is not comprehensive. It is not all of it. It does not mean it is not accurate as to what will be on West Terrace station, which is the one I have referred to; it is just that it may not have two others around it that could be cheaper, because they are not in the system at all. So I agree with that: that is exactly why we are proposing this law.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is clear to me now that the intent here is not to lower prices but simply to advertise the cheapest price. That is the difference. We have got to the core of it now: the government's policy is not to lower fuel prices but just to make known the cheapest price. That is a passive approach to the market—not to interfere with retailers, not to give any competitive advantage to consumers but simply, as a passive observer, to say, 'These are the prices. This is the most expensive and this is the cheapest.' That is it. That is not what we were told before the election. Before the election we were told by shadow minister after the shadow minister that the proposal by the Liberal opposition was to lower petrol prices through a fuel watch scheme. That is what we were told.

Now we are being told the opposite. Now we are being told to vote for a framework that may not work, and the government's intent is not to lower prices but to simply let consumers know where the cheapest price is—so let us know the best of a bad lot. I do not think that is what anyone in this house is looking for other than maybe the executive. I think the rest of us in the parliament are looking for a scheme that actually breaks up this monopoly and gives consumers the power and authority that they need to get cheaper prices.

The intent now is laid bare and unfortunately I think it shows the government's intent is not what they said it was. It only just occurred to me now, being again referred to the terms of reference, that nowhere in the terms of reference does the government ask the commission to come up with a scheme or give advice to the government on a scheme to lower petrol prices. It simply says, 'We want to work out a way to show everyone where the cheapest fuel is.'

No wonder industry is endorsing this—because it is just passive. I suppose that is the great thing about parliament: it brings these things out, maybe intentionally or inadvertently, but then again I go back to my second reading contribution where the Premier was attempting to backtrack completely on FIVEaa from a fuel watch scheme because he said it could have an adverse impact. Yes, it may have an adverse impact if you are passive, but if you actually intervene to the scheme, as the member for Florey is attempting to do, to remove the risk from consumers and place it entirely on the retailers—

Ms Bedford: But only for 23 hours.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, every 23 hours they have to make a decision about what their fuel pricing is. That changes the market dramatically. It goes from being a passive observer to what the prices are—I seek leave to continue my remarks.

The CHAIR: I am at the will of the house. Far be it from me to stifle debate but I would be keen pass clause 2 at least before 6 o'clock.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to give it a shot. I take most of that as comment, because I know there is a message to receive. I would urge the member perhaps in the adjournment to have look at the report again and reread my second reading speech. This is a scheme to enable consumer choice to get the best price. What the Productivity Commission observed is that if you have big buy-in to this you have an opportunity for it to work and be of effective.

There has been an alert interstate that sometimes this type of intervention might have the effect of actually pushing up prices. Our objective here is to arm consumers with all the information so that if they are interested in this issue, that is getting the cheapest possible price, then they are going to have a chance to do it. I do not think I can add any more to that answer. If you are able to pass that clause then I will move progress.

The CHAIR: I think the best thing might be to just report progress. With the idea of encouraging future debate, I will accept the Attorney's motion at this point to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.