Bills

Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2020.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:00): I am pleased to have the chance to rise to make some remarks in support of the Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill 2020 setting out, as it does, the structure under which regulations would be put in place for real-time fuel price monitoring in this state. This is another good outcome in the early days of this Marshall Liberal government.

Consistent with what we have now seen as a pattern of behaviour by the government, it is driven by the merits and an appropriate inquiry into comparative schemes and in the light of advice as to the extent of benefits that will accrue to members of the community who are buying fuel in this state. That has come to the government more specifically in the form of the Productivity Commission report.

The commission completed its work in March and provided that report for the government's consideration and that has led then promptly to this response, providing as it does for real-time price monitoring. The Productivity Commission report tells us some important things that I think are important to bear in mind in the context of this debate, particularly where we have heard about alternative schemes in some contribution from the member for Florey primarily and her crossbench colleagues, as well as some observation from the opposition.

The evidence is mixed, according to the Productivity Commission, about the nature and extent of the benefits that will accrue, so there is an element of caution in the Productivity Commission's work. However, there is an indication that by implementing a fuel price monitoring scheme we can anticipate that there will be benefits in the order of $3 million to $8 million accruing to South Australian purchasers of fuel. So that is good news and the implementation of the scheme in due course will tell the story.

Of course, South Australians will not be surprised to see that a good government will not be persisting in any arrangement that would have any tendency to increase fuel prices on the contrary. So we will see what that brings over the course of the proposed two-year trial. I say that to the member for Florey, the opposition, and those who have considered this matter, very much with a view to ensuring good consumer outcomes, because there is a deal of compare and contrast that needs to happen in the context of this debate.

In this respect, I highlight, just as a matter of principle to start with, what is really very clear and is clear in a whole range of walks of life that we experience, particularly in public affairs: information is key both to getting to grips with the merits of an argument and also to ensuring that markets can be as competitive as possible and that those who require the factual information can then act on it. It is something that the Productivity Commission adverted to as well. It said, 'Benefits will accrue, provided that the information is available to the purchasers of fuel and they choose to act on it.' The proof is going to be in the pudding. They are provided with information, they act on it and we can expect to see some benefit accrue.

Information is at the core of all of this: information, transparency and the real-time provision of it to purchasers of fuel. I will say one more thing in this regard, because it reminds me of the journey we have been on in relation to developments in technology over time. The use of technology as a disseminator of factual information is something that we all now take for granted. My children have grown up in a world where if you want to get your hands on a fact you just ask Siri or Google Search and off you go, and you assume that you can get access to the facts.

That is obviously not the elixir for all purposes, but we know that the technology permits the very rapid dissemination of information, and we also know that people take up and use technology where they find it useful. This scheme will facilitate participation by app developers in the market who would assist consumers to get hold of the information that will be brought together in the course of putting the scheme on.

I reflect as well on the necessarily organic nature of that. I remember, back in the mid-1990s, the advent of what we now routinely describe as text messages on a range of platforms. It was initiated in what was called a short message service, and it happened to be incidental to the provision of digital handsets. It is my understanding that all the telecommunications providers at the time were surprised that the short message service got such rapid take-up and that people found it so useful.

SMS became a commonly used aspect of that technology, so much so that people are more likely to engage with each other routinely through the day by means of text on a variety of platforms these days, and the younger generation is far more likely to do so than to take up each other's time talking to each other on the traditional handset. The use of technology to disseminate information to then make sure that that is available to people has enormous benefits.

We know that once the facts are revealed a great deal of benefit can flow from that. That is what the government is going to embark on. I indicate that there is a bit to then contrast with what might be alternatively proposed. I will put this in terms of the critique of the contribution of the member for West Torrens, who had the last word yesterday evening on this matter. The member for West Torrens went out of his way to characterise what he described as the 'genius' of an alternative model that would involve a combination of price-fixing on the one hand and the acceptance of all of the risk by the retailer on the other hand—so a combination of price-fixing and the acceptance of risk.

All of us in the real world know that (1) as soon as you ask one party to accept all the risk in any transaction, they will tend to price that in and (2) wherever you impose a price fix on someone, again, you have imposed a barrier to the process, an artificial step that is at the very least likely to impact on the capacity for the price to be as low and as competitive as it can be.

The further trouble with the member for West Torrens' description of 'genius' in this case is that it would appear that he has not really taken a particularly close look, if at all, at what has been proposed in terms of this alternative scheme. In his contribution, he talked about how he had been persuaded of this 'genius', as he described it, the requirement to provide pricing information 24 hours in advance. He said this is genius because this is going to put 'immense pressure on retailers'. He said it will place 'all the risk on the retailers' and that that was something that he would prefer.

Then he embarked on a narrative around that. He said what would happen was, if they got it wrong—and the Hansard records this and, as always, I really invite close scrutiny of it; there is much to be found—and if the retailers make a mistake 'they are in serious jeopardy, and the only way they can go is down to match others'. He says that there is genius in that, and the reason that there is genius in it is that it stops bad things like collusion up. He says, 'If anything, it incentivises more downward pressure.'

This is the analysis of the member for West Torrens yesterday afternoon. I do not want to be too terribly unfair to him because he was urged, as I recall, by members on this side to perhaps have a look at the provisions in the alternative scheme that was proposed. I just do not think that he has done that because it would be more or less immediately apparent if he had done so that that is really not what the alternative scheme would be doing at all—in fact, the opposite.

There is a clue to that as early in the Objects that are proposed. I am conscious that we are not here to debate amendments in the course of the debate presently. There might be more to say in committee, but we see in the Objects of the alternative model to which, presumably, the member for West Torrens was adverting, that they include:

(c) to mitigate negative impacts on consumers and the economy of the State as a result of fluctuating fuel prices;

So there is a clue. The alternative scheme is designed to stop fluctuation.

Then the member for West Torrens might have read on, as he was contemplating the level of genius involved, and he might have got to the proposed new section 45I, and in subsection (2) he would have found that there is—and credit to the proponent, because no doubt the proponent has considered this matter—a requirement that the fuel retailer offering fuel for retail sale within what would be described as a fuel watch area, and I quote, 'must not increase or decrease the price at which fuel will be offered for retail sale', and, relevantly, 'for the period that the price is fixed', and that is broadly 24 hours under this alternative scheme.

So let's be under no illusions. The member for West Torrens, in talking about 'genius' yesterday in his contribution to the debate, might be presumed to form a different view entirely having had his attention drawn to what in fact an alternative model would provide for, because presumably the 'genius' really evaporates when one looks at the written word on the page, and there is the vice in the alternative model.

There is the vice, because by providing as it does for this combination of price-fixing—that is, both up and down—it does not provide the opportunity in fact for the retailer to match on the down side. It does not do that at all. What it does is that it sets about an artificial rigidity. It sets about a process under which the market is simply frozen from time to time, and this arbitrary period of 24 hours has been selected for that purpose, and whatever the merits of that are you are left with a clear comparison: on the one hand, the benefits of transparency coupled with rapid and broad dissemination for consumers to make of what they will and to enjoy the benefits to the extent that they apply the benefit of that factual information in real time; on the other hand, you have this price-fixing and passing of risk in its entirety to one party.

We can proceed to have a debate about the ideology that might go along with that, but let's be under no illusions about what we are comparing, and it is very much contrary to what the member for West Torrens was endeavouring, I think, to praise the authors of the alternative scheme about, and that is unfortunate.

I stay with it for the reason that it also serves to highlight the basic difference between one scheme and another: one that sheds light and provides for transparency—and, as the cliché goes, provides that best disinfectant that sunshine often brings in these matters, and on the other hand you have this imposition of a heavy burden artificially to interfere with the process of the market.

It is apparent that it has been misunderstood by the member for West Torrens. I am certain that it has not been misunderstood by the member for Florey, and I very much appreciate the alternative view that the member for Florey brings and the debate about that—but this is what we are debating.

We know also from the Productivity Commission report that we have the benefit of some comparative experience in Queensland in this regard. We also know that in the course of the early days of rolling out this scheme, including the introduction of the aggregation of the basic data that the government will be needing to assemble for these purposes, there will be a role for Consumer and Business Services.

As I think I have already adverted to in the earlier part of my remarks, my understanding is that the government intends that this scheme be introduced at first for a period of two years, very much indicating at the outset that there will be no persisting with a scheme that does not demonstrate in the outcome what the Productivity Commission has told us are the potential benefits to consumers, because that is what it is all about. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:21): I seem to be in the habit of following the member for Heysen in making remarks on bills this week. I rise in this instance to make a contribution about the fuel watch bill—if I can put it like that—the Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill. This is not quite as extensive as the history of the freedom of information bill, which I was pleased to furnish the house with earlier this week, but this issue has a bit of a history as well.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Apparently my contribution was gap-filled, hopefully not in recalling the history of the Liberal Movement in South Australia.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, especially in that area. We look forward to further information about that. Of course, this bill has a bit of history as well because this was an issue which the then Liberal opposition campaigned about at the last state election. They committed to bringing in a scheme for fuel price monitoring, essentially, as I understood it, to try to give motorists better information about where better priced fuel was around the community and, in itself, there is not too much wrong with that really.

After the election, with the member for Bragg taking on the portfolio responsibility she has, as the name of the bill suggests, the responsibilities fell under a minister for, essentially consumer services, and we were surprised to hear in a ministerial statement given to this place that it seemed that fuel pricing was off because the government was not able to reach agreement with the RAA here in South Australia about what an effective model would be.

Of course, this was a disappointment to the RAA, who had been looking forward to the government making good on their election commitment and delivering a fuel price monitoring regime for the benefit of motorists in South Australia, and presumably a disappointment to all those who had taken the Liberal Party at their word that they would introduce a scheme.

This is not the juncture where I say, 'Enter the stage, the member for Florey,' because of course this had always been an issue that the member for Florey had been passionate about. After an extensive amount of work, research and investigation, she announced publicly her intention to bring a private member's bill to this place to make good on the commitment to South Australians, albeit given by the Liberals at the last election, to deliver a fuel price monitoring regime in South Australia. Well, didn't that suddenly get the wheels in motion for the government? We had the Premier hastily writing to the Productivity Commission seeking a comparison of models from around Australia and really trying to compare some of the benefits.

I think everybody was surprised that the Productivity Commission in their report basically failed to make a recommendation about one model over another, because there are different models. As we have heard members like the member for Heysen and the member for Florey and also, I understand, the member for Bragg outline to the house, there are different models in operation around the country.

There is quite an extensive amount of literature about how each model operates and what impact it is deemed to have on fuel prices in those jurisdictions. So it was a surprise that the Productivity Commission was unable to make a recommendation. If you turn your mind, though, to page 33 of the Productivity Commission's report, there is an analysis, a table, and assessment criteria of different models, and, through the rigorous statistical analysis of ticks, double-ticks or crosses, attempts to weigh up the differences between the—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That would have taken a long time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right. Ticks are not as onerous to use as numerals. They are shorter in length and presumably more easily applied and, of course, more ambiguous in their context and meaning as well. Nonetheless, we see a minute difference between the two options when we get down to the second to last of the criteria of the Productivity Commission's analysis and that is criterion 6: 'Which option is cost-effective and efficient for industry?' Option 1 merely receives one tick on the scale of effectively one to three where three is a double-tick, two is one tick and presumably a cross is one. Option 1 is cost-effective for industry and option 2 is not cost-effective for industry.

It is my understanding that this bill basically goes with option 1 rather than option 2, and is that not a fascinating insight? Who are we doing this for? Who are we meant to be contemplating this for? Are we doing it for industry, which we can all admit is dominated by significant market players, or are we doing this for consumers? Are we investing our time and legislative efforts and authority into a scheme which is going to make life as easy as possible for consumers or are we making it as easy as possible for industry?

I would have thought, if you cast your mind back to the former Bannon government when they moved the Fair Trading Act in 1987, and before that when we had the former Dunstan government really be the first mover when it came to consumer legislation in Australia, that we would be trying to do our best by consumers rather than those people who are extremely dominant market players, i.e. industry, as they are described in the Productivity Commission's report. If we remove that criterion, that one which is easiest for industry to navigate and adhere to, then it is pretty lineball, is it not? It is pretty lineball between the options according to the Productivity Commission's analysis.

We have had the member for Heysen point out that essentially we have a difference in model between what has been called 'real-time pricing' where I think there can be an opportunity to update prices every 30 minutes, or we have—and I know this is not the correct term—essentially once-in-a-day pricing where there is an opportunity once every 24 hours to update prices.

That is where members will have to make up their minds about which they think would be more beneficial, because how does the current fuel pricing regime here work in South Australia? Other than the obligation imposed by government for there to be a publication of prices closest to the road of a premises, showing the prices for a select number of fuel products, there is virtually no other regulation about how those prices must be set, displayed or advertised to the community.

So what we see is a disparity—sometimes a remarkable disparity—in fuel prices in roughly the same proximity across the state. Let me give some examples from the western suburbs. If you take the BP or On The Run service station at Largs Bay on Military Road, you could be reasonably sure that nearly every day of the week the fuel price advertised for unleaded would be somewhere between 25¢ and 30¢ a litre higher than the fuel price that is being advertised and offered at the Mobil service station on Semaphore Road at Semaphore, the next suburb down, which is a distance of about a kilometre away.

Despite there being two On The Runs very close to each other at the bottom half of the Lefevre Peninsula, if residents in the area want cheaper fuel they just go to Mobil, and you would hope that you timed your run best to make sure that you got the bottom of the price cycle at Mobil. If you head a little closer to the city, along Old Port Road, where there is a relatively new petrol station, you would see that there is another independent retailer—we call them 'independent' in comparison to On The Run—who you can be pretty sure is going to be somewhere between 20¢ and 30¢ cheaper per litre on most days of the week compared to the Caltex, which is on Port Road, getting closer up towards Woodville Road.

If you move over to Torrens Road, for example, it is the same thing. There is a Liberty close to Addison Road, opposite St Clair, which is usually remarkably cheaper even than the Mobil further towards the city on Torrens Road. Motorists have had to get used to the price disparities between companies, which is usually significant. Just as we see in the grocery market, it is usually the smaller players, usually independent owned, who do the best by the consumers compared to the Coles and Woolies that are so constantly feted by members opposite. It is the same in the fuel industry. It is up to motorists then to try to work out, when they see petrol prices change, whether or not it is in their interests to fill up.

I do not think it is unreasonable that we have a situation where we require all retailers to participate in a scheme, and in that scheme that they be asked to nominate their best price for a 24-hour period. They have to hope that their price in that 24-hour period is going to be attractive enough to get motorists to come through their stations, use their bowsers and go and buy their coffees, KitKats and whatever else they want to do when they are buying petrol, rather than have a regime that we are told is for the benefit of industry, which is real-time pricing. When we say 'for the benefit of industry', presumably these benefits accrue the bigger the industry player is.

For the sorts of disparities that I have just made reference to, quite often BP or On The Run servos are much more expensive than smaller Libertys or Mobils, for example, in the western suburbs. You would hope that having that once in a 24-hour period incentivises them, for the first time, to offer the lowest and best price they possibly can to attract motorists to their premises rather than their competitors' premises.

The alternative, which is what is being pushed by the government's bill, is that we have a regime where a market participant can go out with a price, they can have motorists come in under that price, they can check to see what their competitor's price is and think, 'Geez, I'm 5¢, 10¢, 20¢ or 30¢ a litre above them, I'd better drop it down.' That is terrific if you are thinking about the motorists who buy petrol after that subsequent price change is made, but it is not so good for those motorists who have gone through and filled up under the initial price because they of course are paying too much. In terms of the mechanism failing motorists, that is a pretty good indication of why the government's model here is deficient.

I was interested to hear the member for Schubert—the socialist member opposite who carries, literally to his breast, a copy of Sir Thomas Playford's memoirs—recalling what Playford did when he was premier and led government here in South Australia. Any first-year economics student will tell you that information leads to economic efficiency—in principle, absolutely. I think we all agree here that some fuel time-monitoring regime will increase either the access to information or the quality of information, which will enable motorists to make a choice and pay less at the bowser. We all agree with that, and now we are just arguing about which model it should be: option 1 or option 2, as described by the Productivity Commission.

However, for consumers there is also a risk of too much information. You only have to look at a mobile phone contract, an electricity contract or another utility contract to realise that consumers can easily be put out when they are deluged with information, when they are hoodwinked by large market players with too much information that disables them from being able to make an accurate decision that will lead to them paying the cheapest rate possible for petrol.

It is my concern that having a real-time model, where prices can be updated on a regular basis, will put motorists at a similar disadvantage to what many people experience when they sign up for a mobile phone plan, bearing in mind that some years ago it required federal government intervention on mobile phone plans to make sure that they were offered a little bit more simply to try to help people decipher the jargon and the hidden costs.

I think it is reasonable to think that starting this regime out with a once in 24-hour model will encourage, if not require, people to put their best price forward for petrol. At the beginning of a 24-hour cycle, a motorist can look at all the information available in their local area, see who has offered the lowest price and visit that business. It will not take too long under that model for a proprietor of a petrol station to realise that if they do not put their best foot forward in offering a low price then they are likely to be undercut by their competition, likely not to be offering the lowest price and likely to lose motorists—and is that not what we want?

The other enormous financial commitment that most South Australians have to make is to housing. We have methods of sale here, whether it is by private treaty or by auction, where people are asked to put their best foot forward with the best possible price that they want to enter into the market with. Why is that so unpalatable here for the government when it comes to fuel?

I want to make a couple of other points before I finish. The stakes here for motorists are very significant. A 30 per cent disparity per litre in the price of unleaded is really significant. If you think that somebody might fill up the average family vehicle petrol tank, let's say of approximately 60 litres, that is an $18 disparity. If you have to travel a reasonable amount of kilometres—and I know that there are many opposite me who would travel far more than a 60-litre tank per week would afford them to service their electorates and their communities, but if you take as a proxy a tank—if you have to suffer the burden of paying 30¢ a litre too much every week for a year, that is nearly $1,000 that motorists are out of pocket.

We have over 1.7 million registered vehicles here in South Australia. That is not to say that there are 1.7 million cars that are getting around—some of them are trailers—but my understanding is that there are more than 1.2 million registered cars here in South Australia. It does not take too much maths to realise that, if you start working out the possible savings, even an average saving per motorist of a fuel price monitoring regime, and apply that across the motor vehicle fleet here in South Australia, we are talking about a significant proportion of state consumer spending and how that could be better redirected.

There are much better and further arguments that people can make about the composition of the fuel price, such as the fuel excise, for example, which is one of those terrific taxes that we were assured would be low, maybe even phased out one day, when it was first introduced and which for the past few decades has continued to escalate and increase. If we can do something about petrol prices, it should be this, and if we all agree that we are going to do something on this, then let's get the model right.

I do not think it is reasonable to make sure that we keep some information asymmetry going here, where the large players have the capacity to continue trying to game the pricing system and can continue to have access to real-time updates to befuddle motorists and to try to put themselves at an ongoing advantage over smaller retailers who genuinely want to lower prices. I think the once-in-the-day pricing model works, I think it is to the benefit of motorists and that is why the opposition will be supporting the member for Florey's amendments to this bill.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:40): I rise to just make a few remarks in relation to this bill. Fuel pricing in my electorate is something that I would consider extremely stable. We do not see price fluctuations at service stations. There are eight crewed service stations in my electorate and there is also a ninth self-serve diesel 24-hour depot, and the pricing at all these services stations is relatively similar and there are very few fluctuations.

Intriguingly, as we saw the price of fuel drop in the last few months, with COVID and the world price of oil dropping significantly, we effectively saw that there have been two price changes in the last three months. The first change was about three months ago, where it dropped down to about $1.40 at most if not all the service stations in my electorate. Then, about three or four weeks ago, we saw it drop down to about $1.15, maybe $1.11, or in that sort of range. Those prices sit there and stay there. They do not go up and they do not go down until there is a significant move again, I imagine, in the wholesale price that they are paying for the next load of their fuel.

The interesting thing about making the fuel price available for the consumer to see what is happening is whether that will lead to fuel pricing fluctuations in my electorate. Will they drive down to Seaford or Old Noarlunga and get petrol at a significantly lower price than they would be paying in Victor Harbor? I doubt they will.

We have seen at times over the last 20 years different service stations try to put those competitive pricings forward. They do not seem to last. No-one seems to follow them. They are more than happy to let that service station have the trade for a short period of time and then come back to them over time.

I do not see that this is going to make a huge fix or change to the pricing because I think there are also benefits with that stable price. When the price in Adelaide goes up to the highs of the moment around the $1.30 mark, Victor Harbor through to Goolwa and Mount Compass do not and they still stay at that $1.11 to $1.15, so we see that stable price there. On the other end, we certainly do not see it drop down to prices around the 80¢ mark that we have seen in the Adelaide regions recently.

There is also the purely opportunistic nature for the residents of my community to drive to Adelaide for a purpose and, while they are in Adelaide, they may see the fuel price is significantly lower than down on the coast, so they choose to fill up. That is the opportunistic nature of it that is available there, but in very rare circumstances would it be of value to actually drive those extra kilometres to go and get that fuel. The hour minimum that is involved to actually drive that far, let alone the fuel to drive that far, would barely even cover $18, as was mentioned previously. There is not the ability for that benefit to the residents of Finniss.

I am hopeful that we might see some benefit though if people are able to see where that cheap fuel is. If just before they leave Victor Harbor they see that Seaford has cheaper fuel over Old Noarlunga, maybe they will go into Seaford and fill up there rather than quickly duck into the service station at Old Noarlunga. Those opportunities will exist for those people if there is a live fuel price. I do not see significant benefit for my community from this, but there will hopefully be some. I commend the bill, but I think the benefit is very much for the city and not regional areas.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:45): A number of regional members have spoken about petrol prices because it is an ongoing issue in our communities. We acknowledge that our markets are different from a market such as Adelaide with a population of over 1.3 million people. That is a far larger market, so the nature of the competition works out in a different way.

Back in April, I was deeply concerned about petrol prices in Whyalla and also in Port Augusta. It was because of the lag when it came to the change in petrol price compared to Adelaide. Petrol was being sold for somewhere between $1.30 and $1.40 a litre, but in places in Adelaide it was less than $1 a litre at the time.

I wrote to the ACCC. I was not expecting much from them, given their history when it comes to these issues, but I thought that, on behalf of my community, I would write to the ACCC and call on them to do an investigation into whether there were anticompetitive practices occurring in a number of regional communities. I believe that there are anticompetitive practices occurring in a number of regional communities and I believe that there is almost active collusion when it comes to the larger service stations owned by different companies—an oligopoly in places like Whyalla.

I received a response from the ACCC and some of it touches on apps, which I will get to in a minute. They gave a whole range of reasons why prices differ in regional areas: the size of the market, the volume sold, the turnover and when contracts were entered into—a whole range of variables. It was really interesting that they listed all these different variables, plus some places have convenience stores attached and some do not, so there are lots of different factors, multiple factors.

You can accept to a degree some of these elements. They are going to have an impact on prices. I accept that freight is going to have a marginal impact on prices when it comes to regional communities. You can accept some of this stuff.

I went around to all the major service stations in Whyalla. There are all of these variables at work. The ACCC say that all of these variables have an influence on prices. There are five major service stations in Whyalla. Service station No. 1 was selling unleaded petrol for $1.16.9. Service station No. 2 was $1.16.9. Service station No. 3 was $1.16.9. Service station No. 4 was $1.16.9 and service station No. 5 was $1.16.9.

Given all the variables that are at work, given that these service stations are owned by different companies, you are telling me that there is not collusion going on or at least some agreement that they will all sell at the same price in these markets? This goes on; this is regular. The member for Finniss indicated that the range does not vary much. It certainly does not vary much, but when you get every service station selling at the same price to the last decimal point, there is something going on.

I would think that the ACCC would take that seriously and have a look at what is going on. It means that people in regional communities are being actively ripped off. Millions of dollars are leaving our community to line the pockets of these big operators. It is a direct and disgraceful rip-off that is occurring in a lot of regional communities. The ACCC should carry out an investigation.

In its response to me, the ACCC touched upon websites and apps. They indicated that motorists can save money if they actively use the free fuel price information available from a number of website and apps, and they named MotorMouth, GasBuddy and one or two others. The ACCC stated that people can use these to help decide when and where to buy fuel at the best available local price—yes, $1.16.9 everywhere, but never mind. According to the ACCC:

In the current difficult economic conditions, it is important for motorists to direct their fuel purchases to retail outlets that are pricing competitively—

$1.16.9 for all of them—

as it sends a strong message to those that have high prices that they will lose business.

Then the ACCC goes on to say that it:

…recognises that in many regional locations, where there is often little range between the highest and lowest retail price, the value of these tools may be limited.

In fact, I would say that the value of tools in places like Whyalla are probably going to be non-existent. The member for Florey has indicated that the application of her app might not assist our regional communities because there are other issues going on in those communities. We will pass, in one form or another, an app that will be used—either the 24-hour app or the real-time pricing app. However, for most regional communities, it probably will not make much difference.

There needs to be a genuine investigation by that incredibly slack body, the ACCC, into what is going on in some of these regional markets. What is going on in those regional markets is coming at the expense of consumers in those markets. This is not the first time that I have written to the ACCC, so I was not expecting much from them. I have to give them marks for consistency; their approach is the same on every occasion. Get off your bloody arse and come out to these regional communities and have a look at what is going on.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:53): I rise to support the Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill and note the government's strident efforts to improve the accessibility to real-time pricing in South Australia and to increase competition. I note the work of the Attorney and her officers in progressing this. We are trying to address the high and very variable cost of fuel because it is a real concern for most South Australian families, as has been outlined, especially when you are in a regional area like I am.

I represent from Pinnaroo almost through to Mount Barker, down to Clayton Bay almost to Mount Pleasant and up the river towards Nildottie and Walker Flat to the other side of Cambrai. My constituents are spread far and wide and they have many venues where they can access fuel throughout the electorate.

In regard to this, we have done our own research as a government because there has been mixed evidence from other states about fuel price monitoring. We note that the Productivity Commission has been involved, and has recently found from its own research that there were likely to be net benefits of $3 million to $8 million, and that to get the most benefit from this scheme pricing information must be accurate and comprehensive and motorists need to be able to act on it.

Using real-time pricing information can save motorists big money when they shop around for the cheapest price at the lowest point in the price cycle. It is interesting with price cycles; we notice it going into long weekends, for some strange reason—it must be that the world oil price goes up or something—when there is a demand with people going away, and that sort of thing. There are other cycles during the week, but with real-time price monitoring people can factor in when they should be buying their fuel.

As a government, we are very keen to encourage everyone to get involved, when this becomes available in various apps, so that people right across the state can get access to real-time price monitoring. We have got the best possible advice from the Productivity Commission and we are getting on with the job of relieving cost of living pressures. Real-time price monitoring will become a reality when this bill becomes an act and is assented to. As a government, we have committed to implement this as a priority, and that is exactly what we are doing with this. The design of the scheme will come through in the regulatory phase.

In terms of what fuel retailers will need to do in regard to this, they will need to report any pricing changes to a central database within 30 minutes of a change. There will be private apps that will be able to access this data for free, which is what has been successfully implemented in Queensland. Consumers can choose whichever app they like most but, importantly, they will all have accurate pricing information. I am sure my 19-year-old and 16-year-old boys will explain to me how to download the app and how it works and I will be fine, because they will be all over it.

Consumer and Business Services will take proactive steps to ensure that retailers are complying, and I understand there are significant penalties if people do not comply. The scheme is designed as a two-year trial to ensure the stated benefits of fuel price monitoring are met; we will certainly not support any policy if it is found that it tends to increase fuel prices.

There are many avenues to access fuel. I know there is talk about different so-called monopolies in this state, that there are some groups that link to the supermarkets, like Caltex and Shell both being linked to Woolworths and Coles. Obviously there is the On the Run group, the Peregrine or Sam Shahin group, that has built many service stations across the state. Some people will say that a certain person has a monopoly, but it is just not true; there are various big groups.

There are not as many total independents any more, although there have been various ones over time that have done a great job. There was one on South Road for a while there that had really—

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Mick was it, Skorpos? He did a great job. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.