Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 July 2020.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (12:37): I might rise to indicate that, as I indicated in my second reading contribution on the last fuel pricing bill before the chamber that was put up by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, we are very disappointed by how long the government has taken to take any action on this. We have had very productive discussions about the relative merits of the two fuel pricing bills, and those discussions are continuing. I will indicate to the chamber that we are not ready today to progress this.

We would be very disappointed, given that there are competing schemes before the chamber, if this were to be progressed immediately. We would be placed in a difficult situation to push through with this, given that there are continuing discussions and given the leeway that this chamber often uses when there are other opportunities to progress matters at a future time. I will indicate that, with discussions ongoing, we are not ready to continue with this, and we will certainly be opposing putting this and rushing it through today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:38): Can I indicate that my colleague, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, has carriage of this particular legislation. It is my understanding from him and from discussions that have been ongoing in recent hours and whatnot that the position is we would like those discussions to continue and prefer not to proceed with the bill at the present time. That is the information that has been relayed to me, and I am relaying it to the chamber.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo is not here at the moment. He has had carriage of this, but given there are two competing bills and for the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition has just outlined, I understand that we are of the same view in terms of progressing with this now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:40): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the bill. As honourable members have indicated, this has been going on for quite some time; indeed, the government has been criticised for delays in implementing the scheme. From the government's viewpoint the advice I have received, which ultimately can only be tested by a vote in this chamber, is that a majority of members in this chamber are happy for the bill to proceed and are prepared to support the government's position. As I said, I will always accept the will of the parliament, and that is the advice that I have received.

I do understand that members of the Labor Party have been having discussions with members of SA-Best, and they have an alternative position that they are adopting but, as I said, the government has been criticised for delaying this. We had an extensive debate during the last session of parliament, which was three weeks ago, I think, and we had a two-week break. We had an extensive discussion and break. As I understand it, members affirmed their positions.

Whilst I respect the fact that members of the Labor Party and SA-Best may have had a discussion, the advice I have received is that a majority of members in this chamber are now prepared to support the government's position. If that is the case, we are anxious to actually have a fuel pricing scheme delivered. We have only today and tomorrow to have the bill passed, or not, and have the government's position implemented, or not, in relation to these issues; otherwise, we potentially have another delay of five or six weeks before the September session. For those reasons, the government is anxious to test the will of the parliament and see it progressed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister outline the consultation that took place in relation to this bill and the responses from those who were consulted with?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the consultation was large, and it has been publicly revealed by the Productivity Commission in their report, so I can refer the honourable member to their report. In addition to that, stakeholders such as the RAA have been actively engaged, and I would be very surprised if the honourable leader has not been lobbied, because certainly everybody else who has been involved in this debate has been lobbied by the RAA and some other stakeholder groups in relation to fuel pricing. In relation to the proposals, the main consultation was that outlined by the Productivity Commission in terms of the development of their report.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the government outline what consultation took place with fuel retailers and what the result of that consultation was—in relation to the fuel retailers, the people who sell fuel?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the fuel retailers were consulted by the Productivity Commission in relation to the development of their report.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the government outline, in addition to the Productivity Commission and the preparation of their report, were there any consultations whatsoever between the government and fuel retailers in the development of this specific scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told no in relation to the bill, but in relation to the regulations there has been further consultation with representatives of the fuel retailers in terms of the development of the regulations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given we have amendments coming up and there are effectively two different schemes that this chamber is being asked to consider—and I think there have been some comments made in the media by members of the government about the views of retailers on the competing schemes—can the Treasurer please outline for the benefit of the chamber, and considering the competing schemes, what the views of fuel retailers are about the relative merits of the two competing schemes?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that a fair assessment of the fuel retailers' evidence to the Productivity Commission in relation to the two competing schemes was a preference for the government's model as opposed to the alternative model which the Leader of the Opposition is proposing or supporting.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In relation to the Productivity Commission, the Productivity Commission suggested that the government's preferred model may push prices up. Do you agree with that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the Productivity Commission said it was very difficult in relation to any of these fuel pricing information schemes to accurately estimate what the estimates might be. I do not have the copy of the Productivity Commission report with me, but I would certainly subscribe to the view that trying to be definitive about the impacts of any scheme in relation to pricing impacts is a challenge. The Productivity Commission are the people best placed to provide some advice. Their report is as it is. The government does not seek to challenge, dispute, confirm or otherwise. It is a respected independent body. It provides advice to us all, and it can inform us.

The government, having assessed that report and the public pressure from stakeholders like the RAA who support the government's proposed model, has arrived at a proposed model that we are urging the parliament to support. We think it would be a tragedy if we ended up at the end of this sitting week with those forces who are opposing the government scheme successfully preventing the implementation of a scheme by close of business either today or tomorrow.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government clarify whether this proposed model is going to be trialled, for how long it will be trialled and who will be conducting the trial for the government?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that what has been stated is that it is to be implemented for two years. At the end of the two-year period, an assessment will be made. That assessment will be made by the government of the day, whomsoever the people of South Australia entrust government from March 2022. They and those who advise them will be responsible for conducting the review of the success or otherwise of the scheme.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Who will conduct the review—the government? You are saying the government. Is it the office of Consumer and Business Services?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government of the day at the time—and we obviously hope it will be a government led by Premier Marshall, but it is up to the people of South Australia—that will make the decision at the two-year point to say that this will be reviewed by the office of Consumer and Business Services or whatever. That will be a decision of the government. If this government is re-elected, the government would conduct a review. It would use one of its offices, units or agencies to conduct that particular review.

I am sure, over the passage of two years, independent watchdogs like RAA and various other stakeholder groups will be monitoring the success or otherwise of the particular scheme, as they will watch various schemes in other states like Western Australia in terms of what will be the impacts. So there will be plenty of informed opinion about the success or otherwise of the scheme.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will the RAA be involved in the scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the scheme?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will they be involved in monitoring the scheme? Do they have any involvement in this?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are limits to the powers of the government, and one is that we do not control the RAA—they are an independent motoring organisation. I am sure they will be, but it is not as a result of the government making that decision. The RAA has been a fearless advocate on behalf of motoring consumers in the state on a range of issues. This is an issue of great interest to them.

I would be stunned if they did not monitor on a regular basis—they would not be waiting for two years—progress with the scheme, and would be fearless in putting their views publicly whenever they wish, and that is certainly not something I as a member of the government would even contemplate trying to control. They are independent, they can monitor and give their views at whatever stage they wish.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the RAA provided any feedback in terms of customer surveys it has undertaken in relation to the government's preferred scheme, and also the scheme that has been proposed by SA-Best and also the member for Florey?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not really aware of what the RAA has done. We certainly have been advised that the RAA supports the government scheme as opposed to the alternative schemes. In terms of whether they have done surveys of their members, or the motoring public as opposed to their membership, I do not know. I am sure the honourable member, given his interest, would have been in close contact with the RAA. If he has not put that question to them, he can put it to them.

Their position, however they have arrived at it, is pretty clear, and they certainly are a fearless advocate for the motoring consumers of South Australia and are entitled to form their view however they wish, whether it is on the basis of surveys they conduct or decisions they make. It is their decision tree and we leave it completely to them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I actually sought that information from the Attorney-General on Monday, and I was assured by her staff that they had received or there had been discussions and a survey undertaken. However, they gave me an assurance that they would get that information to us, and we have not seen that as yet. Can I ask the government: will this proposed model, and the manner in which it will work, apply only to unleaded petrol, or will it also apply to other fuel that is sold at service stations?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised more wide than unleaded petrol. I am advised the draft regulations, which are being consulted on at the moment, include a petroleum product within the meaning of the Petroleum Products Regulation Act 1995—biodiesel, compressed gas and liquified natural gas.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is the government aware of recent data that shows that their preferred model, which is currently under trial in Queensland, has actually shown that average prices for petrol are the highest in any capital city in Australia and have been that way for the past three months?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I do not have any recent advice in terms of the last three months of Queensland prices. Can I just note in relation to fuel pricing, if any member in this chamber is of the view that the only issue that determines fuel pricing in a particular state or jurisdiction is the nature or quality of the fuel pricing transparency scheme, that is actually advertising, then I think they need to take further advice because clearly there are much bigger factors at play in relation to fuel pricing. I am referred to the comments of the Productivity Commission, which states:

Regarding changes in average prices, the Commission concludes the evidence to date is inconclusive that price transparency schemes—

that is, any price transparency scheme—

have any lasting impact on average prices in price cycles.

Further on it states:

The Commission concludes that evidence clearly shows that price cycles persist despite the introduction of fuel price transparency schemes.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:15.