Bills

Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 July 2020.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: When the committee last met, we were at clause 1. Are there any further contributions at clause 1?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government tell me what effect their model will have on petrol price cycles? Will they be longer or will they be shorter?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hansard record shows that I referred to the conclusions yesterday of the Productivity Commission in relation to fuel pricing, the potential impact on fuel pricing of a number of monitoring schemes, and also fuel pricing cycles. I am really not in a position to add anything else more conclusive than the independent body of the Productivity Commission, which has had a long look at fuel pricing schemes around Australia and has come to that conclusion, which I shared with the honourable member in response to a question either he or another member put to me yesterday.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would like to refer to an ACCC report into petrol price cycles in Australia, published in December 2018. It begins with its key messages:

Price cycles (i.e. the sudden, sharp increases in the price of petrol, followed by a gradual decline) are a prominent, and longstanding, feature of retail petrol prices in Australia’s five largest cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth). They occur among all the main grades of petrol, but not for diesel and automotive LPG prices.

Price cycles are frustrating for motorists, especially when prices increase quickly and by significant amounts. However, price cycles do provide opportunities for motorists to buy at relatively low prices towards the bottom (or trough) of the cycle. These prices are often below wholesale cost, as reflected by published terminal gate prices (TGPs). While not all motorists have discretion about the timing of their petrol purchases, many do.

The report then goes on to show a chart of what happens in Sydney. It goes on to say:

The ACCC encourages motorists to maximise their opportunities throughout the price cycle and purchase petrol at the lowest possible price. This report describes the opportunities available for motorists and highlights the potential savings they can make.

Under a heading 'Not all retail sites increase their prices at the same time', the ACCC goes on to say:

It is important to note that not all retail sites increase prices at the same time. Typically, during a price cycle, a small number of retail sites increase prices first, and others follow over several days. This provides opportunities for motorists to notice prices beginning to increase, seek out lower prices at other retail sites and fill up.

Longer cycles in the eastern capital cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide) in recent years have resulted in longer delays between the trough price and the peak price. It takes up to a week for prices across a market to increase from the trough price to the peak price, meaning although some retail sites increase prices first, others maintain lower prices for a number of days. This contrasts with 2009, when average prices moved from the trough price to the peak price across a market in one or two days.

This feature of price cycles provides more time for motorists to notice that prices are starting to increase, and then to seek out lower priced retail sites that are yet to increase their prices.

Analysis of the price cycle that occurred in Sydney in June 2018 indicates the time it took for retail sites across the market to reach the peak price.

Then, in this particular chart, it shows the cycle in Sydney. The daily average prices in Sydney reached a trough on Tuesday 12 June and a peak on Monday 18 June, so essentially it was six or seven days. It continues:

The chart shows that the majority of retail sites had not increased their prices to a peak price two days after 12 June (when prices started to increase at a small number of retail sites). Only around half of retail sites in Sydney had increased to a peak price after three days, and it took six days after prices started to increase for 94 per cent of retail sites to reach a peak price.

I want to move into what happens in Perth. Mr Chairman, as you know, the Perth model is the one that SA-Best and Labor favour in regard to having real-time pricing. Under the heading 'Motorists in Perth can take advantage of weekly price cycles, with prices consistently the lowest on a Monday', the report states:

In contrast to the eastern capital cities, Perth's price cycles have occurred on a weekly basis since 2011, making them highly predictable for motorists.

Prices are consistently the lowest on a Monday and usually highest on a Tuesday. The consistency of price cycles in Perth has likely been influenced by the WA FuelWatch scheme, which has been in operation since 2001.

I note that on radio this morning, the Hon. Tammy Franks seemed to mock the fact that it is 20 years old and seemed to think that it is outdated and does not use modern technology. In actual fact, it does. It has its own website, and the prices are given quite regularly either on television or radio. The report continues:

This scheme requires petrol retailers to notify the WA Government of the next day's retail price by 2 pm each day. Petrol retailers must sell petrol at this price for a 24-hour period from 6 am on the following morning. The petrol price at each retail site is publicly available on the FuelWatch website. Therefore, petrol prices in Perth can only change once per day and petrol retailers must commit to their prices a day in advance.

That is a system that many people on talkback radio seemed to prefer. It continues:

The high degree of certainty in Perth's price cycles provides motorists with a weekly opportunity to buy petrol at the lowest prices. In 2016, around one quarter of petrol sales occurred on the lowest priced day (Monday). At the same time, around 10 per cent of sales occurred on the highest priced day (Tuesday), suggesting that many motorists in Perth adjust their purchases to the cheapest day. It also suggests that…motorists in Perth could take advantage of 'cheap Mondays'.

The ACCC estimates that motorists in Perth, who fill up once a week, and always on the cheapest day of each week, could save themselves around $520 a year, compared with always filling up on the most expensive day.

We have not even seen figures from the government about what the potential savings could be on their dud of an idea. Under the heading 'Throughout the price cycle, motorists can make significant savings by seeking out lower priced retail sites', the report states:

Not all petrol retail sites have the same prices. Motorists in the eastern capital cities can make savings across the price cycle by seeking out lower priced retail sites.

Analysis of the Sydney petrol market in the first half of 2018 shows that in addition to the considerable variation in price between retail sites as prices increase from trough to peak, there is also a degree of price dispersion between retail sites once prices have reached a peak and are decreasing.

This is consistent with conclusions in the ACCC report 'Petrol prices are not the same: petrol prices by major retailer in 2017' (released in May 2018), which showed that average petrol prices varied significantly between major retailers. This was particularly the case in Sydney.

By taking advantage of price cycles, there can be substantial savings for consumers. The report continues:

The potential savings can add up. The ACCC estimates that motorists who both time their purchases at the trough of the cycle, as well as seek out lower priced retail sites over the rest of the cycle, could potentially save around $300 per year in Sydney and Adelaide, and around $250 per year in Melbourne and Brisbane.

Compare that to the over $500 figure I gave you from Perth going on their FuelWatch scheme. It continues:

Assuming that one-third of motorists fill up once a week, that similar savings are available for all petrol grades, and that all of these motorists took advantage of the above savings, the total potential savings in Sydney would be around $260 million per year. Savings in the other eastern capital cities per year would be: around $220 million in Melbourne, around $105 million in Brisbane and around $75 million in Adelaide.

The potential savings for motorists that fill up more than once a week would be greater, and motorists that fill up less frequently would save a lower amount. However, these illustrative savings indicate that motorists can use price cycles to their advantage to save money on their petrol purchases.

Furthermore:

Petrol price cycles in Australia are not driven by movements in underlying costs or wholesale prices. Price cycles are solely due to the pricing decisions made by petrol retailers, that are aiming to maximise profits.

The price increase phase of the cycle begins when prices in the market have reached their low point and an initial retailer (…the price ‘leader’) increases prices to improve their margins. This is generally initiated by one or two major retailers, which increase prices substantially at a small number of retail sites. As other retailers respond to this price increase with similar price increases, the increased price then spreads across the majority of retail sites within a location.

The price decrease phase involves a gradual process of retail sites following, matching or undercutting each other’s prices in local areas by small amounts. This occurs as retailers have an incentive to discount or match lower prices in order to increase sales or prevent a loss of sales.

Variability in retailer’s pricing strategies throughout the price cycle means prices across a location can vary significantly. Some retailers may delay increasing prices at certain retail sites to capture higher sales, and some retailers may seek to reduce prices more aggressively at particular retail sites to win sales from local competitors.

They give a case study from Geraldton in Western Australia:

Geraldton in WA provides a clear example of the influence of a single retailer’s pricing behaviour on other retailers. Geraldton is one of the few regional locations in Australia that has a petrol price cycle. Price cycles in Geraldton started when Coles Express entered the market in April 2016.

Analysis of prices at each retail site in Geraldton shows that when Coles Express opened a retail site in Geraldton it adopted the same pricing strategy it had at all of its 53 retail sites in Perth. Subsequently, other retail sites in Geraldton, but not all, appear to have responded to prices at the Coles Express retail site by adjusting their pricing strategies to a broadly similar cyclical pattern. By January 2017, five retail sites in Geraldton had adopted a similar strategy. By May 2018 eight of the 11 retail sites selling petrol followed the weekly price cycle.

The report continues:

Price cycles, in and of themselves, are not illegal. Sometimes competing businesses sell goods or services at the same or similar price levels so that the price fluctuations of one petrol retailer are matched by others. In general, independent decisions by petrol retailers to adjust prices throughout price cycles reflect this process, and are not usually the result of collusive behaviour that would raise concerns under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010…

In November 2017, the CCA was amended to prohibit a person from engaging in a ‘concerted practice’ that substantially lessens competition. These changes broaden the net for capturing anti-competitive conduct. The concept of a ‘concerted practice’ involves communication or cooperative behaviour that does not require all of the elements of an ‘arrangement or understanding’ to be reached between parties, but does involve more than a person independently responding to market conditions. The concerted practice provisions are yet to be tested in court.

If, when setting prices, petrol retailers are doing no more than responding quickly to each other’s published prices, this is likely to be parallel pricing from each petrol retailer’s independent response to market conditions. The ACCC is currently of the view that this is not a concerted practice in breach of the CCA.

There may be occasions—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, you made a second reading speech on Tuesday. Are you heading towards a question here? Normally we give quite a bit of latitude at clause 1 but it is normally for somebody who has not made a second reading speech. Can you give us an indication of where you are heading with this?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Where I am heading is to give you an example that the government cannot give us an indication of whether their model will have an impact in any way on price cycles, compared to the model that we have put up where it is consistently at seven days that consumers do know what price they will be paying. I have asked whether the government can provide any models or any modelling they have done that petrol price cycles, by adopting their model, will either be longer or shorter and, if so, can they produce that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The first point I would make in response to the honourable member's speech and then finally question is that, if it was all as he portrayed then why is the RAA, the independent voice for motorists in South Australia, not supporting his scheme, or the Western Australian scheme, as opposed to the scheme the government is putting? The reason is that they have looked at the evidence and they do not agree with the assessments and conclusions the Hon. Mr Pangallo has arrived at.

If I can briefly refer to the equivalent organisation in Queensland, contrary to the claims just made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, the equivalent organisation to the RAA in Queensland, the RACQ, issued a press release, headed 'Drivers save millions since Qld fuel price trial':

RACQ research has revealed Queenslanders have saved a massive $122.8 million since the introduction of the Fuel Price Reporting scheme…

They go through some background which I will not take up the time with. The press release states:

'It’s fantastic to see the price of ULP has fallen and real savings are being delivered to Queensland drivers. Brisbane motorists recorded the biggest overall saving, a whopping $41.8 million dollars.'

Ms Smith said the Club’s analysis revealed the average monthly price of ULP was about 2.3 cents per litre cheaper in Brisbane, since the introduction of the trial.

I will not go through all the detail of that but that paints an entirely different conclusion to the one that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has painted and I suspect that is why the RAA does not subscribe to the conclusions that he and his proponents have in relation to the Western Australian scheme. They have consulted with their own members, I assume, but they have also spoken to sister organisations in other jurisdictions, and that is the sort of conclusion they have come to.

In response to the earlier question yesterday, I think it was, in relation to impacts on prices and price cycles, I put on the record the Productivity Commission's conclusion and their conclusion was:

Regarding changes in average prices, the Commission concludes the evidence to date is inconclusive that price transparency schemes have any lasting impact on average prices in price cycles.

That is, there is differing evidence in relation to them. The commission considered that $5 million might be a reasonable estimate of the savings. I am advised that the commission had cautiously estimated the net benefits of the preferred scheme were somewhere between $3 million to $8 million, and they settled on a reasonable estimate being in the middle of that band at $5 million, which they said was highly contingent on having better information in the market place, consumers acquiring that information and acting on that particular information.

So there are estimates that the Productivity Commission has put on the record, albeit they have heavily cautioned anybody in relation to the various claims that have been made about savings from particular schemes. But the reality is that the independent bodies that speak on behalf of motoring consumers in the state—the RAA here and the RACQ in Queensland—are fearless advocates for the sort of proposal that the government has asked the parliament to consider.

In relation to fuel price cycles, even the Hon. Mr Pangallo concedes that there will continue to be fuel price cycles under whatever scheme: he just prefers the fuel price cycle that happens to exist in Western Australia, as opposed to the fuel price cycle that either exists now or will exist under this proposal as well. What this scheme is about, and what the RAA and others are strongly supportive of, is almost real-time information in relation to petrol pricing.

As an individual consumer, one of my arguments against the Western Australian scheme when it was first flagged with me (and it remains the same) is that under our current system, and under the system the government will propose, if some retailer out there goes out and drops their price by 40¢ in the litre, under the current arrangements the market adapts very quickly. Most other people, if they want to sell petrol on that particular day, drop their prices by close to the 40¢.

So it is not just the lucky consumers who happen to live in the particular suburb where that outlet has dropped the price by 40¢. The problem with the Hon. Mr Pangallo's scheme is that for 24 hours all the other punters who do not happen to be in that particular suburb will be locked into paying $1.50 per litre, as opposed to the lucky punters in one particular suburb who are going to pay $1.10 for 24 hours.

What the Hon. Mr Pangallo is saying is, 'Well, too bad' to all those other punters who currently get the benefit of the market operating and operating quickly, where they adapt to the $1.10 price because they have to, otherwise they will sell no fuel on that particular day. Under the Hon. Mr Pangallo's model, for 24 hours all those retail outlets will be locked into what has been the prevailing price of $1.50 per litre, and they will only be able to change that 24 hours later when it occurs.

So the value of real-time pricing (or as close to real-time pricing and you are going to be able to get) is that the market will be able to be best informed to say, 'Okay, the price at the moment is $1.40.' If someone drops the price to $1.10, and that particular retail outlet wants to drop it immediately to $1.10, that will become apparent. If you happen to live and work in Modbury, and the fuel prices drop in Hackham, then by checking on the fuel price arrangement under this new scheme you will find that Modbury has dropped their price to $1.10 and you will be able to go there, or, if they do not, someone a bit closer at Campbelltown or somewhere like that may have dropped their price to compete at $1.10, and you will know which is closest to you, as opposed to driving across town to Hackham to get the cheap fuel price in that particular part of the cycle.

I think it is pretty clear where people are at the moment in relation to this. The government has a proposal, which is supported by a number of stakeholders and, we believe, a number of people in this chamber. The Hon. Mr Pangallo has a proposal, which is supported by him and the Australian Labor Party. The Hon. Mr Pangallo is not going to convince the government that his scheme is better than the government scheme, and therefore at this stage to change, and we are assuming that the government is not going to be able to convince the Hon. Mr Pangallo to change his position either.

Long dissertations from the ACCC report from December 2018, as interesting as they might be during a second reading, are really not going to be changing the position, at least of the government, in relation to the committee stage. So we are very happy to assist in trying to respond to questions, as the committee stage is designed to elicit information, but we would urge the Hon. Mr Pangallo and indeed other members to concentrate perhaps on seeking information in questions rather than prosecuting another second reading contribution.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have some specific questions. I am keen to tease out quite fully how the wholesaling, then the retailing, of petrol works in South Australia and how that compares to other jurisdictions; how the market works precisely, that we are seeking to put some of these systems in and around.

I will also be keen during the committee stage to look at some of the very specific findings and recommendations from the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia, 'Getting a Fair Deal for Western Australian Motorists', the report that led to the Western Australian scheme. There are, I think, some findings that are relevant to South Australia.

One of the things that South Australia has that some of the east coast jurisdictions do not have is very large distances between regional areas, which does make us in some way more analogous to Western Australia than, say, a Victoria or an ACT or a New South Wales. So I will be keen to tease that out, referring to the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia report that led to the institution of their scheme, which is of course close to the scheme that is being advocated by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

I will also be very keen to seek the government's views on some of the recommendations from the Senate Standing Committees on Economics that particularly looked at a national fuel watch bill, and seek the government's precise views about some of the findings in that report and their applicability to South Australia.

I note there were two South Australian senators, I think, at the time on this: Senator Annette Hurley, who of course was a former member of this parliament, and also Senator Nick Xenophon, who was on that committee. So there were a couple of very well-regarded South Australian senators on the Senate Standing Committees on Economics, which looked at the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and the consequential amendments to that.

I think it is important we have a very clear understanding of the reasons why this scheme came about like it did in Western Australia, because the government's view is that that is not a scheme that we should be following here. I think in fact the government's view previously, or one of their views up until I think it was late last year, was quoted as being that any scheme that seeks to let consumers know could be counterproductive and could push up prices.

This is a government that previously held the view that any scheme that has prices advertised—whether it is a lock-in price, as the Hon. Frank Pangallo is advocating, or the government's app-based scheme—could disadvantage consumers. I am very keen to tease out what evidence led to that previous view that the government held and what new evidence does the government have that has changed their view.

But if I might start with a range of questions about the market for fuel in South Australia. Can the government let us know how many fuel retailers there are in total across South Australia—and a breakdown, please, of metropolitan and non-metropolitan—and how, for the purpose of fuel retailers, the delineation between metropolitan and non-metropolitan is made?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only information I can share with the member is that in 2018 the ACCC estimated there were 276 fuel retail sites in Adelaide. They do not actually give a figure on the number of fuel retail outlets outside Adelaide but in South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am wondering if the Treasurer can outline for the sake of the committee that is considering this important bill how fuel retailing works; that is, the level of vertical integration between wholesalers, fuel companies? We do not have a refinery in South Australia anymore. Where do South Australian retailers buy their fuel from? For example, are fuel retailers branded BP or Caltex required to buy their fuel from the parent companies? I am wondering if the minister can outline the nature of and the integration of the fuel economy in South Australia in that respect?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to provide a detailed exposition of the integration or otherwise of the fuel price market in South Australia. The ACCC has produced a number of reports. If the Leader of the Opposition was interested in these matters, he or his staff could have collected this information prior to this particular debate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not agree with the Treasurer. As we saw in debates in this very chamber last night, when someone is advocating a bill, it seems entirely reasonable to be asking how the system works that they are seeking to change or regulate or require reporting on. I wonder if the Treasurer can at the very least explain for our consideration, because it may end up being difficult for this committee to consider it much further if he does not have answers to some of these very simple questions, how many wholesalers of fuel are there in South Australia from which retailers can buy?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice. I do not have that sort of information. All the government is seeking to do here in response to calls for change is not to change the whole system, it is actually to provide some version of real-time price monitoring. It is a relatively simple concept. I might say that over 16 years the former Labor government did nothing in this particular field, so I will take with a grain of salt any criticisms the Leader of the Opposition might make of the government in relation to the introduction of this scheme.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am wondering if the Treasurer can outline any requirements for retailers of fuel? Is it a restricted market? Is there a licensing scheme? How does one set up a retail operation for fuel? Can anyone set up in any location as long as they meet development requirements or is it like it has been in the past with areas like pharmacies or hotels, some requirement that there is a need for a fuel retailer? What are the market conditions to become a fuel retailer?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am stunned that the Leader of the Opposition has not done sufficient research to even understand the licensing arrangements in relation to this particular bill. We are very happy to comply with this attempted filibuster from the Leader of the Opposition and others but we are not going to be diverted.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am not going to be answering questions in relation to that particular issue.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Don't you have that basic information at hand?

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Leader of the Opposition can ask those sorts of questions for as long as he wishes but we will respond to questions in relation to the bill. We are not going to be going into long—and I am sure, very interesting to the watchers of the Hansard of this particular debate—details of how the market operates, how many wholesalers and retailers there are, and whatever other questions the Leader of the Opposition might choose to try to delay consideration in committee.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On the basis that the government cannot even answer the simplest of questions in relation to a bill they want this chamber to pass, I move:

That progress be reported.

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My question is to the Treasurer, obviously. He may be able to assist me. In choosing one model over the other for a fuel watch measure, what consideration has the government given to the specific market conditions that apply in South Australia, markedly different from those in Brisbane and Sydney?

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not addressing the question to you, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Chair: the member just asked the government why they were choosing the FuelWatch measure, but they are not choosing the FuelWatch measure.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am going to go back to reading a report then to make it very plain to the chamber what I am referring to. Clause 3.3, page 27 of the commission's report on fuel pricing—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It goes for a few pages.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It does but I will just speak to a short section of it at this point in time. The Hon. Ms Franks might ask me to speak to more of it if she wishes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Chair: I am not married. If you are going to call me Mrs—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I did not, actually.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter, can you just please continue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, sir. Someone is getting a little bit angsty.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter, just stick to the subject, please.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, sir. Clause 3.3 impacts on retailers. It states:

The retail market for petrol in Adelaide is more concentrated than the other four largest Australian cities—

the Hon. Ms Franks might not have read this section—

with one retailer accounting for around 37 per cent of retail outlets in 2018.

She may not be aware of that. The report continues:

It is not clear what this implies for the fuel price cycle in Adelaide compared with the other large Australian cities.

The Hon. Ms Franks might not know that either.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter, can you stop being inflammatory.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The report continues:

Accurate and transparent retail petrol prices would on the whole add more information from independent, low cost retailers. Compared with the status quo, that provides (possibly) additional information to the larger retailers at low cost and enables them to lead prices back to the peak.

It goes on and on but my question is then: when choosing a model, what consideration has the government given to the specific market conditions that apply in South Australia that are markedly different from capital cities in the Eastern States, when there is such a high concentration of ownership in Adelaide of petrol stations or petrol retailers?

The report mentions, as I said, that in one situation one company owned approximately 37 per cent of retail outlets in 2018. If the government is preferring a model that is in operation in states where there is not such a high concentration of ownership of petrol retailers, what consideration has the government given to the distinct and different nature of the market in South Australia in choosing one model over the other?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government gave very close consideration to the issues that the honourable member raised, and having given very close consideration arrived at the decision to introduce the legislation that we have.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, with respect, that is an incredibly trivial response to an important question, I think. What is the thinking—

The CHAIR: That is a matter of opinion, the Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is certainly disrespectful of me, I think. Can the government take me through its thinking vis-a-vis the two distinct market operating conditions—Adelaide versus Eastern States capital cities—in selecting one model over another? Or did they give no consideration whatsoever to the market conditions that are so different in Adelaide versus Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government gave very close consideration to the issues that were raised by the honourable member, and the government arrived at the decision to introduce the legislation in the form that he is being asked to consider.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Let me try again: is the Treasurer saying to this chamber that he will not share with the Legislative Council the thinking of the government in response to this question raised in a report to the government, the South Australian Productivity Commission's commissioned report on fuel pricing? The government has received that report and this commentary from their own commissioned report, and the Treasurer has said that the government has given special consideration, detailed consideration, to that.

I am asking him to share how they went through that process of giving that consideration, what points they took into consideration, what weight they gave the different points—because the markets are plainly different in terms of concentration of ownership—and how they arrived at the decision to choose one model over the other.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government gave very close consideration to the issues that were raised by the honourable member, and we also took advice from stakeholders such as the RAA, which is the independent and fearless voice on behalf of motoring consumers in South Australia. The government also took advice from its own departments and bureaucrats and ultimately, through the cabinet process, made the decision to introduce the legislation that is before the honourable member. The member can rest assured that we read assiduously the information provided by the Productivity Commission and, indeed, other stakeholders, and that is the reason why we have introduced the legislation in this form.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am very pleased and reassured that the government paid close attention to the points raised in the report that they commissioned. What I am asking for is to be let into the government's thinking, into how they evaluated report and how they took into consideration the market differences that pertain between Adelaide and Eastern States capital cities. The Treasurer seems to want to just blithely pass it over, saying, 'Don't worry about it, mate. We have thought about it—trust us—and we took all that into consideration.'

Lovely, but I would like a little bit more information to assist me and, I hope, the chamber. I would like a little bit more information about the points that the government weighed up in the two differing markets and how the recommendations of this report influenced its decision to take one model over another. If the Treasurer is not able or not willing to share that information with the chamber, I think that actually throws a very dark—very dark indeed—motivation over why they are persisting with one model over another.

If the Treasurer cannot give me a reasoned argument to take into consideration market concentration and how they have either discounted it or adjusted the model to take it into consideration, then I am afraid I have a few doubts about why this model might be chosen by the government over another model that works perfectly well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government took very close consideration of all the issues that have been raised by the member, and I refer the member to other parts of the Productivity Commission report and, indeed, the information and advice provided by the RAA, the fearless and independent advocate on behalf of motoring consumers in South Australia. The government listened to all of that information, gave it very close consideration, and made the judgement that it has through the normal cabinet processes.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Treasurer refers to advice from the RAA. What advice from the RAA on market concentration vis-a-vis capital cities in the Eastern States did the government rely on in choosing one model over another?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The major advice from the RAA is they prefer the government's model to the Western Australian model preferred by the Labor Party.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: So is the Treasurer informing the chamber that the RAA did not give any consideration to market concentration in their arguments and submission to the inquiry and therefore did not address the issue of market concentration in their submission?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I did not say that at all. The RAA, I am sure, gave very close consideration, as the government did, to the issues raised by the Productivity Commission and indeed everybody else in forming the judgement that they did. They then provided advice and a conclusion, which mirrors the conclusion the government made as well.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We have no absolutely information forthcoming from the Treasurer about the thinking or the reasoning behind the choice of models being put forward in this legislation. We have absolutely no information or reasoning coming forward from the government to give us comfort that one model is preferred over the other, taking into consideration the different market conditions that pertain in Adelaide versus Eastern States capital cities.

We could take the Treasurer at his word which is always a tempting proposition. I think this chamber in consideration of such important legislation—important legislation, really, for the consuming public of South Australia—needs to have the benefit of the government's thinking and reasoning in choosing between two models, specifically because the market conditions in South Australia are different from the models the government wants us to embrace that operate in Brisbane, Sydney and potentially Melbourne, although I think all the information we have entertained so far this morning is based on Brisbane and Sydney.

I cannot understand the Treasurer's unwillingness to share information with this chamber on how they arrived at a decision of one over the other. That brings to the forefront, I think, some real criticism of the bona fides of the choice. Is there something else lurking behind this legislation the government is not telling us that makes them want to choose one model over another? If the government cannot propound to the chamber the benefits of one model other than to say, 'Oh well, we gave it thought and this is why we are doing this,' without giving us that information, why should we take them at their word?

The Treasurer has no ability today to explain to this chamber, 'We considered all these options under the market concentration proposals and the information arrived at was that for these other reasons this is the proposed model we want to put forward.' He cannot do that. He just says, 'We have given it close consideration,' and he will not share the results of that consideration with this chamber. I think that is preposterous. I do not know when a government has come before this chamber in the past and made such bold-faced claims with no backing whatsoever around legislation to be proposed that is fundamentally important to the consuming public of South Australia.

It is a gross dereliction of his duties as a minister and as Treasurer and it really pays terrible respect, I think, to the processes of legislation through this place. I will let the public judge for themselves what they think of a government that will not explain to them why they are putting one model before another. It is a basic question: why did the government prefer one position—and he cannot explain himself.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the Treasurer explain where the RAA actually argues against the Western Australian model, particularly when I have seen their submission to the Productivity Commission? I am sure the Treasurer has seen that. Can the Treasurer also explain if the RAA has provided the government with more comprehensive data on its survey of its membership because I note that in their submission to the Productivity Commission the RAA say it surveyed its membership on this issue:

…with 97% of respondents supporting the introduction of real-time fuel pricing, indicating there is significant demand for more comprehensive information in the market.

That is all it says. It just says, 'Yes, our members want real-time fuel pricing.' It does not say that they polled their members asking if they would like it based on the FuelWatch model from Perth. They do not say it is based on the Brisbane model. There is no data in there at all. What I also cannot see in here is abject criticism of the Western Australian model. In fact, this is what it says, firstly, on page 6 of its submission, 'Creating a 24-hour price-lock mechanism provided certainty to consumers.' That is what we are talking about here.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: That's what the RAA said?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is what the RAA said—the Western Australian model.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Go on to read the next sentence.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am going to read it.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 'Currently, with the prevalence of smart phones'—

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If you do not mind—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: —'it is more likely that consumers will be checking technology more frequently prior to seeking to purchase fuel.'

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Franks, you will have the opportunity—

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I find the honourable member's stance—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, continue.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I asked you to read the second sentence.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I was trying to do that.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, please! You will have your opportunity. The Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: This is ludicrous.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You were on the steps of parliament last year—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: —railing against big oil and fossil fuel, and now you are happy to put a pump in retailers, because this is what the government's model does.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, address your remarks through me, and please stay with your topic.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, please!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will go back. On the Western Australian model, this is what they say. The RAA does not specifically come out arguing against the Western Australian model, as the Treasurer implies. It actually gives examples. It gives a cross-section of what is out there and gives its views on how each can be adopted. On the Western Australian model, it states:

In Western Australia, retailers are required to submit their fuel prices to Government at 2pm daily, and then charge that price the following day from 6am for 24 hours.

The system operating in Western Australia commenced in the early 2000s. This was a very different time when smart phones/apps…were not available tools for governments and consumers to disseminate information.

Creating a 24-hour price-lock mechanism provided certainty to consumers.

They go on:

Currently, with the prevalence of smart phones, it is much more likely that consumers will be checking technology more frequently prior to seeking to purchase fuel. The sharing of information in real-time and the nature of price cycles can benefit motorists in that they can take advantage of prices at their cheapest. It is likely that the Western Australian model would be met with more resistance from retailers…

'More resistance from retailers' because it actually gives more power to consumers, and is that not what this whole debate is all about? It is actually about empowering consumers, not the retailers, as the Hon. Tammy Franks wishes to rail for—the retailers, the very people she railed against last year about drilling in the Bight. Finally, this is what they say about the Western Australian model, which we do not hear from the Treasurer:

We would recommend that if the Western Australian model is the government's preferred model that they build in a mechanism for retailers to adjust their prices down after setting them, but not up. This would enable some competitive downward pressure on prices.

My question to the Treasurer is: where is the data from the RAA that shows that consumers would be either advantaged or disadvantaged by either of the models? Where is it?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I firstly say that I have never claimed, to use the phrase of the honourable member, that the RAA has made 'abject criticism' of the Western Australian scheme. What I have said is that the RAA, the fearless independent advocate of motoring consumers in South Australia, has indicated support for the government scheme.

They are aware of the two schemes that are on offer in South Australia—everyone is aware there are two competing models—and the RAA, contemporaneous to this particular debate, is saying that of the two schemes they prefer the government model. I make it quite clear that I have never claimed they have made 'abject criticism' of the Western Australian scheme. They have just indicated that, of the two models, they are advocating support for the model before us at the moment—and they can speak themselves.

In relation to the survey of members they undertake, and what information they share with the Productivity Commission, that is entirely a matter for the RAA in terms of how they conduct their business. They are completely independent of government. They occasionally agree and occasionally disagree with the views of all governments, and they can speak for themselves. I am not in a position to speak for them other than to read the information they have provided to the Productivity Commission.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: In light of the objectives and functions of the Productivity Commission's report, which talks about taking into account the interests of industry, employer, employees, consumers and the community, whose interests does the government's model intend to serve?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We are interested in the motoring consumers, as are the RAA.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: On that basis, is it the case that this model will specifically benefit just the consumers? Who is it going to benefit?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We plead guilty: we are unashamedly trying to look after the interests of the motoring consumers. If that is a criticism we will gladly wear that mantle. There will be some benefits, one would imagine, in terms of understanding a system and for those retailers that may want to compete to have information being provided in real-time. However, the interests of the RAA are unashamedly for the motoring consumers, and on this issue the interests of the government are overwhelmingly in the place of the motoring consumer.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: The RAA is also a business, so is it going to benefit the RAA or any other groups?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the Labor Party, through the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, wants to launch an attack on the RAA as being a business and that in some way, by snide inference in relation to that question—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let the record show—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —that I will defend the RAA against the snide inference of the Labor Party that in some way they are business. Let the record show what the question from the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos demonstrates. As I said—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order, Mr Chairman. The Treasurer is not in any way accurately representing the question he was asked to try to progress this bill, and I think he is doing great harm to the smooth passage and consideration of the bill in this chamber. He is being deliberately inflammatory for some reason to try to delay this.

The CHAIR: I am sure the Treasurer meant no offence and will return to the subject matter.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On the government side we certainly reject any criticism being made of the RAA through that particular question, clearly authorised by the Leader of the Opposition as the leader of the Labor Party in this chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order: the Treasurer said 'clearly authorised by the Leader of the Opposition'. To attribute motives to me as the Leader of the Opposition is completely out of order.

The CHAIR: Clearly authorised by the Leader of the Opposition? Treasurer—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to distance himself from the comments made by one of his own members in the chamber we are happy for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to distance himself—

The CHAIR: Treasurer—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —from the comments made by one of his own members.

The CHAIR: Treasurer, please return to the subject matter. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, do you have a question?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, I do. Can the government give an assurance that its model will not push up prices as indicated by the Attorney-General in the other place? Also, I believe even the RAA made reference to the fact that the RAA in its submission, which I recommend that the Treasurer reads, has never claimed that the introduction of real-time fuel pricing in South Australia will guarantee fuel prices will drop here. They go on to say:

…the experience in Queensland is promising, particularly for regional cities where there has historically been less competition. The real intent of these policies, however, is transparency around information to empower motorists to buy at the best time, saving them money while also continuing to stimulate competition.

So the experience in Brisbane at the moment is that, for the last three months, the prices there under their scheme have meant that their average prices are the highest of any capital city. Can the government give an assurance that consumers in South Australia will not have to wear increases in fuel prices as a result of their scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to again place on the record the advice from the Productivity Commission. I can only repeat it again now for the third time, and they looked at all these fuel schemes:

Regarding changes in average prices, the Commission concludes the evidence to date is inconclusive that price transparency schemes have any lasting impact on average prices in price cycles.

That is all schemes—the Western Australian scheme, the Queensland scheme and, indeed, all the other schemes. That is their view. So in terms of seeking guarantees, and the Hon. Mr Pangallo can give no guarantee in relation to his proposed scheme, the Productivity Commission says no-one can give guarantees in relation to this. It is inconclusive in relation to the impacts on average price cycles and, indeed, they conclude that price cycles will persist despite the introduction of fuel price transparency schemes throughout the nation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question of the Hon. Frank Pangallo. Can he please read the next sentence of that paragraph he just read out, otherwise I will. Alright. It states:

RACQ has been monitoring fuel pricing trends since the inception of the trial and have found Queensland motorists have saved more than $120m since the trial's inception. They are now making the case for the trial to be permanent due to these positive results to date.

That is, $120 million.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter, let the honourable Leader of the Opposition ask his question.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I wish to return to the market conditions of the fuel industry in South Australia. As I said before, I am keen to interrogate a little bit some of the issues that were raised after that in the Senate committee in 2008, also the committee of the Western Australian parliament in 2000. But just to flag, for the committee's benefit, seeing that the issue of the relative merits of various schemes has now been raised, I will also be keen to go through a much more recent interim report from a committee of the ACT parliament that goes through various possible schemes. I will do that a bit later and ask the government their views and why they reject in favour of their proposal different things.

In the ACT, the possible options were to do nothing, better education, creating a fuel prices oversight position or body, introduce a government-run real-time price monitoring scheme or introduce petrol companies being required to lock in fuel prices for 24 hours with mandatory reporting—those two being the essential parts of the competing schemes that I think we are talking about today—or setting a maximum margin for fuel companies. Just so the government is on notice, I will be keen to go through the various pros and cons of each of those as the ACT's recent committee report points out.

Returning to how the sale of fuel works in South Australia, the retailing and wholesaling—I am very keen. I know the Treasurer said he does not have that information, which surprises me a little bit. This is one of the greatest costs of living for most people in South Australia. The Treasurer is fond, with the Attorney-General's bills, of walking into this chamber and feigning ignorance, as he is so good at doing, and saying, 'I'm not a lawyer, I can't possibly understand how the legislation works', despite his having been here for some four decades.

This is about economics. This is about how a market works. This is about transparency and seeking to give consumers information about a market. If this is not within the direct responsibility and ability of the Treasurer to know, I do not know what is. I am very keen for the Treasurer to outline some of these things. He is not a lawyer, but these are not legal questions. I think the Treasurer said there are an estimated 276 retail outlets in Adelaide. I am hoping the Treasurer can let us know how many are in the country and what the ownership concentration is between those.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government gave very close consideration to a range of alternative options and, having given close consideration—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! You will have your opportunity in a second.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —to a range of options, it has proposed the particular model that we have before us today.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am exceptionally disappointed that the Treasurer did not answer anything to do with the question I asked. I think it is showing great disrespect to members of this chamber—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: And to South Australians.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —and to South Australians, quite frankly, not listening to the debate in this chamber on an important issue. The question asked had nothing to do with the relevant merits of various models, which I flagged I would get to, but I did not ask anything about that. For the benefit of the Treasurer, I asked about the market conditions of the fuel retail market in South Australia. I will go back over what I said, because the Treasurer obviously was not listening.

It is disappointing so often that the Treasurer comes into this place with the Attorney-General's bills and claims that he is not a lawyer and could not possibly know how anything to do with legislation works. Treasurer, with all due respect, you have been in this parliament for close to half a century. I do not think your, 'I'm not a lawyer' excuse washes much anymore.

An area that is about how a particular market works, the fuel retail market, and how that can be made more transparent, surely is something a treasurer does or ought to know in quite significant depth. If the Treasurer cannot explain to this chamber, and to the people of South Australia, how it works, it is hard to know who would be able to explain it.

I will repeat the question. The Treasurer got up and answered a question from maybe three questions ago (or a question that might be asked in 10 or so questions), but the question for now relates to the fact that the Treasurer said, I think, that it might have been the ACCC—and I would be keen for him to clarify that because I have forgotten what he said. Did the ACCC estimate that there were 276 fuel retailers in Adelaide? I would be very interested to know how many fuel retailers there are outside Adelaide.

There has been some discussion, and I am sure there will be a lot more discussion, about outside the metropolitan area and how any scheme may benefit country motorists. I am keen for the Treasurer to inform the chamber, in addition to the 276 in Adelaide, how many extra there are in South Australia.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the Productivity Commission report indicates an estimate of about 304, on the most recent analysis, in Adelaide and 357 in regional.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate that. That might be a sage lesson to the Treasurer, as before he would not reveal the true nature of it, that if he is open, transparent and up-front it might assist with the passage of this bill. The Treasurer earlier on said there were 276 in Adelaide. He is now saying there are 304 and 357. Can I confirm: is that 357 across SA, or is that an additional 357 just in country SA?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Country.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just for the benefit of Hansard, is that 357 in country SA, plus 304 in the metropolitan area?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not intend to repeat answers to questions. It is quite clear the Hansard record indicates. So if the leader wants to keep asking the same question, it was 304 in Adelaide, and 357 in regional SA. It is in the Productivity Commission report. If the Leader of the Opposition had done his research and read the Productivity Commission report, he would not have to come in and ask those sorts of questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I think the Treasurer's inflammatory and combative nature is not serving the government well in the passage of this bill. Insulting members, I think, does nothing to help us deal with things. I think, quite frankly, the good people of South Australia would be shocked at the arrogant way the Treasurer is conducting himself during this debate. Far be it from me to offer advice to the Treasurer to help him out, but it probably does the government no good with crossbenchers, having that kind of attitude, either.

For the Treasurer to attempt to lecture others on the accurate nature of the information on the number of fuel retailers, let's not forget—and we will be keen to see if that is what Hansard records, but as I remember it—the Treasurer first got up and said there were 276 in Adelaide and would not give any further information. Then a few minutes later the Treasurer is telling everyone off for not knowing that there are 304, and then 357 across South Australia. The shifting sands of the Treasurer's views—not just views but purported facts—do not do this debate any good at all.

Breaking down the 304 in the metropolitan area—and we can interrogate a bit more the 357 not in the metropolitan area—can the Treasurer outline for the benefit of the committee how the metropolitan area is measured for this purpose and what is the ownership concentration amongst those 304? How many are owned by large fuel retailing companies themselves? How many are independent, and who are the different companies that own them?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have that sort of information available to me for that particular debate. There may well be information in the volumes of the Productivity Commission report.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have that sort of information available for this particular—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The honourable Leader of the Opposition, you will get your opportunity. The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Returning to a question that I previously asked that I do not think we had a satisfactory answer to, how are fuel retailers licensed? Are they able to be set up wherever they please, or is it like other regulated industries?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member asked that particular question about 1¼ hours ago, I suspect. I have no further information to offer other than the information I shared earlier.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might ask it a different way. Are there limitations on the number of fuel retailing outlets that can be in particular geographical areas of South Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to provide advice in relation to that particular issue. It would be an issue managed by Consumer and Business Services, I assume. I am advised that the licensing is done by the ACCC.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Would the Treasurer be able to undertake for the benefit of the committee, perhaps during the lunch break, to bring back that information? If we are not finished this bill, which obviously we hope we will be, but if we are not finished by the lunch break would the Treasurer be able to bring back the answer to that question after the lunch break for the benefit of the committee?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I suspect the answer is probably no, but I will make some inquiries. I suspect the answer is probably no.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Again, I will go to the Treasurer and ask the question: how much will its scheme actually save South Australian motorists and what is that data based upon, compared to the one in Western Australia? I have already pointed out the Treasurer always seems to refer to the RAA as being the sage of all things petrol in this state, but I also prefer the rather voluminous, detailed and comprehensive research by the ACCC. It has done that consistently for several years and has now been assigned the task by the federal government, back in December last year, to keep an eye on petrol prices in Australia. I will point again to its report of December 2018, for the benefit of the Hon. Tammy Franks who is not here, 'The ACCC estimates that motorists in Perth'—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, we do not normally refer to members when they are not in the chamber. It is a convention.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay. For the record, for what the Hon. Tammy Franks seemed to imply about savings, in Perth they save around $520 a year, so I would like to know what the South Australian model that the government is proposing is going to save motorists. I will again go to examples of their preferred model in Brisbane as outlined in the ACCC 'Report on the Australian petroleum market', again, a very comprehensive study full of research and data and quite voluminous, which I do not really see in the RAA's submission. This is what the ACCC say on page 24 of their report for the March quarter 2020, released in July 2020:

Retail prices in Brisbane were higher than the other four largest cities in aggregate.

Retail prices in Brisbane are generally the highest among the five largest cities. In the March quarter 2020, average retail prices in Brisbane (140.7 cpl) were again the highest, and were 6.2 cpl higher than the lowest average retail prices for the quarter, observed in—

Guess where? Perth. Which is the model that we are proposing. So there you go: getting a great deal for consumers. They go on to state:

In the March quarter 2020, average retail prices in Brisbane were 3.7 cpl higher than the other four largest cities in aggregate (137.0 cpl). This was [only] 0.2 cpl lower than the differential in the December quarter 2019 (3.9 cpl).

So there really is not much movement in Brisbane under their so-called Fuel Check model. The report goes on to state:

In the year to March 2020, Brisbane retail prices were on average 3.1 cpl higher than the average across the other four largest cities. This was higher than the 2.8 cpl differential in the year to December 2019.

The ACCC released its report on the Brisbane petrol market in October 2017. It noted that petrol prices in Brisbane had been significantly higher than those in the other four largest cities in the period 2009-10 to 2016-17. Over those eight years, Brisbane motorists paid on average 3.3 cpl more for petrol than motorists in the other four largest cities.

The report found that the main factor influencing the higher prices in Brisbane was higher retail margins on petrol, which contributed to profits in Brisbane being significantly higher than the average across Australia.

We have already read in the report from the RAA that retailers were the ones that were more likely to benefit. Of course they are. That is why we have not even heard from them. I ask the government: has the sector—On The Run and all the others—submitted any information or submissions to the government about this model, because they have been pretty silent with us?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I assume they would have made submissions to the Productivity Commission. In response to the honourable member's earliest question as part of that contribution, I have placed on the record previously the estimate of savings from the Productivity Commission, which was a band of $3 million to $8 million, and they settle on the reasonable estimate being $5 million. I can continue to answer the same question two or three times; I am happy to do so.

In response to one of the earlier questions, I am minded, given I followed in the local newspapers the debate, the issue of the location of new petrol stations does have planning issues. The various planning authorities obviously have some influence about the establishment of new petrol stations because there has been a prominent ongoing dispute about the location of a petrol station on a particular site in the eastern suburbs that has had significant planning issues.

I am also advised that the EPA in recent years has had some sort of authorisation in terms of use of land, I suspect in terms of environmental consequences or significance. That is not, as I understand it, the licensing of a fuel outlet, but if you are going to be a fuel outlet there are some environmental issues that clearly need to be considered given the experiences of the last few decades.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I know we touched on this previously, but I did not quite get the answer I required, and that was in relation to the government's scheme and the effect it will have on the price cycle that motorists in South Australia experience. I want the government to give me an explanation of whether they expect that their scheme will either see a price cycle that is greater or less than, say, the one in Perth. Again, I will refer to the ACCC, which has done extensive work on just about every aspect of petrol pricing. Its report for the March quarter 2020 on page 25, under the heading 'Price cycle in the five largest cities' states:

Retail petrol prices in the five largest cities in Australia move in cycles. These price cycles do not occur in the smaller capital cities or in most regional locations. Price cycles are the result of pricing decisions made by petrol retailers aiming to maximise profits. They only occur at the retail level; wholesale prices do not exhibit similar cyclical movements.

There is a graph here, which I will go through to give you an example of what happens in our five largest capital cities when it comes to cycles per quarter. This is for the June quarter 2019 to the March quarter 2020. For June 2019, in Sydney, they experienced three price cycles; Melbourne, three; Brisbane, three; and Adelaide, four. Guess how many for Perth in that quarter: 13.

For September 2019, Sydney had three; Melbourne, four; Brisbane, three; Adelaide, five; and Perth, 13. For December 2019, Sydney had four; Melbourne, three; Brisbane, four; Adelaide, five; and Perth, 13. For March 2020, Sydney had three; Melbourne, three; Brisbane, three; Adelaide, five; and Perth, 13—consistency. You may recall that yesterday I was talking about the four Cs of consumerism. So for the year to March 2020, the number of price cycles per quarter in Sydney were 13; in Melbourne, 13; in Brisbane, 13; in Adelaide, 19; and in Perth, 52.

In the March quarter 2020, the number of price cycles in Adelaide and Melbourne remained unchanged compared with the previous quarter while Sydney and Brisbane both had one less price cycle. Perth had the most price cycles in the March quarter 2020 with price cycles occurring on a weekly basis, as they have done since 2011.

In the past, these cycles have been highly predictable for motorists, with the lowest price occurring on a Monday and the highest occurring on a Tuesday. However, during the March quarter 2020, this changed, with the lowest price occurring on a Tuesday—I think they call it, and pardon me, cheap arse Tuesday—and the highest price occurring on a Wednesday. The consistency of price cycles in Perth may have been influenced by the Western Australian FuelWatch scheme. I will repeat that: the consistency of price cycles in Perth may have been influenced by the Western Australian FuelWatch scheme.

The ACCC released a report on petrol price cycles in December 2018. The report noted that while motorists find price cycles frustrating, they could use price cycles to their advantage to make substantial savings across the year. As I have pointed out, in Perth it is $520 a year. What I would like from the Treasurer is how many price cycles they expect under their scheme, would it be consistent or similar to what we have seen in Brisbane, and do they expect that motorists in South Australia will save a considerable amount of money, more so than what the scheme in Perth does?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As the honourable member indicated, he has already asked this question. I have already given an answer. I again indicate that the advice of the Productivity Commission is that the commission concludes that evidence clearly shows that price cycles persist despite the introduction of fuel price transparency schemes, but it also concurs with the view that transparency schemes reduce the cost to consumers of finding low-cost fuel, including at the low point of the fuel cycle.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: On another matter, COVID-19: does the Treasurer know whether COVID-19 restrictions are having, or have had, an effect on prices and also fuel consumption?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Certainly, it has had an effect on fuel consumption because during COVID-19 there was, for a period of time, a lot less traffic as people were required to stay at home or work from home.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government tell us whether it has resulted in higher prices and whether it is likely to happen while the pandemic continues?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have any information on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on retail petrol prices in metropolitan Adelaide and regional South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have indicated that I have quite a few questions that result from the select committee in Western Australia, 'Getting a fair deal for Western Australian motorists', as well as the—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Is that the one from 20 years ago, that select committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was some time ago, but it gave rise to the system and that is one of the competing systems. Again, the Treasurer thinks it is funny to continually interject and to drag this out. I do not think it is. I think it is important that we understand how this works and how this works for South Australia. The Treasurer can choose, if he wants, as is his way, to constantly interject and make it difficult for members of the chamber to understand the nature and effects of the bill.

Again, I am not usually in the business of offering free advice to our Treasurer about how to best prosecute legislation, but stopping constant interjections, in my view, would be a good way to allow this to progress. I will leave that for the Treasurer to decide how he conducts himself and perhaps to reflect on that.

As I was saying—and if he interjects again I will have to repeat myself—I will get on to asking some very specific questions about the Western Australian select committee's 'Getting a fair deal for Western Australian motorists' report that was done before the scheme, which is one of the two competing schemes we are talking about, was introduced into Western Australia.

I also have quite an extensive list of questions about the Senate committee in 2008, but I might start with questions about the most recent committee report, that is the interim report from 2019 in the ACT about petrol pricing, 'Interim report into the inquiry into ACT fuel pricing'. This goes through a number of the different possibilities for fuel pricing and fuel pricing control, regulation or otherwise.

I do not think I will canvass the first possible recommendation, which is entitled 'Do nothing', although that is a recommendation the Liberal government seems to have adopted for the last two years. Regarding that first one, the 'Do nothing' option, I think, if I am remembering correctly, about $70 million a year is the estimate in here of the RAA, which the Treasurer has fondly referred to a number of times. In fact, I might ask that question: Treasurer, what is the RAA estimate of how much the 'do nothing' option that your government has adopted so far has cost just Adelaide motorists each year; is it in the order of $70 million a year?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have that figure on hand but whatever it is, you can multiply it by 16 for the 16 years the Labor government was in power.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was a multiparty pledge before the last state election in March 2018 to do something about this. I think all of Labor, Liberal and SA-Best pledged before the last state election to do something about fuel pricing. We had the election and it was, unfortunately, by and large for the people of South Australia, the Liberal Party who won the last election, so it has been incumbent on them to do it.

Can the Treasurer take on notice what the RAA estimate is for Adelaide motorists and if there is one for the whole of South Australia? If my memory serves me correctly it is an estimate for Adelaide motorists only. What is the RAA's estimate that the 'do nothing' approach, the possible recommendation of the ACT report that the Liberal government has adopted the last two years, has cost Adelaide motorists? Will the Treasurer take on notice and undertake to bring back to the chamber what the estimate is from the RAA?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot give any undertakings but I am prepared to make some inquiries. If I get the information, I will. Whatever the number is, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, multiply that by 16 years for doing nothing under the former Labor government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for his change of heart and his decision now, which stands in stark contrast to only a few minutes ago, to be mildly helpful to this committee. We look forward to him finding that number for us and bringing it back. We had the first possible recommendation of the ACT's interim report on ACT fuel pricing, the 'do nothing' approach that has been the Liberal government's policy for the first two years of their term in government.

The other possible recommendation of the ACT report is better education. I am wondering if the Treasurer can outline what views the government has on the possibility of better education, what things the government is looking to put in place in addition to one of the two competing schemes this chamber is being asked to look at, and is the government anticipating doing anything else that would fall into the category of better education?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government always supports better education. I am not in a position to share what initiatives, if any, the government is looking at but certainly the RAA, I am sure, and other motoring consumer advocates would participate in providing better education to consumers. It is not just a role for government: there is clearly a role for fearless independent motoring consumer advocates like the RAA as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is good. I thank the Treasurer. As he correctly points out, it is not just a role for government, but it certainly is a role for government. As the select committee on fuel pricing from the ACT points out, they considered evidence and heard consistently that there is poor community understanding of the fuel industry and its market.

I might just add that it is not just poor community understanding of the fuel industry and the market, there is very poor understanding of the fuel industry and market by the Treasurer of South Australia. We have repeatedly asked the Treasurer to gain an idea of how the fuel market works in South Australia with simple questions like: does a fuel retailer have to be licensed by anybody to carry out that business over and above planning or environmental considerations, and the Treasurer has either been unable or unwilling—which would be even more concerning—to provide any information in relation to that.

As the ACT committee looks at better education and notes that their evidence is that there is poor community understanding of the fuel industry and market, it is very clear that the Treasurer has a poor understanding of that as well. The ACT committee writes:

A better understanding of what drives fuel prices may result in at a minimum, less community anxiety and, potentially, a change in some consumer behaviour.

The ACT committee notes in favour of better education—and this goes to the point the Treasurer made—that one of the benefits is that it would be of a low cost to government or industry. As the Treasurer pointed out, the area of better education is not necessarily something that is only the government's responsibility. As the report notes, it is 'government or industry'. So, yes, on this occasion I am happily agreeing with the Treasurer that it is both government and industry.

The ACT committee also notes in terms of better education that one of the pros is that 'the more informed the community, the greater agency they may have in making purchasing decisions'. Some of the possible downsides to better education as a standalone option canvassed by the ACT committee were 'potentially no resulting lowering of fuel prices' and 'price change is only likely to occur if consumer-led'. So my very specific question to the government is: what specifically is the government considering for better education in relation to fuel prices, in addition to any scheme that is implemented in South Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I indicated earlier, I am not in a position to indicate the detail of that other than the government believes in it and will be providing for it, should this filibuster ever conclude and the legislation be successful. The government has provision for an education and information campaign. The details of that would essentially be up to Consumer and Business Services, I assume, in terms of better education, but it would be in concert with motoring organisations like the RAA and others as well.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I point out to the chamber that we have been on clause 1 for an hour and 40 minutes now. If we can be mindful of that as we proceed, please.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I take into account your guidance. This is a very important bill. The Treasurer has undertaken to take on notice and bring back a reply in relation to how much this has cost South Australian motorists. My memory is it is about $70 million a year just for Adelaide motorists, so we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars over a number of years and well over $100 million over the two years of inaction of the Liberal government so far just for Adelaide motorists.

I note your guidance and note just how important this is if we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to consumers just in Adelaide, let alone the whole of South Australia. I want to turn to the next recommendation for ways to make fuel prices cheaper that the ACT considered, and that is creating a fuel prices oversight position or body. I have a series of questions to go through with the government about the merits of that and what consideration was given to that.

The ACT then specifically considers a 24-hour lock-in mechanism and next considers a real-time reporting mechanism. Seeing that they are the two competing schemes that we are considering, I will have quite detailed questions on both of those before, as I say, returning to the WA committee's findings in some detail and then the Senate report. There are then a number of other reports that I think are important that I want to ask questions about.

Returning to recommendation 3, to create a fuel prices oversight position or body, what consideration did the government give to such a proposal, either as a standalone way to try to put downward pressure on fuel prices for South Australian consumers or in conjunction with whatever model the government prefers or whatever model the parliament decides upon?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government gave very close consideration to a range of options and models and chose the model that is before the parliament to decide upon.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: With respect, that did not actually answer the exact details of the question, so to aid the Treasurer I might go into a bit more detail about what that recommendation was from the ACT committee. The committee in the ACT was encouraged by a range of witnesses to recommend creating a fuel prices oversight position or body. They note that in Western Australia, which is something we have already talked about a fair bit in this committee and something we will be talking about a lot more as this committee deliberates:

a fuel prices commissioner exists whose role is to report daily on fuel prices and explain market trends. On the basis that, since the establishment of the select committee—

that is, the ACT select committee into fuel prices—

prices have generally been lower in the ACT.

It has been suggested in the ACT that the establishment of the standing committee tasked with monitoring prices may be a consideration. The possible benefits, the pros, that the ACT committee talked about in relation to creating a fuel prices oversight position or body are that it might assist with aiding transparency of fuel prices and be an ongoing education model. Depending on the model there would also likely be lower costs to government or industry.

One of the considerations that has worked against creating that, one of the cons, was potentially no resulting lowering of fuel prices. In the end, considerations included that the effectiveness of the role or body on lowering fuel prices may depend on how effective it is in calling out issues or trends.

Given that the Treasurer now understands, in a more detailed way, the considerations the ACT select committee took into account in relation to creating a fuel prices oversight position or body, can the Treasurer inform the committee whether the government would be prepared to look at that in conjunction with whatever other scheme the parliament decides upon?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; the government has given close consideration to a whole variety of alternative options and has decided on the option it is proposing in the legislation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: On page 5 of the South Australian Productivity Commission report into fuel pricing it states that on 18 December 2019 the Premier asked the South Australian Productivity Commission to investigate and report on potential models that would increase transparency of fuel prices, having regard to the most cost-effective solution to increase transparency in fuel prices in South Australia. Is this simply the best model or the cheapest model? If it is the cheapest model, is it the cheapest model for the government, the industry or the consumer?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's decision is in the best interests of the motoring consumers of South Australia. That is our prime interest. I think the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos asked the question earlier as to who the government was trying to benefit most, and we unashamedly say that we are trying to look after the motoring consumer, as is the RAA. It is the government's intention, through its scheme, to try to benefit motoring consumers to the greatest degree possible.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: On 13 May this year, the Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, stated that this may not reduce the overall cost of petrol. If this is to benefit the consumer and the consumer alone, how is it benefiting the consumer?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We welcome the Hon. Ms Bourke's contribution to the debate but, as I have answered four previous questions, let me answer it for the Hon. Ms Bourke because it is the same question. This is the Productivity Commission's question: regarding changes—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Insulting members does no good, Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting again, Mr Chairman, trying to delay the proceedings.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order!

The Hon. K.J. Maher: When you interject is that what you were doing?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order!

The Hon. K.J. Maher: When you have interjected is that what you are doing, trying to delay it?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order, Leader of the Opposition, please. Treasurer, continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let the Hansard record show another interjection.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Don't delay.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I will ask you to come to order, Leader of the Opposition. We are not getting anywhere. Treasurer, I ask you to address your comments through the Chair.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Thank you. Please continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Productivity Commission concluded that:

Regarding changes in average prices, the commission concludes the evidence to date is inconclusive that price transparency schemes have any lasting impact on average prices in price cycles.

All price transparency schemes, is the conclusion of the Productivity Commission.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Just to clarify it, is this the best model or simply the cheapest model?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is the best model for motoring consumers and therefore, in the government's view, will lead to the best possible result in terms of price impacts for motoring consumers in South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just a couple more questions following on from the Hon. Emily Bourke's questions. The Treasurer keeps saying that this is the best model for consumers in South Australia. In some ways it is difficult to accept that the Treasurer is able to draw that conclusion, given the Treasurer has been wholly unable to inform the chamber of exactly how the fuel retailing system in South Australia works, even the simplest questions about what the licensing requirements are for a fuel retailer beyond mere planning or environmental considerations. But the Treasurer has undertaken to bring that back when we consider this in further detail, likely after the lunch break today.

Given what he is purporting to the committee is that this is the model that is in the best interests of consumers in South Australia—and if I know the Treasurer at all I am sure he has considered this—what are the cost differences to government in the two competing models, leaving aside what might be in the best interests of motorists? It would beggar belief that the Treasurer of South Australia, a champion of understanding the cost to government of everything, has not done any work or has not asked for any work to be done on what the costs to government are on the various models.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government made the decision in the best interests of motoring consumers. Whilst there will be an inevitable cost to the government and the budget, we put the interests of the motoring consumers ahead of the particular interests that I, as Treasurer, and the Treasury might have in relation to the budget considerations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To be quite clear, is the Treasurer really trying to tell this chamber and the people of South Australia that there is a policy decision to be made about a particular model in a policy area, and the Treasurer has been completely blasé and has not even asked the question about what various proposals would cost to government? In cabinet deliberations, the Treasurer said, 'Put up whatever you want. I am not concerning myself whatsoever with what the cost is to government.' Is that really what the Treasurer is asking us to believe here?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I indicated, we are more interested in the interests of the motoring consumers of South Australia. They are our primary concern in relation to these issues. The issue of the cost of fuel, of course, does have an impact both on motoring consumers who might happen to be non-public servants and it also has an impact on public servants, so there are obvious issues in relation to that.

In terms of the government, as it approved this particular scheme, it has approved a budget for the particular agency to implement the scheme. But in relation to whether we have gone off and costed what the cost to government was of implementing the Western Australian scheme, that was not our primary driver. Our primary driver is the motoring consumers of South Australia. It might be hard for the Labor Party and others to accept that but we are here trying to look after the interests of the motoring consumers, as are the RAA, and that is our primary driver, not what the impact on a $22 billion budget might be.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have to say that beggars belief that the Treasurer is trying to tell us—and it is absolutely our primary consideration, as I am sure it is the Hon. Frank Pangallo's, the best interests of consumers in South Australia. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would deny that is the primary interest of the Hon. Frank Pangallo who has spent most of his life in one form or another standing up for consumers in South Australia.

But it does beggar belief that the Treasurer would not have asked what the costs of implementation are and what the relative costs of other schemes are. So the Treasurer has said that the government have done their numbers and know what the costs of implementation of this scheme are, so let's unpack that a little bit. What is the cost of implementation and the ongoing recurrent costs of implementing the scheme that the Treasurer prefers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: After the lunch break, that information is available to the government. I do not have it with me at the moment. It was a modest amount of money in a $22 billion budget. But we are happy to provide that information after the lunch break.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In her jaw-dropping commentary during the committee stage in the House of Assembly, the Attorney-General said that her scheme could push up prices, and it was in the Productivity Commission report that it was likely to push up prices. The Attorney-General said that if her preferred model did not work they would look at other models.

My question to the Treasurer is: what other models would you be looking at? Would you be looking at FuelWatch, because I cannot think of any others operating in Australia at the moment? Is the Treasurer saying that, if this does not work with the money you have outlaid to get this up and running and it does not deliver the savings for consumers, a better deal for consumers like it has in Perth, you may look at the Perth model? Is that what the Attorney-General is saying?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I answered this question yesterday. I think the honourable member asked a question in relation to a review at the end of the two-year period. I think he was asking who was going to conduct the review. So at the end of the two years a review will be conducted.

I remind the honourable member that the independent Productivity Commission, in relation to the honourable member's favoured FuelWatch scheme, and also in relation to the Queensland and other schemes as well, concluded that the evidence to date is inconclusive that price transparency schemes have any lasting impact on average prices. Contrary to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's view of the world, the Productivity Commission does—

The Hon. F. Pangallo: Not mine, the ACCC.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, no. Well, the Productivity Commission does not subscribe—

The Hon. F. Pangallo interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order! The Hon. Mr Pangallo, the Treasurer has the call.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order! The Treasurer has the call.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst I might be interested in the views of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, the independent Productivity Commission—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —has put a different point of view to the view that the Hon. Mr Pangallo prefers. The Hon. Mr Pangallo can choose whatever view he wishes to support. I am supporting the view of the independent Productivity Commission in South Australia, which does not have an axe to grind in relation to this particular issue. These issues are matters of opinion. The Productivity Commission's view of the world is one to which I, on behalf of the government, subscribe.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Treasurer has talked about what scheme he prefers, but preferring what the South Australian Productivity Commission says over the Australian ACCC. Can the Treasurer outline whether the ACCC has legislative backing and some parliamentary oversight, and whether his Productivity Commission has that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have any knowledge of the ACCC's views or actions in relation to the issue he has raised. I am aware of the views the Hon. Mr Pangallo has put on the record in relation to the ACCC's report. I thought he said it was from 2018, but I will stand corrected if it was a different date. I am aware of the views the Leader of the Opposition has quoted from a 20-year-old Western Australian select committee report, or something.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And an ACT report. I am aware of all the issues because they have all been raised in the two hours of filibustering we have endured.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the Treasurer outline the impact that his proposed scheme will have on regional areas and the needs of consumers in regional areas?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The proposal is to cover most of South Australia, including the regional areas, but evidently there is the option in the regulations to exempt certain remote areas from the requirements under the legislation. That sort of detail will be worked through. Major regional centres, about which the honourable member may have some interest in terms of the Mount Gambiers and the Naracoortes of this world, etc., would be covered by the scheme. It would only be potentially some of the remote areas of the state which may or may not be, but that will be the subject of further work.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the Treasurer for his answer, and I certainly do want to pursue some questions that would relate, for example, to Mount Gambier and Naracoorte. But in terms of the exemptions, have any guidelines been given at this stage? What sort of considerations would be taken into account in terms of putting such exemptions into the regulations?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, that sort of detail has not been worked through at this stage, other than there is the option for certain remote areas. It may well be in relation to a certain remote area where there might only be a very single, small multipurpose outlet that does a range of functions. Maybe that is a consideration, but that sort of detail has not been worked through yet.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the Treasurer advise who has been consulted on this bill in regional areas? Obviously, the RAA has statewide coverage from one perspective, but who else in regional areas has been involved with consultation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This question was asked twice yesterday. The answer is on the Hansard record. That is, the wide consultation is listed in the Productivity Commission report as to a range of organisations and stakeholders that were consulted. The government has essentially worked from the back onwards from the Productivity Commission report and did not engage in significant further consultation, other than with the major stakeholder groups such as the RAA.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just for clarity, is the Treasurer saying that no specific groups in regional areas were consulted? Is that a correct understanding of what he has just said?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, what I said was that the Productivity Commission consulted a range of stakeholders. I do not have a list of those. They would be available in the Productivity Commission report. It may or may not—I would be surprised if it did not—involve representatives from regional areas, putting a point of view to the Productivity Commission. The broad consultation was undertaken by the independent Productivity Commission, and I refer the honourable member to their reports.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Treasurer is saying that the government has not made any specific consultation on a specific bill with stakeholders in regional areas; is that correct?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I answered this question yesterday.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the honourable member was not here or did not read the Hansard transcript, I cannot help that.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just said 'if the honourable member'.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I said, if the honourable member was not here or has not read the transcripts, I cannot assist the honourable member. The answers are on the Hansard record in relation to consultation issues. In relation to the earlier issue, I am advised that there was a budget approved $1.1 million over two years for the implementation of the scheme.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the Treasurer aware of the average price differential between metropolitan and regional areas in terms of petrol pricing—the difference in the prices between if you are buying petrol in Adelaide or if you are buying petrol in a regional centre, such as Mount Gambier but not limited to Mount Gambier, in general?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have that sort of information at the moment, but my experience, having come from Mount Gambier, is it can vary widely. On occasions, having travelled to regional areas, it has actually been cheaper than the prevailing price in the metropolitan area. More often, it tends to be a little more expensive, but I have no more information other than that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it would be a very rare occasion that it is cheaper in most regional areas. For example, in a media report earlier this year in relation to fuel prices it said that 'regional areas are not receiving the same price drop, with the price at some petrol stations more than 35¢ higher than those in Adelaide'. So that is more than 'slightly more expensive' than the metropolitan price.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He is out of touch.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed, I am sure some people would agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer is out of touch.

The CHAIR: Interjections are out of order and you should not respond to them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My apologies, Mr Chair. I shall try not to do so in future. We are looking at a price in regional areas that is 35¢ higher than in metropolitan areas, yet the Treasurer has said that this specific bill has not been consulted on in regional areas other than the RAA, and I do appreciate the RAA has coverage across the state. Could the Treasurer explain then how this is expected to be an improvement for regional residents?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member answers her own question. The RAA is a fearless, independent advocate for all motoring consumers, and I am surprised she does not recognise their considerable coverage of country motoring consumers. If you wanted to speak to anybody who speaks on behalf of motoring consumers in regional South Australia, I would be speaking to the RAA.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will point out that I acknowledged the wide coverage of the RAA. My question was: why is the government not specifically consulting on their bill with residents in regional areas? I am happy to be corrected, but I do not believe that the Treasurer has indicated the RAA sent out the bill for that kind of consultation, because that would be a role of government and a role of government agencies rather than the role of the RAA. From what I have heard from the Treasurer, there has not been specific consultation on this particular bill with regional residents.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government does not propose to further delay the introduction of a fuel monitoring or transparency scheme by delaying the passage of this bill this week, as would seem to be the wish of the Labor Party and SA-Best, in order to send it out for further consultation to individual country consumers. We are relying on the RAA to provide information to us on behalf of country and metropolitan consumers. We want to see the passage of legislation this week. It would appear from the attitude of the Hon. Ms Scriven and her leader, and the Hon. Mr Pangallo, that they are intent on trying to delay and prevent the passage of the legislation through an unashamed filibuster at clause 1.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is now five past one, and I propose in a moment to move to report progress, but the Labor Party and SA-Best for a period of two hours now have not proceeded beyond clause 1 of this bill in an unadulterated attempt at a filibuster to delay the passage of the legislation.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:08 to 14:15.