Bills

Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Are there any further contributions at clause 1?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the Treasurer advise whether regional retailers will be under the same requirements to log into the database as will metropolitan retailers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice prior to the lunch break is the same as my advice after the lunch break, and that is that the answer is yes, the scheme arrangements will be the same for regional areas generally, with the potential exemption of some remote areas, which we discussed prior to the lunch break.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for that clarification. The proposal from the government is that there will be the reporting of the fuel prices 30 minutes in advance of changes. Given that many of us who live in regional areas are at least half a hour away from such retailers, can he outline, first, how this can benefit regional residents? I will then have a follow-up question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: To clarify the 30-minute provision, the retailer can start charging (let us say he or she decides to discount significantly by 40¢ a litre) they can start charging the discount of 40¢ a litre straight away, as long as they within 30 minutes have advised of this new system. They have 30 minutes to advise in relation to the operation of the charging arrangement. With some, they will have a system that does it instantaneously, but with some others it might take them longer, but they have a 30-minute window to advise under this new system the price they are charging.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the Treasurer for that answer. Similarly, a 40¢ increase, for example, must be advised within 30 minutes. My question remains: if one is at home and sees that, in the example given, there is discounted pricing, that can change even before a regional resident even has a chance to get to a service station, which may be 40 or 50 minutes away from their place of residence, so I ask again: how can that benefit regional residents?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The system will apply to metropolitan and regional residents as well. Certainly, there will be some areas of the outer metropolitan regions and the Adelaide Hills where the same issues and challenges would apply.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed, although generally in the metropolitan area you do not have to go 30 minutes to find a service station. How does that assist those regional residents? They will not be able in many cases to take advantage of it, or are unlikely to think it worth it, given that it can easily have changed by the time they get to the service station to purchase fuel. Therefore it would appear to me that it will have no benefit whatsoever to regional residents, because they will not be able to rely on the fact that the price will be the same when they arrive at the service station as when they left home.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, that is not the case. Let me give the honourable member an example of a regional community: Mount Gambier. There are quite a number of petrol stations in and around Mount Gambier. As soon as the price changes, the vast majority of regional residents in and around that community, if they so choose, will be able to avail themselves of the price differentials, if they wish. There would be a significant number of other regional communities.

Yes, there will be some regional communities where their nearest petrol station might be 60 or 100 kilometres away. In many of those cases, just to inform the honourable member, they may well only fill up their fuel once a week or, in many cases, they will have on-farm supplies that are available, just to inform the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what happens in regional areas.

The reality is there is not a petrol station within 30 minutes of every consumer in regional South Australia. That is just a statement of fact. If the honourable member wants to devise a system which is going to accommodate that sort of circumstance, good luck. But the system that the government hopes to apply in South Australia applies in Queensland, where there are regional communities. The equivalent of the RAA loudly sang the praises of the benefits to both metropolitan and regional residents and consumers in Queensland, as the fearless advocate on behalf of motorists in Queensland.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo has devised a system that would assist such residents who will not perhaps have to travel 24 hours to get to their service station, and therefore the proposal that would assist those regional residents the most would be one that allows them a reasonable amount of time to avail themselves of cheaper fuel prices, where those cheaper fuel prices exist. Can the Treasurer outline why he is refusing to entertain a system that would potentially enable far, far, far more regional residents to actually benefit from any discounting in fuel prices?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Because the statement by the deputy leader is wrong in fact. That might be her view, but it is not a view that I share and it is not a view that the RAA shares, speaking on behalf of metropolitan and regional communities. It is not a view that the RACQ, speaking on behalf of metropolitan and regional communities in Queensland, shares.

The prospect as to why, in a community where there might be only one outlet, you would drop a petrol price for less than 30 minutes before anyone could actually come and avail themselves of the petrol price seems beyond any logic at all. If you are actually dropping your petrol price and you are the only outlet in a particular area and you are trying to attract custom, why would you actually close it off before people could actually come and purchase your petrol?

The member can claim that the vast majority of regional residents will be better off under her proposed scheme. Good luck to her. That is not a view that the government shares, it is not a view that the RAA shares and it is not a view the RACQ shares.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would have thought the reason a retailer might do that would be fairly obvious. If one can essentially advertise a discounted price, which can then encourage people to visit, without them necessarily knowing that it will not be available once they get there, once they get there they are probably not going to go home again because they probably do not have enough petrol. That would be the reason it could be used, and abused, whereas the proposal that would allow a fixed price for 24 hours, an advertised price to be valid for 24 hours, would clearly be of more benefit to those regional residents.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, we will just have to agree to disagree. The problem with the scheme the honourable member is outlining is that for tens of thousands of metropolitan consumers and big regional centre consumers, in the situation where you have one outlet that might drop their petrol price and the current arrangement allows everybody else to compete and drop their petrol price by 40¢ a litre, under the system the honourable member supports, all those tens of thousands of consumers will be disadvantaged because they will be paying 40¢ a litre more for 24 hours; whereas, under the current arrangement, the competitive model allows those people to compete by dropping their prices.

The Hon. Ms Scriven wants to lock these poor consumers into having to pay 40¢ a litre extra for 24 hours because they cannot adjust their price. That just seems to be very unfair to consumers in the metropolitan area and in the big regional centres and others where there are a variety of options for consumers to be able to choose from.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is clear that the Treasurer is wilfully choosing one set of examples over another. For any example where it has decreased in price, surely the same applies where it has increased in price or vice versa. Can the Treasurer outline what will actually be involved in the process for retailers to register, to be able to log in to the database—or whatever the Treasurer wishes to call it—in order to record and report what that fuel price will be?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The broad description of the process, should the bill be successful and the filibuster does not work this week, is that the government would go to tender to get what is referred to as a third-party aggregator, as I said. I think in layperson's terms it would be the organisation that would run the system. Once that system is established, the individual retail outlet would in essence log on to a website or some equivalent digitally and real-time update their changes in prices, 'real time' being that, while some systems will do it automatically, they have to have advised any change in price within a 30-minute time period.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the answer; however, that seems very vague. I am trying to get an understanding for a retailer. Again, I am particularly thinking of regional retailers. It might be, as indeed the Treasurer said earlier this morning, a single, small multipurpose facility trying to do many things at once, and fuel provision might be only one small part of its business. I am trying to get an understanding of how much work will be involved in the process of registering, getting sufficient materials to be able potentially to train staff as necessary, perhaps updating or upgrading computer systems and all those kinds of practical day-to-day things. What kind of time and investment will be necessary for fuel retailers to do that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised it is unlikely to be extraordinarily complicated. I am advised that many evidently already provide that information to some of the currently available apps in terms of price monitoring. I suspect it will be in and of itself, in general terms, no more complicated for those that end up being lottery outlets or the like. Again, systems will be required but, in the end, as in the lotteries case, they will decide whether or not they see it as being good for their business.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the Treasurer advise what percentage of retailers fit that description of already providing that information via apps or whatever?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; I am not in a position to be able to provide that information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What the Treasurer is saying is that, apart from a vague assurance that it will not be too hard, he or his department does not even know how many retailers will have an additional administrative burden compared to the current situation. Is that what the Treasurer is telling the chamber?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am saying, 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help you, and you can trust me.' I am sure most of the retailers will take me at my word on behalf of the government. So no, I cannot offer any more detail than that.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

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

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note the comments of the Hon. Ms Bourke that the Treasurer does not have a great track record with engendering trust among small retailers—in fact, I suspect the opposite is the case.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order! Address the issue please, Hon. Ms. Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, Mr Acting Chairman. What I am trying to establish—particularly for a small retailer and particularly, although not limited to, those in regional areas—is how much work is involved. We are being assured by the Treasurer that it is not that much, it is not that hard, but we have already heard, earlier in this debate, that the benefits to regional residents is probably not going to be that much, it is not really going to be very different.

We have a situation where, for example, it is reported that there is a 35 cent difference between the average price in regional areas and the average price in metropolitan areas, and that will not actually get much better, if better at all, under this process, yet regional retailers will have this added administrative burden. We do not know how many regional retailers will have an added burden because we do not know how many are already reporting via apps or similar processes.

We do not know how many metropolitan retailers will have an added administrative burden because we do not know how many metropolitan retailers are currently reporting using the technology to which the Treasurer refers. It seems entirely reasonable that that information should be obtained, that that information should be available to this chamber, so that an appropriate assessment can be made of whether this is something that will, in fact, have a negative impact in regional areas.

The Treasurer is always keen to talk at length about administrative burdens or business costs, yet it would appear he is going to be adding to the business costs of regional retailers—but he cannot tell us how much, he just says that it will not be that hard. He does not actually know what is involved but, 'it won't be that hard'. I would have thought it would not be that hard to tell us how many regional retailers will actually be affected by this, how many are not currently using the sort of technology to which the Treasurer is referring.

Can the Treasurer undertake to come back to the chamber with the numbers of how many retailers, who are not currently using this type of technology to which the Treasurer refers, will have this added burden?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; there is no requirement on a retailer at the moment to tell us what they do in relation to their private business. It is not a government mandate, if they voluntarily choose to provide that information to some of these mobile apps. The world of the Labor Party might be that you go out there and drag this information out of these people who have made their own business decisions, but they are private arrangements they have made with these mobile app companies or outlets.

I would not expect the Labor Party to have read the Productivity Commission report but if they are at all interested, as they profess to be, I refer them to page 28 of that report where some information is provided, for anyone prepared to read the report, about the design and how it operates in Queensland. In summary, it says that the Productivity Commission 'regards this reporting design is currently best practice and has incorporated it in Option 1.' I refer the honourable member, if she is willing, to take the time to read the Productivity Commission report. There is some detail there from the Productivity Commission in relation to the design of the process.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I note that the Treasurer was quite active on Twitter at lunchtime urging us to put the pedal to the metal. I just want to get back to his comments about the price dropping 40¢. How long will motorists have to buy it at that 40¢ discount in the event that they got the 30 minutes notice, and is it not correct that it will be able to jump again in say 30, 60, 90 minutes? It could actually go up and down like a yo-yo several times a day if the retailer feels like it, and if they want to have a sucker deal dropping the price to 99¢ for an hour or so they get a logjam of traffic outside their premises.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am sure the honourable member has experienced purchasing petrol for his own car and I will not enter into the member's arrangements as to whether or not he has a government taxpayer-funded car or whether he has his own. Putting that to the side, I am sure he goes to petrol outlets to see the price of petrol.

The general experience in metropolitan Adelaide, if we can refer to that as the best example the member may well have some familiarity with, is that someone or a number of outlets in a particular area significantly drops the price of petrol for a period of time and then, as I said, all and sundry, or most all and sundry, join in to price compete in and around about that particular level for period of time.

It is what is known as, and he referred to it earlier, a price cycle and they compete for a period of time. It is not common practice, if you live in the real world, where someone drops it and then five minutes later increases it by 40¢ and then five minutes later drops it by 40¢, etc. I would invite the honourable member, if he thinks that is the experience in the real world, to put that on the record.

My experience is that the price drops for a period of time. It might be for the remainder of the morning or the day, and sometimes it then goes back up to somewhere between the dropped price and the highest price that had been prevailing prior to the price cycle, and then eventually at some stage it gets back to the top level of the cycle again.

The answer to the question is, as occurs at the moment, people are entitled to move their prices around if they so wish and people can compete for the period of time that people are making an offer, as indeed they can with any other product, or most other products that people offer in their retail outlets.

The advantage of that system, as opposed to the honourable member's system, is that at least people for a period of time, whether it is for a period of hours or for a day or two—or at least a period of hours, at least 24 hours—will have the opportunity to avail themselves of the prevailing drop in the market.

The sad reality of the Hon. Mr Pangallo's passionate embrace of Western Australia is that for a period of 24 hours, only the people who happen to live in and around the Hackham service station, if that is where the price drop has occurred, will get the value of the price drop. The consumers the Hon. Ms Scriven was concerned about who were more than 30 minutes away from an outlet would have no capacity to get down to Hackham to take advantage of the price.

There are examples that we can put onto the public record, that attempt to support the honourable member's case, that in our view support the government's case. The reality is the choice for this chamber is pretty stark: there is a government model supported by the RAA and implicitly supported by people like the RACQ and others, and there is the Western Australian model which is supported by the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Labor Party.

It is a pretty simple choice. All of this sort of questioning is not changing the government's position, and it is quite evident that it is not changing the Hon. Mr Pangallo's position. I am not sure what people are concerned about in having a vote on this particular clause 1 of the bill but the attempt to try to filibuster to lock in no changes in fuel pricing for at least another couple of months by Mr Pangallo and the Labor Party—if that is what they achieve, let the motorists of South Australia be aware of the reason we were unable to vote on it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is the Treasurer suggesting that if it does not get voted through today, or it gets voted through today, everything will be up and running within a couple of months? Is that what you are suggesting?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I am suggesting you are trying to prevent it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, I am not trying to prevent it.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes, you are.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have an amendment to the bill. I can assure the Treasurer that I have actually lived and worked in the real world for nearly 46 years before entering this place, so I am quite familiar with the buying habits of consumers in South Australia, whether it is at supermarkets or whether it is at petrol stations. I have seen all the fluctuations that occur that drive people batty. Can I ask the Treasurer who runs the aggregation scheme in Queensland? Are you aware of that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told it is an organisation called Informed Sources. I have no knowledge of who they are or what they are and, of course, the South Australian government, as I indicated by way of an answer to an earlier question, would go out to a tender in relation to who would be the aggregator.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will Informed Sources be involved in the scheme in South Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I repeat for the third time: it would go to tender, so I do not know whether they would tender or not.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Certainly going by their submission to the Productivity Commission, in which they seem to be pitching their services to the RAA, Informed Sources will be probably a tenderer. Can I just remind the Treasurer about Informed Sources. This is from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, from 20 August 2014:

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Informed Sources (Australia) Pty Ltd (Informed Sources) and several petrol retailers alleging that they contravened section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act).

The ACCC alleges that the information sharing arrangements between Informed Sources and the petrol retailers, through a service provided by Informed Sources, allows those retailers to communicate with each other about their prices, and that these arrangements had the effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in markets for the sale of petrol in Melbourne.

Subscribers to the Informed Sources service provide pricing data to Informed Sources at frequent, regular intervals and in return receive from it collated data from the other subscribers, and various reports containing pricing information across particular regions.

Quite clearly, Informed Sources was the subject of an ACCC legal action back then.

Can I just go back to the apps. Under the Queensland scheme, fuel data is accessible via private apps, and these apps include EzySt, Fuelify, Fuel Map, Pumped, Fuel Price Australia, ServoTrack, Simples Fuel, MotorMouth, RACQ, Petrol Spy and Vroom Fuel Price Compare. These apps are provided for subscription, by advertisement or in association with other commercial matters. Will that be the case under this scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised we are making it mandatory for the information to be provided but it will be open to anyone.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That information will be provided by the government?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It will be provided to the government by the third-party aggregator, but it will be made available by the government to anyone.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Through apps that they are able to—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will members of the public be charged for using the apps?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would imagine that would be an issue for the app companies. Of course, if one particular app supplier provided it for free, it would make it very hard for somebody to be charging for the information. Anyway, I am not sure what the situation is in Queensland. My advice is, by shake of head, that there are no charges in Queensland by that range of app providers.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can you actually provide evidence of that, Treasurer, because it is my understanding that people actually are charged for those apps to access the information?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I cannot provide evidence; I just had a shake of the head from an adviser. The issue is they could charge if they wanted to in relation to South Australia. Let's talk about South Australia. The advice is they could charge if they wanted to; however, if one app developer or company provides it for nothing, it would make it difficult, I would imagine, to get many customers if somebody else that was a competitor was charging for it. But that will be an option for them as private sector operators in terms of providing the information.

I suspect the information which is provided currently—again, my understanding, and I do not profess to have direct knowledge of this, is the current arrangement where we do have some fuel apps available, people are not charged for that in South Australia at the moment. Again, the Hon. Mr Pangallo might have more familiarity with some of the existing ones. I think he spoke about them in the second reading contribution (or someone did), but my advice is they do not charge for the information at the moment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I might enlighten the Treasurer on the real world of apps. Yes, there are some that do charge. There are those that do not, and that is because they use their app as a magnet to be able to get the person's data, so in the end consumers will still have to release information to them. So the Treasurer cannot confirm or deny whether consumers will have to pay to access that information off the South Australian website or off an app? You cannot confirm that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only answer the same question the same way three times. As I said, if you want a different answer I can give you a different answer, but the answer that I have given you twice I will give you a third time, and that is that the people with the apps will have the option to do so. The advice I have at the moment is that the current ones in South Australia do not. The member is probably right and that is they do not charge for it because they see other values from them.

He referred to the issue of collecting data. I suspect they also may well perhaps be vehicles for advertising. That is, if you have a large number of people coming to your particular app for information, you may well advertise to those particular customers or consumers, etc. But I cannot answer the question differently the third time around. I just have to give the same answer each time. I know you want to delay the proceedings, but I can only give the same answer the same time to three questions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Earlier in the committee stage I asked the Treasurer questions in regard to consultation with regional stakeholders. He referred me to the South Australian Productivity Commission list of stakeholders, which I have here. In terms of stakeholder submissions and consultations, it included:

Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association;

Australian Institute of Petroleum;

Caltex Australia;

member for Florey;

informed sources; and

Royal Automobile Association.

There was then another table, but before I move on to that, could the Treasurer just explain what is meant by 'informed sources' in that context?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I refer the honourable member to a series of six questions that the Hon. Mr Pangallo just asked about that particular company. It is a third-party aggregator that runs the scheme in Queensland. Again, if this is just an endeavour to stretch out the proceedings, those who are watching these proceedings are going to be shaking their head, and those who read the proceedings will be shaking their head. We have just had half a dozen questions in relation to informed sources.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the clarification. The next table, again on submissions and consultations, lists the following:

Attorney-General's Department

Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association;

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

Australian Institute of Petroleum;

Business SA;

Caltex Australia;

Department of Economics, University of Melbourne;

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure;

EG Group;

Environment Protection Authority;

FuelTrack;

informed sources—again;

Liberty Oil;

Motor Trade Association of South Australia;

Peregrine Corporation;

Royal Automobile Association of Australia;

Royal Automobile Club of Queensland;

state member for Florey;

Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services from the Attorney-General's Department;

Viva Energy Australia; and

X Convenience.

Looking at that list, it appears that there have not been consultations with organisations such as the small retailers association or other bodies representing small retailers or those particularly in regional areas. Can the Treasurer comment on that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know how well the honourable member knows some of those organisations but the Motor Trade Association, for example, represents motor dealers both metropolitan and regional. They have a very strong presence through regional areas of South Australia. I am surprised the member is unaware of that. Business SA proclaims that it represents a significant number of businesses in regional communities, as well as the metropolitan area.

The long-sounding name of Australasian petroleum and whatever it is, is an organisation I have had dealings with recently and they proclaim to represent outlets of that particular nature in both metropolitan and regional areas. So a number of the organisations to which the honourable member has referred, represent regional businesses as well as metropolitan businesses.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Whilst I do not disagree with what the Treasurer says, in that some of those organisations have representation in regional areas, I guess what I was hoping to find was that there had been some active and specific engagement with stakeholders in regional areas rather than simply under the umbrella of those who are going to represent many different and, therefore, potentially competing needs. Those organisations representing both big and small retailers are perhaps less likely to state as strongly some of those issues that might be specific to regional areas.

Earlier in the debate the Treasurer outlined where there might be exemptions, and I asked whether all regional retailers would be under the same requirements in terms of the reporting. He said there might be some exemptions for remote areas; however, I see in the Productivity Commission's report at page 29 that there is the possibility of exempting remote or selected rural areas.

I think exemption of remote areas is probably reasonably self-explanatory in the sense that it is probably quite obvious why some of those might be in very different circumstances to the metropolitan areas. However, selected rural areas is perhaps less obvious as to why they would be exempt if this is supposed to be a scheme that will assist consumers, including those in regional areas, notwithstanding the fact that the Treasurer, I think, has basically indicated there will not be much benefit whatsoever to regional areas.

Why would selected rural areas be exempt? What kind of criteria will be used to assess that, and what would he see as the benefits for those areas?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that, in terms of 'select', the Productivity Commission might be referring, for example, to a regional location that might not normally be deemed to be remote, but the petrol outlet might be the only petrol outlet for many kilometres around it and therefore the notion of competition and price competition might not make much sense, but they might not be deemed to be remote.

I am trying to think of my experience on the Lower Eyre Peninsula, but I will not put a name on the public record. I am advised that 'select' is intended to look at it that way, that is, that it might not be what we would understand to be a remote area but it may be quite isolated and in a regional area.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would the number of outlets within a defined geographical area be the sole criteria used to consider an exemption?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not professing to say that is definitively what it is, that is what the Productivity Commission has recommended. The government, in its consultation on regulations, will work through with stakeholders, I would imagine, and others the detail of that. When the member asked what might the Productivity Commission have meant, then I am advised that that is what they might have meant.

However, the government ultimately will be responsible for the regulations and the detail and they will consult with stakeholders to provide some clarity as to whether or not they pick up that option or just leave it as remote areas. There is no final decision from the government on that particular issue yet. As always with the government, we will be quite transparent and accountable, we will consult widely and people will have an opportunity to put a point of view.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Treasurer, for that answer. I appreciate that there is no final decision from the government, but is the Treasurer saying that at this stage the only criteria he is aware of would be the number of outlets within a defined geographical area, or are there other criteria that comes to his mind that might be appropriate to consider in terms of working out exemptions?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only repeat the answer I have just given to the same question previously, and that is that the advice at this stage is that discussions are to go on in relation to the drafting of the regulations. 'Remote' is the most obvious example. In relation to the selected area, we have not even confirmed that it would be the example I have given. I have just said that my advice is that that might be one of the things the Productivity Commission was recommending.

However, it is the government that has to draft the final regulation. If that is what the Productivity Commission was recommending, it will be up to the government to decide after consultation whether or not it agrees with that, or whether someone raises some other area where it might not make sense to require someone to be part of the scheme.

The government will leave open those options. There will be regulations that will be subject to disallowance, so the Hon. Ms Scriven, the Hon. Mr Pangallo and others, if they are unhappy with the landing the government comes to in relation to the exemptions, will have the capacity, should their numbers prevail, to disallow them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would the government consider enabling some retailers, particularly in regional areas, to apply to opt out of this system?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, that is not the government's contemplation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Even if they were in regional areas and could put forward a case that would potentially justify opting out or, indeed, to use the terminology used by the Productivity Commission, applying to be one of those exempt areas, is the Treasurer saying that that would not be contemplated?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the issue of what would be an exempt area or not, there will be discussion, so there will be a discussion at that stage. But if the member is talking about opting out—that is, we have a scheme which purports to cover all of these regional areas, they are not exempt, and the metropolitan area—we are not proposing a scheme where someone within that particular area, after the scheme has been established, is able to opt out.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just for the record in relation to Informed Sources Pty Ltd, on 23 December 2015, Informed Sources, along with BP Australia, Caltex Australia, Woolworths and 7-Eleven stores, were required to give undertakings to the ACCC in relation to those allegations of price collusion. Informed Sources and the petrol retailers gave the undertaking that they would make pricing information available to consumers at the same time that they receive it. This would assist consumers in making better and more informed decisions about where and when to buy petrol by helping them identify the best time to buy and the sites. At this point, Mr Acting Chairman, I am seeking a point of order and a ruling.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): On what, the Hon. Mr Pangallo?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am referring to standing orders 124 and 159, and I will ask for a ruling. Standing order 124 states:

No question shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which during the same Session has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the resolution of the Council on such question or amendment shall have been first read and rescinded. This Standing Order shall not be suspended.

I further refer to standing order 159, which states:

A Resolution of the Council may be read and rescinded; but no such Resolution may be rescinded during the same Session, except with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of Members of the Council upon Motion after at least seven days’ Notice: Provided that to correct irregularities or mistakes one day’s Notice only shall be sufficient.

In the last sitting week this chamber passed, unamended and without division, the Fuel Watch Bill 2020 and sent that bill to the other place. The bill set out a scheme for fuel price regulation, including a real-time monitoring scheme and a 24-hour price guarantee in fuel watch areas, which includes metropolitan Adelaide. Subsequently to this, the chamber received a message from the House of Assembly in relation to this bill, and the bill was then introduced. No ruling was given by the President as to the orderliness or otherwise of this bill.

Mr Acting President, as you have heard repeatedly stated, there are two models under consideration by this parliament. They are not the same and they are mutually exclusive. This chamber has already resolved in favour of the Fuel Watch Bill and sent that bill to the other place. In my submission, this council cannot now pass another bill which would contradict the terms of the bill we have already passed. We have these rules, long established, for good reason. It is to prevent manipulation by the executive of the parliament.

There are previous examples of bills which have been ruled out of order for similar reasons. It has been drawn to my attention that the Clerk may have given some informal advice on this bill at an earlier stage. However, given the standing orders have the force of law and the need for any legislation passed by this parliament to be lawfully sound in every particular, I ask for a formal ruling from you, the Acting President, or the President, having regard to the privileges and customs of the Westminster parliament system. Given the importance of this, I suggest this bill now be adjourned until such a time as a formal ruling and explanation in writing, referencing relevant precedent, can be supplied for consideration by the council.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I have taken some very brief initial advice, and my understanding at this point is that both bills are allowed because they are different in content. That said, you have specifically requested a written response. In that case, I think it would be inappropriate for me as Acting President to provide that. It is really a matter for the President when he returns, and I imagine that may take a number of days, with the assistance of the Clerk. However, my ruling at this point is that, as those bills are different, this bill is able to proceed. I understand the Clerk has provided advice to that effect in the past. So we will continue, and I imagine it is a matter the President can deal with through the winter break.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: On that basis, I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

Motion thus negatived.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: There are amendments in the name of the Hon. Mr Pangallo as well as the Treasurer, the first one being in the name of the Hon. Mr Pangallo. Treasurer, your amendment overlaps with that of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, so there might be a bit of backwards and forwards with this.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 2, line 12 to page 3, line 34 [clause 3, inserted Part 6B]—Delete inserted Part 6B and substitute:

Part 6B—Fuel watch scheme

45F—Interpretation

In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears—

biodiesel means a diesel fuel obtained by esterification of oil derived from plants or animals;

discounted fuel price, in relation to a type of fuel, means the price per litre at which fuel of that type is available to consumers after any discount (whether by a voucher, discount rate, reward scheme or any other means) is applied;

fuel means any of the following:

(a) a petroleum product within the meaning of the Petroleum Products Regulation Act 1995;

(b) biodiesel;

(c) compressed gas;

(d) liquefied natural gas;

fuel pump display means the numerical display of the normal fuel price appearing on a metered fuel pump at a service station;

fuel retailer means a person or body who carries on the business of supplying fuel for retail sale;

fuel watch area means—

(a) Metropolitan Adelaide; and

(b) any area declared to be a fuel watch area by the Minister under section 45H,

but does not include any area declared not to be a fuel watch area by the Minister under section 45H;

fuel watch website—see section 45J;

fuel wholesaler means a person or body who carries on the business of supplying fuel for wholesale;

Metropolitan Adelaide means Metropolitan Adelaide as defined by GRO Plan 639/93;

normal fuel price, in relation to a type of fuel, means the price in cents per litre at which fuel of that type is available to consumers without any discount (whether by a voucher, discount rate, reward scheme or any other means) applying;

price board means a board, sign or notice at a service station that displays the price in cents per litre of each type of fuel available for retail sale at that service station;

retail sale means a sale in retail quantity for the purposes of use or consumption;

service station means a building, place or premises where fuel is offered and supplied for retail sale, but does not include a building, place or premises where the primary business is the hiring, leasing or sale of motor vehicles;

wholesale means a sale other than a retail sale.

45G—Objects

The objects of this Part are—

(a) to ensure that consumers are provided with up to date accurate information regarding the price and availability of fuel; and

(b) to promote fair, competitive and transparent fuel pricing practices; and

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

(d) to ensure that fuel prices for retail sale and wholesale are made available to the public for ease of comparison.

45H—Minister may declare fuel watch areas

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette—

(a) declare an area of the State to be a fuel watch area for the purposes of this Part; or

(b) declare that the whole or a part of Metropolitan Adelaide is not a fuel watch area for the purposes of this Part.

(2) The Minister must, before making a declaration under this section, seek the advice of the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs.

(3) In making a declaration under this section, the Minister must have regard to the objects of this Part.

(4) The Minister may, by subsequent notice in the Gazette, vary or revoke a declaration under this section.

(5) Sections 10, 10AA and 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 apply to a notice made under this section as if it were a regulation within the meaning of that Act.

45I—Provision of information to Commissioner on price and availability of fuel and restrictions on change of fuel price etc

(1) A fuel retailer offering fuel for retail sale outside a fuel watch area must, at the prescribed time, provide the following information to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs:

(a) the name, address and contact details of the fuel retailer;

(b) the address of the service station at which fuel is available for sale by that fuel retailer;

(c) the price in cents per litre of each type of fuel available for retail sale at that service station.

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(2) A fuel retailer offering fuel for retail sale within a fuel watch area—

(a) must not increase or decrease the price at which fuel is offered for retail sale at any time during a day unless notice of the increased or decreased price has been given to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs before 2 am on the preceding day; and

(b) must, in the notice referred to in paragraph (a), provide the following information to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs:

(i) the name, address and contact details of the fuel retailer;

(ii) the address of the service station at which fuel is available for sale by that fuel retailer;

(iii) the price in cents per litre of each type of fuel available for retail sale at that service station.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

Expiation fee: $2,000.

(3) A fuel wholesaler must, at the prescribed time, provide the following information to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs:

(a) the name, address and contact details of the fuel wholesaler;

(b) the address at which fuel is available for sale by that fuel wholesaler;

(c) the price in cents per litre of each type of fuel available for wholesale by the fuel wholesaler.

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(4) A fuel retailer or a fuel wholesaler must, not less than 30 minutes after becoming aware of the fact that fuel will be unavailable for sale by the fuel retailer or fuel wholesaler (as the case may be), provide that information to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs.

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(5) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this section for the defendant to prove that—

(a) the defendant did not comply with the requirement due to an emergency; or

(b) it was unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to comply with the requirement.

(6) Information required to be provided to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs under this section must be provided to the Commissioner in a manner and form determined by the Commissioner.

(7) In determining the manner and form for the purposes of subsection (6), the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must have regard to—

(a) the need to minimise the costs of the fuel watch scheme for fuel retailers and wholesalers; and

(b) any other existing price monitoring or aggregation systems.

(8) The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must ensure that information provided to the Commissioner under this section is easily accessible to the public on the fuel watch website and in any other manner the Commissioner thinks fit.

(9) In this section—

day means a period of 24 hours beginning immediately after 6 am;

prescribed time means within 30 minutes of increasing or decreasing the price at which fuel is offered for sale.

(10) For the avoidance of doubt, information need only be provided under this section in relation to days on which a fuel retailer or a fuel wholesaler is open for business.

45J—Fuel watch website

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must maintain a website (the fuel watch website) for the purposes of informing consumers of the price and availability of fuel in the State containing—

(a) information provided to the Commissioner under section 45I; and

(b) any other information that the Commissioner thinks relevant.

45K—Offences relating to display of fuel price

(1) If a fuel retailer increases the normal fuel price for a type of fuel, the retailer must change the price displayed on any price board to reflect the increase in price before, or at the same time as, changing the price displayed on any fuel pump display for that type of fuel.

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(2) A fuel retailer must not display a discounted fuel price on any price board or fuel pump display.

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(3) A fuel retailer or a fuel wholesaler must specify the normal fuel price for a type of fuel separately from the price of any other type of fuel or any other goods or services offered for sale by the fuel retailer or fuel wholesaler (as the case may be).

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(4) The regulations may provide for the manner and form in which a fuel retailer must display the normal fuel prices for types of fuel, or a type of fuel of a particular class or kind, on any price board or fuel pump display.

45L—Offences relating to sale of fuel

(1) A fuel retailer must not refuse or fail to sell fuel on demand for the price provided to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs in accordance with this Part.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

Expiation fee: $2,000.

(2) A fuel wholesaler must not refuse or fail to sell fuel on demand for the price provided to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs in accordance with this Part.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

Expiation fee: $2,000.

(3) It is a defence to a charge against subsection (1) or (2) if the defendant proves that—

(a) they sold a reasonable quantity of the fuel demanded; or

(b) they did not have a sufficient quantity of fuel to supply the quantity demanded in addition to the quantity required to satisfy—

(i) all other existing arrangements under which they were obliged to supply quantities of fuel for consumption or use; and

(ii) the ordinary requirements of their business.

(4) A fuel retailer or fuel wholesaler must not make the sale of fuel to a person conditional on the sale of any other goods or services.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

Expiation fee: $2,000.

(5) A fuel wholesaler must, on request from a person, provide to the person in writing, an itemised list of the cost of any of the following components of the normal fuel price:

(a) delivery of the fuel;

(b) use of a brand in relation to the type of fuel;

(c) use of a credit or payment facility.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

Expiation fee: $2,000.

45M—Power to report to Essential Services Commission

If the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs considers that there is price gouging or market inefficiency in retail fuel pricing for any area of the State, the Commissioner may, with the consent of the Minister, refer the matter to the Essential Services Commission and, in such a case—

(a) the Essential Services Commission Act 2002 applies as if the provision of fuel were an essential service within the meaning of that Act; and

(b) the activities of fuel retailing and fuel wholesaling are declared to constitute a regulated industry for the purposes of that Act.

45N—Review of Part

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Part to be conducted and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister.

(2) The review and the report must be completed after the second, but before the third, anniversary of the commencement of this section.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

This amendment would insert the provision of my Fuel Watch Bill, which passed this chamber on 1 July, into the government's proposal. Put simply, the FuelWatch model that forms part of my bill, and which is derived from a bill moved in the other place by the member for Florey, is far superior to the model the government proposes in this bill. Why? It is a very simple reason: you need enough time to take advantage of the price when it is at its cheapest and, quite frankly, 30 minutes is not enough time.

The government's approach is based upon nothing more than wishful thinking. It will not change collusive pricing behaviour, which is commonplace in the retail fuel market today. I remind the council, as was said in the earlier debate on the Fuel Watch Bill, that in Brisbane average fuel prices are the highest of the capital cities while in Perth motorists have the cheapest take-home price for fuel. Why would we not adopt the proven Western Australian model rather than the clearly failed Queensland approach still in the works?

I highlight that, in a concession to matters raised by the government, my amendments today include a number of minor variations. I have done this in this bill so that if the chamber is minded to support the amendments we can avoid a deadlock should the government change its mind—which I doubt—and accept the amendments in the other place.

These minor changes are as follows. Firstly, we have included a two-year review of the scheme. This reflects the government's stated intention that the scheme should be operated on a two-year pilot basis. Secondly, I have incorporated an expiation for each offence, which was an issue the Attorney raised on her bill in the other place. However, the expiations proposed under this bill are substantially higher and I have, on advice from parliamentary counsel, also adjusted the upper bound of penalties accordingly.

Thirdly, in relation to the referral to ESCOSA, I now suggest that this should be subject to the approval of the minister. This clarifies that the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is not able to refer matters for investigation that the executive does not support. Lastly, I have addressed apparent confusion about the 24-hour time period in the FuelWatch scheme. This technical alteration makes it clear that the 24-hour period runs from 6am to 6am.

Of course, the fuel subsidy scheme clause that the council deleted from the Fuel Watch Bill is not included in the amendment either. For clarity, I should say that the member for Frome proceeded with this amendment in the other place but it was not supported, and that is why I chose to remove it from the Fuel Watch Bill and from this amendment.

I note in debate on the Fuel Watch Bill that the Treasurer queried if this clause would have constituted a money clause. For the chamber's benefit I indicate that parliamentary counsel had drafted this clause to avoid that imputation by excluding an appropriation—but the matter is moot in any event, as the clause was deleted.

I could go on but this issue has been well and truly debated. We just need to get to a vote now and put the pedal to the metal. I recognise, as I think all in this council do, that timing is vital. I know the RAA is very keen to see a real-time fuel pricing scheme in place as soon as possible. They have been clear that the model is a secondary consideration, and fair enough too. With fuel prices spiking at $1.46 only a week or so ago, it is clear that action is needed now. I commend the amendment to the council.

The CHAIR: The Treasurer's amendment is basically a competing amendment. I will get the Treasurer to move his amendment now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 3, line 22 [clause 3, inserted section 45F(3)]—Delete '$315' and substitute '$550'

This amendment is pretty simple. It just increases the penalties. In speaking to my amendment, I will also address the honourable member's amendment. I had a very persuasive page and a half of notes to argue against the honourable member's amendment but given we have been talking about this issue for four hours, all of my good stuff has been used up already. It is on the public record in terms of why we are trenchantly opposed to the honourable member's position. The honourable member summarised it very aptly: let's put the pedal to the metal.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: As they say in the real world.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the real world. I think everyone knows the two options. I think we should just proceed to a vote and determine the will of the parliament.

The CHAIR: The question is that all words down to but including '$315' on page 3, line 22 stand as printed. To support the Treasurer, you will vote yes. If you want to support the Hon Mr Pangallo you will vote no.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 11

Noes 10

Majority 1

Question thus carried.

The CHAIR: Regarding the amendment moved by the honourable Treasurer, the question is that that amendment be agreed to.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.