HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Fair Trading (Fuel Pricing Information) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly.

No. 1. Clause 3, page 3, line 22 [clause 3, inserted section 45F(3)]—Delete '$315' and substitute '$550'

No. 2. Clause 3, page 3, line 28 [clause 3, inserted section 45F(4)]—Delete '$315' and substitute '$550'

No. 3. Clause 3, page 3, line 34 [clause 3, inserted section 45F(5)]—Delete '$315' and substitute '$550'

Consideration in committee.

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

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

I indicate that amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 of the Treasurer in the other place be dealt with en bloc and accepted by the government. I indicate that they are all to simply increase a $315 on-the-spot fine penalty to $550—wise consideration in the Legislative Council. We thank them for it and consent to the same.

Ms BEDFORD: I would like to ask the Attorney: why is there a change of this nature? Why did she not pick this up before it went to the other learned place as she has just referred to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Quite simply, member for Florey, this was raised in the House of Assembly as an amount by the opposition suggesting that the recommended $315, which was recommended in consultation with parliamentary counsel as to what was commensurate with an appropriate amount for an on-the-spot fine still was not enough, and I undertook to discuss that with the advisers that we had on this matter. After that conversation, it was considered that an amount up to about this amount was appropriate.

There was some discussion with the opposition in relation to that. I am not sure who actually finally determined that amount but it was within the parameters of what we had approved for consideration, and so that amendment, therefore, had to be made in the other place. We could not do that on the spot because the advice we had from the assessment of the on-the-spot fine research had been limited to what we had up to that date.

You might recall this was a very late request of the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Mr Soulio, to be added in so that if he had the responsibility, ultimately, of this program he would have the capacity to be able to issue on-the-spot fines, but it was very late in the process. So we agreed with the opposition that we go away and have a look to see whether there could be some other figure provided, and this was within the limit, so that was what was negotiated. There was no attempt for it to be delayed or anything of that nature. I hope that makes it clear.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, it makes it a little bit clearer when you consider $315 is less than you are charged if you take a pear or an apple across the border in South Australia and are in contravention of the fruit fly act. What I am getting at, though, I think, is why is $550 going to be appropriate and how on earth are we going to enforce this regime of catching people out, because this is what we are talking about?

We are talking about the same set of circumstances we have now where my staff and I have done the legwork around the area and we can tell that the apps are not accurate compared with the price being displayed at the service station. So how are you and Mr Soulio going to be able to pick these up and enforce these fines, even at the meagre rate of $550, which you might say is barely a slap on the wrist for a retailer who makes that sort of money in half an hour by selling petrol at an inflated price?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The actual fine is up to $10,000. There is a capacity for the commissioner, not me. The Attorney-General has nothing to do with making decisions about who gets fined and in what way. It may be that it turns out that there is a failure to provide information multiple times by a second. They come along and say 'our technicians, a computer glitch' and all the other excuses that come out with those things.

There are suddenly multiple breaches, thousands of them, and the commissioner might take the view that it was a very minor breach in itself but there were multiple of them and we are going to issue an on-the-spot fine to deal with each of those breaches so that it works out a just and equitable outcome. That is a matter for him.

Quite often we get asked by the investigative authorities, like the police, for an on-the-spot fine to deal with people who breach his directions under COVID and he has been using that very effectively for people who gather too much together and go to places they should not and go across borders they should not, etc. It is a useful tool. It is not the principle of penalty, but it is a useful tool. If there is a minor breach, and it can easily be dealt with as an on-the-spot fine, then it is something he would consider and have that in his toolkit. I do not have anything to do with it.

Ms BEDFORD: I put it to you, Attorney, it is going to be really hard for Mr Soulio to be able to pick these sorts of administrative errors—is that a word or a phrase I can use in this place?—because it is happening so often these days. If someone is in breach of this and they are not caught and my constituents are going to be paying through the nose, what are you going to do about that? How are you going to make sure that this is actually going to be enforced when this sort of behaviour has happened now and is happening now? While all the good intent in the world might be there, a 30-minute window is not going to be enough to let everybody understand the depth and breadth of the breaches that may take place.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope this assists the member.

Ms Bedford: I doubt it will, but have a go.

The CHAIR: Let's just wait and see, member for Florey.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, member for Florey. You have asked the question and now we are about to hear the answer from the Attorney. We will listen to that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, we do not have a system at the moment to enforce this and so that is exactly what we are trying to do. I appreciate the member for Florey had a different model as to how we might do that but, nevertheless, this is the model that the parliament has accepted in the other place. It will be a model.

At the moment we do not have anything, so I think you are absolutely right: our constituency does not have any protection at the moment in being able to have a reliable way to go and teach bad operators a lesson and go to the places that actually provide them with the cheapest petrol. The other thing is there is an audit process. I will read this and I hope this assists as well. In the Consumer and Business Services information, I am advised:

To assist with compliance and enforcement, Queensland also contracts with another provider who can access fuel card data. This data shows the price paid in real time transactions. The Queensland Government pays for this organisation to match this against the prices provided to the data aggregator. A report is then provided to the Government outlining any price mismatches that require investigation. A similar approach will be taken here in South Australia to assist compliance and enforcement activities undertaken by Consumer and Business Services.

I am sure that Mr Soulio will be listening with interest to this debate and he will be alerted to the fact that you are concerned about compliance. I am sure he will apply it with diligence in relation to consumer protection and enforcement, as he does in other areas. But, if there is a weakness in that as it turns out in this two-year trial, we will be more than happy to hear from the member for Florey or her constituents.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT