Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government bases its entire case for Fuelwatch on advice given by the ACCC. We know the government decided to take the advice of the ACCC over the advice of four of its own departments. We know that motoring groups such as the RACV and the RAA of South Australia oppose such a scheme. We know that there are question marks as to the constitutionality of the Fuelwatch proposal. But let us take a close look at the ACCC’s advice. The ACCC produced its report into unleaded petrol in December 2007. It recommended:

... the arrangements for terminal gate price publication should be reviewed as part of the scheduled review of the Oilcode by the ACCC and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

It recommended:

... a more detailed examination and on-going monitoring of buy-sell agreements to fully assess whether they are exclusionary in nature, or have the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition ...

It recommended:

... Commonwealth and state governments endeavour to align Australian fuel standards with appropriate fuel standards overseas.

It recommended:

... a comprehensive audit of terminals suitable for importing refined petrol in Australia.

It also recommended:

... following the audit, there be on-going monitoring of the use, leasing and sharing of terminals ...

But it did not recommend Fuelwatch. Why was that? The report said about Fuelwatch that there were a number of issues that needed to be resolved before such a scheme went national. These issues were

• limitations in the analysis already undertaken that might influence the direction of a recommendation
• the effect of a price commitment arrangement on independents
• whether regional and country markets are sufficiently competitive to benefit from increased price transparency
• the effect of FuelWatch on price cycles and therefore some consumers’ ability to predict the days of the week when prices are likely to be relatively low
• the dependence on the media to realise the full benefits of a FuelWatch scheme
• administrative and compliance costs associated with a national scheme.

At that point, it was clear that the ACCC did not support the introduction of a national scheme. The Prime Minister’s current position is that the ACCC supports the scheme and that it will save 1.9c per litre based on the experience in Western Australia.

Let us look at the regulation impact statement, tabled last week by the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the impact analysis of option 1, which was to introduce price transparency and price commitment rules—essentially, the Fuelwatch scheme. Paragraph 59 says:

It is possible that the introduction of this option may have anti-competitive effects. Whilst consumers may benefit from potentially greater levels of competition and reduced search costs these benefits may be offset by potentially adverse anti-competitive effects. Most importantly, the provision of this taxpayer funded service creates greater opportunities for price coordination amongst retailers, especially in more concentrated markets.

Paragraph 60 says:

Independent petrol retailers provide some evidence that FuelWatch has not enhanced competition in Western Australia and has, in fact, harmed the competitive position of independents as it allows large operators to adopt a strategy of rolling price leaders.

Paragraph 61 says:

The absence of significant levels of competition in regional and rural petrol retail markets means that consumers in these areas are less likely to benefit from increased price transparency.

Paragraph 62 says:

This option presents some risk of higher prices in rural and regional areas resulting from the creation of greater opportunities for price coordination …

It comes as some relief to read in paragraph 63 that for that reason the national scheme would cover only some 72 per cent of retailers. It will not cover most of rural and regional Australia. Since then we have learnt that the Prime Minister has said that local councils will have the option of taking part.

‘Here’s where we stand,’ according to the statement tabled by the Assistant Treasurer. It is not a national scheme at all. There is no mention of price reductions. It will not cover most of rural and regional Australia, where people are more dependent on their own transport. At the time the impact statement was written, it seemed clear that some of the ACCC’s reservations had been found to be valid as to why a national scheme should not be introduced.

Let us turn to the analysis on which all this rests: the analysis which the Treasurer says is so much better than that provided by four government departments. Last week we were given what the Assistant Treasurer described as the comprehensive econometric analysis more recently conducted by the ACCC. But it was not comprehensive at all. What was released by the ACCC and tabled by the Assistant Treasurer was a summary of further analysis—a glorified press release, if you like. No-one can tell from what was released whether it is a convincing analysis or not, but one or two flaws are evident. The ACCC’s numbers are based on unweighted averages, not averages based on the volume of fuel sold at a particular price. It is one thing to know the price but it is an entirely different thing to know how many motorists are buying at that price.

If FuelWatch in Western Australia is working then more people should be buying at a lower price, but are they? That is a very good question. Let me again quote from the government’s own document—the regulation impact statement, tabled by our good friend the Assistant Treasurer. In turn that statement quotes an independent survey of urban consumer perceptions and purchasing practices undertaken in November 2007 by ANOP Research Services. It says:

• 72 per cent of consumers in cities other than Perth always or usually try to purchase unleaded petrol when its cheapest whilst 59 per cent of consumers in Perth always or usually try to buy petrol when it is cheapest …

So in Perth, where FuelWatch has allegedly been such a roaring success and motorists are logging onto the website and speeding off to make an empowered choice, more people are buying expensive petrol. I find that quite confusing. In other cities where motorists have to struggle on without Fuelwatch and, according to the Prime Minister, are at the total mercy of big oil, more motorists are buying cheaper petrol. When you drill down into this phenomenon it becomes a whole lot more interesting.

The reasonable man or woman—or the man on the Mount Druitt omnibus—would expect that Perth motorists would be purchasing fuel at the low point of the cycle. They know where the cheap fuel is—they have looked it up on the website. They know a day in advance what the price will be and they know that that price has been locked in for 24 hours. So, according to the Prime Minister and according to the Assistant Treasurer, with all of this immense power and weaponry that FuelWatch has provided, or allegedly has provided, they should be buying cheaper petrol. But, in fact, the rhetoric is not matched by the reality.

Let us look at this a little closer. According to figures from August 2007, for example, some 34.5 per cent of motorists in Sydney buy in the lowest percentile band in the fuel cycle. The comparable figure for Perth is only 18.1 per cent. So it is 34.5 per cent in Sydney versus 18.1 per cent in Perth. Let us look at the next percentile band, between 10 and 20 per cent: some 14.9 per cent of motorists in Sydney and only 8.5 per cent in Perth buy in that band. In the third percentile band, between 20 and 30 per cent: in Sydney some 15.9 per cent of motorists purchase in that band and in Perth only 9.8 per cent do so. So, to summarise those figures, in the lowest 30 per cent of the fuel cycle we have motorists purchasing some 65.3 per cent of their petrol in Sydney as compared to 36.4 per cent in Perth. This is a curious outcome. People in Perth, despite all those factors that we talked about previously—despite being notified a day in advance what the price would be, despite knowing where to get the cheap petrol and despite knowing that that price is locked in—are paying, relatively, a higher price within the fuel cycle.

If you do not believe me or the government’s own regulatory impact statement that the ACCC’s work is unreliable then let us turn to the Institute of Public Affairs and one of its senior fellows, Professor Sinclair Davidson. He has looked at the ACCC analysis published as part of its report into unleaded petrol in December last year and the additional analysis published on 29 May. He said—and this is quite enlightening:

The ACCC data has not been released to the public, nor have they been very clear as to what analysis has been done. The ACCC has been vague in reporting their econometric techniques and have simply published tables, expecting the public to accept their analysis on face value …

Let us be clear what he is talking about. He is talking about what the Assistant Treasurer described as a ‘comprehensive econometric analysis’ by the ACCC when he tabled its report. As I said earlier, it is nothing more than a glorified press release. Professor Davidson also said:

• The ACCC analysis is not convincing.
• The ACCC analysis remains unconvincing after 29 May—the new analysis is even vaguer than the original analysis released in December 2007.
• The ACCC did not test for a “Coles effect” in their December 2007 analysis.
• The Coles effect totally dominates the FuelWatch effect.
• The ACCC claim to now test for a Coles effect, but do not say what test they have actually performed.

His own conclusion is:

... it appears that FuelWatch has had no effect on the average monthly price differential in WA relative to the eastern states.

What we had in the 2007 report was the unvarnished professional view of the ACCC, which was guarded about the value of Fuelwatch. Only last month, its chairman, Graeme Samuel, told the ABC that Fuelwatch was not about saving motorists money. He said it was a process ‘whereby consumers might be able to shave 1c or 1.5c off their fuel costs’. Then in the words of Professor Davidson we get an even vaguer analysis from the ACCC which purports to support the Prime Minister’s claim that it will save 1.9c per litre but, of course, not in rural and regional Australia.

What we are now getting from the ACCC is a view that seems to be in a state of evolution. Could it be due to pressure from the Prime Minister, desperately casting round to find evidence to justify his elaborate hoax on the Australian people? His own department does not support it. The Department of Finance and Deregulation does not support it. The Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism does not support it, nor does the department of industry. Here you have the ACCC as the sole defender of the PM’s position. As we watch the evolution of this, it is interesting to note my correspondence with Mr Brian Cassidy of the ACCC. It was quite informative. I wrote to Mr Cassidy on 22 April and asked him a very good question. I said:

Could the ACCC provide me with the latest data and ACCC analysis regarding Fuelwatch’s effectiveness in providing cheaper fuel for motorists and greater transparency in fuel markets?

Did Mr Cassidy provide volumes of research, meticulously done, peer reviewed, beyond reasonable doubt? No. When I asked him for the latest report, what did Mr Cassidy send me? He gave me a copy of this—the ACCC’s report back in 2007. I asked for the latest data and he sent me what he had last year, the very same report, which was quite surprising. The ACCC is giving the Prime Minister what he wants to hear. Despite advice from four government departments, the ACCC is telling the Prime Minister exactly what he wants to hear. In a telephone conversation as late as the first week of May, I asked Mr Cassidy:

Were the results of testing since the report of December 2007 more compelling, less compelling or consistent with the results reflected in the report?

That was a very good question. He advised me that the results were consistent with the work done in the report. Given these comments and given that the work they have done since they put out the report—a report which did not recommend Fuelwatch—is consistent with the contents of the original report, the way in which the rhetoric of the ACCC is evolving seems curious. It begs the question: in a 380-page report with lots of graphs, tables and thousands of words, why in all of that was there not a recommendation to implement a national Fuelwatch scheme? In the whole of that report, you will find no such recommendation to implement a Fuelwatch scheme, the very centrepiece of the government’s attack on petrol prices.

It is also interesting to note comments today in the Australian Financial Review which I found most enlightening:

The ACCC chairman acknowledged that he and other commission members had criticised the West Australian FuelWatch plan but said the new position—

their new post-Rudd position, I suspect—

was a response to last year’s inquiry into petrol prices ...

How could that be? They had their opportunity to comment on Fuelwatch in that report and the report did not recommend Fuelwatch. Mr Cassidy has informed me that since that report the data that has been received and developed is consistent with what is in that report. So upon what grounds would they be changing their position? The article goes on:

... which included the first detailed ACCC analysis of petrol prices since the WA scheme was introduced ... ‘Yes, our position changed on a whole range of issues’—

there is no doubt about that—

he told The Australian Financial Review , adding that it would have been a ‘complete and utter waste of time’ if the ACCC had gone into the petrol price inquiry with an unmoveable position.

We are not so much concerned about what their position was going into the petrol inquiry; what is of more interest is their position coming out of it. The report did not recommend that there be a Fuelwatch scheme, but somehow the ACCC seem to be shifting their position. And the ACCC is yet to answer that good question: if Fuelwatch is so compelling, if the ACCC’s findings are as compelling as the Treasurer says they are, why was a proposal or recommendation to incorporate a national Fuelwatch scheme not up in lights as recommendation 1? You would think, as Fuelwatch has been adopted as the centrepiece of the government’s proposal to attack fuel prices, that a proposal for a national Fuelwatch scheme would have been recommendation No. 1. The ACCC have not answered that question and the reason is that Fuelwatch is nothing but a fraud. It is nothing but a hoax, nothing but a confidence trick on the Australian people. It is a policy advocated by a Prime Minister, who wants to take pressure off himself rather than taking pressure off families, pensioners, self-funded retirees and carers. It is all about pressure on the Prime Minister; it is not about pressure on average Australians. It is a scheme that will push up the cost of motoring for motorists in regional areas.

I speak in particular to the new members opposite. To this point in your parliamentary careers you have been bit players in a carnival of symbolism, but I can tell you that the rubber is going to hit the road now. The people who sent you to Canberra expect better than a scheme that is a fraud and a hoax. The people who sent you to Canberra expect you to fight on their behalf. The people who sent you to Canberra are looking for relief on petrol prices. They are looking for a 5c a litre reduction in the fuel excise. They are not looking for a scheme that is nothing more than a fraud or a hoax.

The members opposite will be judged. If the new members talk to the old hands they will be told, ‘You don’t have to win every fight. Politics isn’t like that: you win some, you lose some. Your electors can certainly be understanding about the fights that you do not win. But sure as hell, they will want you to try on their behalf.’ And falling in behind the Prime Minister’s hoax on Fuelwatch, toeing the party line when motorists are hurting so badly out there, and supporting a scheme to take pressure off the Prime Minister rather than taking the pressure off families is certainly going to win those opposite no credit within their electorates.

No doubt if you walk down the main street of any town that you represent there will be few people, if any, who will say to you in all conscience that the Prime Minister is taking real and meaningful action on fuel prices. Fuelwatch is a scheme that will push up the cost of motoring. It is a scheme contrived by the Prime Minister to his benefit, not the benefit of Australians. Why else would he fail to guarantee that motorists would not be worse off? This is nothing but a fraud.

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I am especially pleased to do so as a Western Australian—someone who, unlike the previous speaker, the member for Cowper, has experience with the Western Australian FuelWatch scheme and an understanding of the benefits of it. I have been contacted by fellow sandgropers who have been quite bemused by the recent parliamentary and media debate surrounding Fuelwatch.

We are bemused because it would appear that members opposite do not understand how the scheme works and how consumers can benefit from it. The bill’s title should make that clear. It is the national Fuelwatch bill and it is about empowering consumers. It is a comprehensive fuel price monitoring and reporting system. It places an obligation on fuel retailers to advise and notify the consumer about the next day’s fuel prices. It requires the information to be made public. This, in turn, allows consumers to make informed decisions about the purchase of their fuel.

As I have previously said, I am at a loss to discern what the opposition finds so reprehensible about this proposal. The other benefits to consumers, which are set out succinctly in the explanatory memorandum, are also clear. It empowers consumers to make informed decisions about their fuel purchases. It allows consumers to be informed of the lowest price possible for fuel in their local area. It allows consumers to go directly to the retailer in their local area with the lowest or most competitive price, saving the cost of searching for the best deal in town. It allows consumers certainty, and the price of fuel when published will apply for the whole day, eliminating that daily price volatility.

Our Western Australian experience demonstrates that this scheme also promotes competition in the retail fuel market. I said earlier that some Western Australians had been bemused by the parliamentary and media debate on Fuelwatch. Let me quote from one email I received from a local Western Australian supporter of FuelWatch after he heard some of this debate on the national media. He said:

I’ve been following the fuel watch debate with interest and have gathered some statistics of my own which demonstrate that fuel watch in WA can be used to save costs on petrol.

I watch the fuel cycles and generally try and buy when it is at its lowest point. I will provide some figures below which show the average amount I paid per month per litre for fuel in the 10 months from April 2007 to March 2008. Note this includes my 4c per litre discount vouchers which I’ve indicated below. I will also show the average monthly figure from Fuel Watch. The reason that I have shown 10 months only is that I was on holidays for two months last year.

He goes on to list the comparison:

His list continues:

As he indicated:

I should add that generally I also have a Coles/Woolworths/IGA shopping voucher which gives me an additional 4c per litre discount so to accurately compare my average cost with fuel watchs figure you would need to add 4c per litre to my monthly cost. However, in all cases this is still quite a bit cheaper.

I think this demonstrates that if you are prepared to shop around, although the price of petrol is extravagant, you can get it cheaper if you shop wisely. The opposition do not appear to take this into consideration in any of the comments they make.

For members opposite, that is a practical example from one consumer in Western Australia who has used FuelWatch to ensure that he buys his fuel at the lowest price possible and, as a consequence, has made substantial savings on the purchase of fuel. He goes on to talk about when he was away for a couple of months, in April-May:

Another interesting fact is that in April/May this year a group of four couples from WA went on a caravanning trip to the eastern states.

I might interpose there that we in the west generally refer to everything to our right, on that side of the country, as the ‘eastern states’. He went on:

We were amazed to see how the prices for petrol changed so drastically on the one day. A couple of examples are in Ballarat it was 139.5 in the morning and about 150.1 in the afternoon and in Heathcote, just out of Sydney, it was 139.5 at about 4pm and 6pm the same day it was 153.5.

That is one practical example, and I thank Chris White for that. Perhaps those comments about the eastern states might explain in some way the lack of understanding of members opposite about how the Fuelwatch scheme is intended to operate. I again thank Chris White for his contribution and I look forward to receiving further information from him on the daily fuel price comparisons if this debate continues. This is a clear example, as I have said, of how consumers can benefit from the Fuelwatch scheme and it also demonstrates in bold terms why I cannot understand the position of members opposite in opposing the Fuelwatch scheme.

I have also been critical of the media debate on Fuelwatch and its apparent lack of understanding of the scheme. Again, that may be a reflection of the fact that the majority of national papers and the national debate come from the eastern states—not that my own state’s paper can hold its head up high in that regard. But I was pleased to see one article, published on 29 May 2008, from Malcolm Maiden, a writer at the Sydney Morning Herald, because as I read it I thought, ‘Finally, one of our journalist colleagues has got it!’ His headline was ‘FuelWatch will put consumers in the driving seat’. Frankly, that is the bottom line: it is about empowering consumers to make informed decisions when they are purchasing their fuel. He talked about the ‘divergent opinions’ that had been put to the ACCC, who have conducted the most detailed inquiry into whether or not the WA scheme ‘promoted competition, or stifled it by locking prices up for to 24 hours’. He said:

... the ACCC’s report was loaded with caveats, about the absence of demonstrable cause and effect between the scheme and petrol prices, risks associated with the potentially process-heavy cost of a national rollout and its relatively minor influence on petrol prices.

But he went on:

It nevertheless concluded that FuelWatch was unlikely to hurt petrol consumers and might help them—not just because there was qualified evidence from the West Australian scheme that it worked to push prices down but because the system allowed price discovery, and, for those who work the system to its fullest, about a half a day in which to fill up ahead of posted price rises: score one for the Rudd Government.

When you finally understand it, the essence of the scheme is about putting consumers in the driver’s seat. It is about promoting competition and transparency in the retail petrol industry. And for those who are feeling the pinch, it empowers them with the opportunity to purchase fuel at the lowest price whenever they choose to purchase that fuel.

There has been much criticism about the ACCC report on the FuelWatch scheme, in particular of its assessment of how it operates in Western Australia. I think this is incredibly unfortunate because the criticism seemed to completely omit the fact that the ACCC was the only organisation that undertook substantial econometric analysis of how the scheme works in Western Australia. The ACCC report concluded, in comparing relative prices between Perth and the eastern states before and after the introduction of FuelWatch, that prices in Perth were around 1.9 c per litre less on average for the period January 2001 to June 2007 than for the period August 1998 to December 2000. It seems to me that nobody else has been able to refer to any independent advice that in any way undermines the findings of that ACCC report.

I think it is outrageous for the member for Cowper and others opposite to come in here and describe Fuelwatch as a ‘fraud’ or a ‘confidence hoax’ and to lecture members of the government about why they were sent to Canberra. I will just say this: the people who sent me to Canberra expect me to behave honestly and to hear honesty from me, not rhetoric and populist policy. And I say to members opposite: who benefits if you kill off Fuelwatch? It certainly will not be ordinary consumers in Australia as they go about their business and meet their need to purchase fuel.

I do not intend to belabour the point today because I have spoken a couple of times on this matter in debates, including in the matter of public importance debate the other day. I have talked about the popularity of the scheme in Western Australia. The mere fact that it is shown on commercial television during the news broadcasts each night is great evidence of the fact that it is a highly popular scheme in Western Australia, and I think the information I have provided from Mr White demonstrates how an informed consumer is empowered by a scheme like Fuelwatch. I urge members opposite to move on from their rhetoric and their populist posturing and support something which gives consumers in this country real power when it comes to purchasing their petrol.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The Labor Party at the last election promised cheaper petrol. Delivering on this promise has become the biggest political headache for this government.

These bills have been introduced into parliament on the back of some clever and tricky politics by this Prime Minister. Four key economic departments have advised against the scheme, including his own department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. At least one of the government’s ministers has argued against the scheme, and we strongly suspect that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation also argued against this scheme. We also suspect that the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy argued strongly against this scheme. Those departments know that this scheme potentially will result in higher petrol prices for people in the eastern states.

Fuelwatch will undoubtedly make consumers worse off as the smart consumers who take advantage of the weekly discounted specials will no longer have that opportunity. Fuelwatch reduces price certainty. Outside of WA consumers know when petrol is cheapest. They do not know that to be the case when it occurs in Western Australia. The data published in the report of the ACCC inquiry in December 2007 into the price of unleaded petrol shows that the petrol markets in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide operate in a very similar manner. The cheapest day to buy petrol is Tuesday when around 20 to 24 per cent of petrol is sold. The most expensive day is Thursday when around 10 to 12 per cent of petrol is sold. Almost two-thirds of petrol was sold on the four days where the average daily prices were below the average weekly price.

Perth has a much flatter and longer cycle, which does appear to make Perth motorists worse off. The average volume sold each day was relatively stable. Due to the two-week cycle, it is not obvious which days each week are cheapest, although on average Wednesday is the most expensive and Sunday is the cheapest. More importantly though, 40 per cent of petrol was sold on the three days when average prices were below the weekly average, and 60 per cent was sold on the four days when prices were above the average. That is a salient point and it needs to be reiterated. In Perth 60 per cent of petrol was sold on the four days where prices were above the average. In the eastern states—that is, in the markets of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide—the cheapest day is Tuesday, when around 20 to 24 per cent of petrol was sold, but two-thirds of petrol was sold on the four days when the average daily prices were below the average weekly price. That is a remarkable statistic and it is something that this government has chosen to ignore.

The regulatory impact statement that was released with the bill raises at least 10 areas of concern over the scheme, including the following: firstly, independent Western Australian retailers suggest that FuelWatch has harmed the competitive position of independent operators as it allows large operators, including refiner-marketers, to gain a competitive advantage through their great capacity to adopt sophisticated pricing strategies across different metropolitan markets; secondly, that the ACCC analysis is not conclusive; thirdly, it is possible that the introduction of Fuelwatch—this is the advice from the regulatory impact statement—will have anticompetitive effects, and whilst consumers may benefit from potentially greater levels of competition and reduced search costs, these benefits may be offset by potential adverse anticompetitive effects. This advice was provided in the regulatory impact statement that was tabled in parliament with this legislation last Thursday.

It is interesting to note as part of this debate that, when I asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in question time some two hours before the tabling of the legislation, his very clear advice to me was that the regulatory impact statement would not be tabled. What this demonstrates is a government full of hubris and arrogance, a government that is staring in the face the facts of this matter, and that is that they have received advice from those four key economic departments and the initial advice from the ACCC that this was not a good scheme for consumers. It is amazing when you read through the detail of the regulatory impact statement to see the length of their criticism of this legislation before the parliament. It demonstrates that this is a government which is intent on providing spin over substance. They are more concerned with the media cycle than they are with the petrol cycle. They are more concerned with what journalists think than with what Australians who fill up at the bowsers think. The average family, for whom it now costs $100 to fill the family Commodore, will remember back to November only a few short months ago, when the Prime Minister—the then opposition leader—promised the Australian people that he would bring lower petrol prices to them and therefore some relief to their family household budget. How deceived those people must feel today.

Not only must Australian motorists feel deceived; so too must business and particularly small independent retailers in the petrol sector, who must be wondering why on earth the government has arrived at such a disastrous position. We also understand from the regulatory impact statements and the advice from Treasury, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, and other departments that it will cost businesses up to $4,000 annually to comply with the Fuelwatch legislation—or $18.7 million per annum.

The coalition supports—and there is no question about it—consumers being armed with as much information as possible to assist them to purchase cheaper petrol. There is no question about that. That is a stated aim of the coalition. We will support consumers to ensure that they can find the cheapest petrol, but we do not support the price-fixing elements of the Fuelwatch scheme. That is the stark difference between where we stand on this issue and where the ALP stands. They have chosen a quick fix political stunt. They have chosen to let down the motorists they promised during the election campaign last year to support with cheaper petrol prices. And at the moment they are being found out as the opportunists they truly are.

The other interesting part to the debate is the backflip of the ACCC, so much so that there is no doubt in my mind that the ACCC has felt the government breathing down its neck to support the Fuelwatch scheme. Nobody can explain the stark difference in the ACCC’s position between December of last year and this current debate. It is something that we need to examine further and it is something we would like some more information on.

Debate interrupted.