Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

So we have the ACCC and the Liberal Party in New South Wales in complete agreement. All we need to close the circle is the agreement of honourable members opposite. Another matter raised by the putative leader of the opposition, the member for Wentworth, is the effect on independent retailers—a concern as to whether independent retailers are disadvantaged under Fuelwatch. Again, if you read the ACCC report and you read the submissions to the ACCC, you find that the proportion of independent retailers in the fuel market in Western Australia under FuelWatch has gone up—not down. So the concerns of honourable members opposite would be assuaged if they read the ACCC’s report or may be assuaged when they receive their briefing from the ACCC. The key question here is: why do the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and other members opposite appear to support an arrangement which is conducive to anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive coordination?

I understand that there is scepticism from honourable members opposite. The Western Australian motoring organisation RACWA, which is well known to honourable members from Western Australia, has supported FuelWatch and it is the motoring organisation which has worked with FuelWatch for the last eight years. This is what Mr David Moir, Executive Director of RACWA, said:

We believe that consumer pressure is the best to keep the market competitive, but that relies on transparency and easily available price information.

Our recommendations to the commission are that the FuelWatch system is not only maintained in Western Australia, but adopting a similar system in other states...

It is time for the opposition to indicate whether they will stand with motorists against anticompetitive conduct or stand with those with vested interests.

See this speech in context