Mr SIMPKINS (2:27 PM) —As a Western Australian member, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the case where a Perth service station owner was fined almost $5,000 for the crime of simply dropping his petrol prices in the course of a day? Can the Prime Minister confirm that his legislation establishing the failed Fuelwatch scheme nationally will contain similar penalties as those in WA? Prime Minister, how is it in the best interests of motorists to prevent service stations from lowering their petrol prices?

Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) —I think a WA member would be well advised to listen to the comments which have come from the WA motoring association. The WA motoring association’s point of view is very clear. David Moir, Executive Manager for Member Advocacy for the RACWA, put this view to the ACCC inquiry public hearing on 28 August when he said—

Mr Keenan interjecting—

Mr RUDD —This is someone from your own state. He said:

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked, ‘Do you put small business out—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat; and he is warned.

Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for O’Connor was making a point of order—

The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. On his point of order, he knows that the honourable member for O’Connor was abusing the opportunities that are allowed for the raising of points of order. Any fair observer of what the member for O’Connor did would realise that that was not a proper point of order.

Mr Hockey —Just as the member for O’Connor was sat down, I was sat down before I had completed my point of order. I request that you as Speaker listen to our points of order before asking us to resume our seats.

The SPEAKER —Ignoring the reflection contained in this alleged point of order by the member for North Sydney, if you look at the standing order it says that a member will state his point of order. Earlier today, when members stated that—

Mr Costello interjecting—

The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Higgins for indicating that he is here and engaged, but if he has a comment he can rise and get the call. The point is that once—

Mr Downer —You are participating in the debate now.

The SPEAKER —I am interested in this discussion, but I am saying to members on my left, who seem a little agitated, that if they were to read (1) the standing orders and (2) House of Representatives Practice, they would know that the course of action that I am taking has been taken in the past. On the substantive point that raised the ire of the member for North Sydney, he knows that the member for O’Connor, in raising the point of order, was not doing so in an appropriate manner and I have warned him.

Mr Pyne —On a point of order: I do not wish to reflect on the chair at all, but standing order 86(a) says:

Clearly, the member for North Sydney just stood and said, ‘I have a point of order,’ and you sat him down. I think it is fair to say that you need to hear the point of order stated before you can sit a member down.

The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

Mr RUDD —If the honourable member from Western Australia would reflect on what the head of his own state motoring organisation has said on FuelWatch, it would be a very useful advance to the debate. The reason, I presume, that people support Fuelwatch is based not just on the positions plucked out of space by those opposite but on the findings based on detailed econometric analysis by the ACCC. Of course, each one of those opposite knows better than this econometric analysis. Despite the fact that those opposite commissioned this volume, despite the fact that taxpayers’ dollars were spent in putting this volume together, despite the fact that Graeme Samuel, the appointee of those opposite, ultimately produced a finding which contains the conclusions I have just referred to about the price being 2c a litre down, on average—despite all of that—those opposite, as some practice, process or expression of ideology, say it is of no relevance whatsoever.

The honourable member raised a question about the cost impost on business. The honourable member may not be aware that currently a large number of petrol stations are now submitting their prices to a data collection company. This can be as frequently as every 15 minutes. In exchange for a fee, petrol companies have access to their competitors’ prices. As the Assistant Treasurer said before, apart from anything else this places those in the petrol industry, including the retailers, in a position of competitive advantage over motorists, because motorists do not have access to that amount of information. So what we have from the party of free enterprise opposite is an argument which says that those in the petrol industry—the petrol majors and retailers—should control all the price sensitive information and that consumers out here should not have access to that information. That constitutes the essence of the proposition which underpins Fuelwatch. Under FuelWatch, petrol stations need only submit one price every day to the ACCC and not be charged for it. There is a plain contrast between the two. The contrast here between our position and that of those opposite is pretty stark. We are simply saying, ‘Here is a—

Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Prime Minister, the question was: under your plan will petrol stations be fined for cutting the price of petrol?

The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr RUDD —The contrast between the two positions here in this parliament is pretty clear. On the one hand, we say that consumers should have some power; they on that side of the chamber say the consumer should have no power. We on this side of the chamber say that, if this succeeds in bringing down the price by 2c a litre on average over time to the consumer, it is worth backing; they say on that side of the chamber it is not worth backing. We say on this side of the chamber that, if you have got price variations within one market of between 15c and 20c per day, which has pertained in recent days in various parts of metropolitan Australia, the consumer should have the opportunity to make a choice about where they go to buy their fuel; those opposite say the consumer should have no such choice and no such information upon which to base that choice. We stand for transparency; those opposite stand for nontransparency. We stand for choice; they stand for nonchoice. I say this to those opposite: when the question has been posed—including to the leadership aspirant of the Liberal Party, the member for Wentworth—about which way the Liberal Party will vote on this in the parliament, the response on the part of the opposition is, ‘We don’t know.’ They are so committed to this proposition which they are debating in the parliament that they have not even formed a position about whether they are going to support the legislation—yes or no. The position we have put is clear cut: 2c; 15c to 20c variation; transparency; consumer choice. They stand for not giving the consumers that choice. Those opposite need to resolve once and for all whether they are going to support this legislation or not.