← Basic divisions list

These divisions relate to the policy “for increasing consumer protections”. Compare how a supporter of the policy would have voted to the division outcome.

10th Feb 2020, 9:48 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Limit the exemption - Division No. 8

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (84% turnout) 21
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 2
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Jacqui Lambie Network (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (86% turnout) 25
National Party (100% turnout) 3
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (50% turnout) 1
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (87% turnout) 30 36

The majority voted against amendments moved by NSW Senator Jenny McAllister, which means they failed.

What were the amendments?

Senator McAllister explains that:

The legislation provides exemptions for certain firms from some regulatory obligations. As I argued earlier, we think that these exemptions should only be available to firms that have products and services that are genuinely innovative and will benefit customers. It's the second part of the test that seems to me to be quite important, given the very large number of examples that we have available to us of innovation that in fact is not good for customers and is only good for businesses by virtue of exploiting customers. The amendment that's been circulated sets out a basic test that ASIC would apply. It would empower ASIC to prevent products and services that don't meet the innovation-and-benefit test from accessing the exemption.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 comprises two Schedules which have different purposes:

  • Schedule 1 amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCP Act) to allow conditions to be imposed on providers of financial and credit products who utilise the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) existing regulatory sandbox arrangements to test new, innovative ‘Fintech’ products in the Australian market and
  • Schedule 2 makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA97) and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA36) to ensure that the venture capital and early stage tax concessions in the ITAA97 and ITAA36 operate as intended.

27th Nov 2019, 12:16 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Director ID numbers - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (90% turnout) 61
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 3
Katter's Australian Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 4
Liberal Party (96% turnout) 54
National Party (87% turnout) 13
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (92% turnout) 66 73

The majority voted against amendments, which means they failed. According to Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor), who introduced the amendments, they reflect a former version of the bill, which the Liberal and National Parties supported earlier this year but have now been removed. He said that:

We believe that [these amendments are] worthy of support of every individual member of this place because, without director identification numbers, the dodgy directors will continue to rip off unwitting contractors, unwitting customers. They'll continue to rip people off to the tune of billions of dollars every year.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced in order to:

  • introduce new phoenixing offences
  • prohibit directors from improperly backdating resignations or ceasing to be director when this could leave a company with no director and
  • allow the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) to collect estimates of anticipated goods and services tax (GST) liabilities and make company directors personally liable for their company's GST liabilities in certain circumstances.

The ATO defines Illegal phoenix activity as when:

a new company is created to continue the business of a company that has been deliberately liquidated to avoid paying its debts, including taxes, creditors and employee entitlements.

12th Nov 2019, 1:07 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea - Division No. 1

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (100% turnout) 1
Australian Greens (89% turnout) 8
Australian Labor Party (72% turnout) 18
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 2
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Jacqui Lambie Network (0.0% turnout)
Liberal National Party (0.0% turnout)
Liberal Party (64% turnout) 18
National Party (67% turnout) 2
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (100% turnout) 2
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (70% turnout) 45 8

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea, which means the senators can now discuss the bill in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

The bill was introduced "to implement a legislative framework consisting of new prohibitions and remedies in relation to electricity retail, contract and wholesale markets." You can learn more about these new prohibitions and remedies in the bills digest.

15th Oct 2019, 6:36 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Restrict fintech sandbox exemption - Division No. 4

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (88% turnout) 60
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 2 1
Katter's Australian Party (0.0% turnout)
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 4
Liberal Party (89% turnout) 50
National Party (93% turnout) 14
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (89% turnout) 63 71

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor), which means it failed.

What do these amendments do?

MP Jones explained that:

Labor's amendments apply to schedule 1 of the bill. Our amendments introduce a requirement for companies accessing the fintech sandbox exemption created under this bill to submit a notice outlining the details of their service or product and giving a justification as to why such an exemption is likely to benefit the public. Under Labor's amendments, ASIC will have the power to remove a company's access to a fintech sandbox exemption or, probably more correctly, not consider a company's access to the exemption provided by this bill if they decide that they're not satisfied that the new service or product is innovative or likely to provide a benefit to the public. This is necessary and a relevant test for the bill.

The substantive bill authorises ASIC to provide wide-ranging exemptions to financial services laws—laws that have been established by this place for the express purpose of protecting customers or consumers. Such exemptions should only be granted if such an exemption is likely to provide significant benefit to the public. The regulator is being asked to make a judgement either that there is minimal risk and/or that the countervailing public interest is so great that it warrants waiving the provisions that apply to every other licensee in the market.

Read more about the bill and this exemption on the bills digest.

23rd Aug 2018, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions - Australian Consumer Law - Protect consumers - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (100% turnout) 1
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (72% turnout) 18
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 2
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Independent (150% turnout) 1 2
Katter's Australian Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Democratic Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (50% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (70% turnout) 16
National Party (100% turnout) 3
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (100% turnout) 2
President (100% turnout) 1
United Australia Party (0.0% turnout)
Totals (80% turnout) 34 27

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Centre Alliance Senator Stirling Griff. Motions like these don't make any changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) during the 2017-18 financial year, over 4 million items were recalled in Australia due to safety concerns, including Takata airbags, Infinity cabling, Safetech pool gate latches and Samsung washing machines,

(ii) according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, each day at least 10 people require medical attention as a result of injuries received by using unsafe products, and

(iii) earlier this year, the Federal Court found that the Australian distributor for Thermomix failed to notify consumers of safety issues with the TM31 model – the distributor continued to sell $16 million worth of appliances in the two months between becoming aware of the safety faults and issuing a recall;

(b) acknowledges that, unlike the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, Malaysia and Brazil, the Australian Consumer Law does not prohibit the sale of unsafe products;

(c) further notes that:

(i) a General Safety Provision (GSP) could be included in the Australian Consumer Law, which would penalise unconscionable retailers who seek to profit from the sale of unsafe products,

(ii) the introduction of a GSP was recommended by the comprehensive Australian Consumer Law Review in 2017,

(iii) the Communique from the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs (LGFCA), on 31 August 2017, noted that further consultation on the inclusion of a GSP would occur prior to a decision being made at the 2018 meeting of the LGCFA,

(iv) consultation has not occurred, and

(v) the LGFCA will meet on 31 August 2018 to consider the best and most consistent protection for Australian and New Zealand consumers; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to protect consumers, and act on the recommendations of the Australian Consumer Law Review to introduce a GSP.

26th Nov 2010, 12:39 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Third Reading - Read a third time - Division No. 10

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (80% turnout) 4
Australian Labor Party (77% turnout) 24
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (70% turnout) 21
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (76% turnout) 30 28

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill is passed in the Senate and that it will now be returned to the House of Representatives so that the members can consider the Senate's amendments. If the House agree to them, the bill will become law.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

26th Nov 2010, 11:00 AM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — No—disadvantage test - Division No. 4

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (58% turnout) 18
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (23% turnout) 7
National Party (60% turnout) 3
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (49% turnout) 6 31

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was unsuccessful.

Senator Ludlam explained that the amendment related to creating "a no-disadvantage test to apply in the long transition period between the passage of the bill and the full migration of all of Telstra’s traffic across to NBN Co".(Read Senator Ludlam's full explanation of the bill and the related discussion here, after 10:47 am. ) This would have protected consumers from potentially being forced into an unfavourable access agreement.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.

26th Nov 2010, 10:24 AM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Merits review - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (77% turnout) 24
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (73% turnout) 22
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (79% turnout) 30 30

An equal number of senators voted in favour and against amendments introduced by Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, which means they were unsuccessful. The amendments related to the bill's merits review provisions.(Read Senator Birmingham's explanation of the amendments and the associated debate here, at 10:01 am. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.

25th Nov 2010, 9:22 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Competition and Consumer Act and ACCC to apply - Division No. 15

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (81% turnout) 25
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 24
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (84% turnout) 31 33

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Senator Simon Birmingham, which means that they were rejected.

Senator Birmingham explained that the amendments would reinstate the normal operative provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act (formerly the Trade Practices Act) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to a deal involving Telstra and NBN Co.(Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate here, after 9:10 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.

25th Nov 2010, 9:06 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — Transparency - Division No. 14

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (77% turnout) 24
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (77% turnout) 23
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (82% turnout) 30 32

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, which means that they were rejected. Senator Birmingham explained that his amendments would have ensured "that any ministerial direction given to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding the criteria for acceptance of a functional separation or a structural separation [of Telstra] would be a disallowable instrument and therefore subject to the scrutiny of this place and of course the other place".(Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate here, after 8:48 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.

25th Nov 2010, 7:51 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — Keep items and divisions unchanged - Division No. 13

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (81% turnout) 25
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 24
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (84% turnout) 33 31

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the following items in schedule 1 stand as printed [i.e. remain unchanged]: items 1 to 6, items 11 to 15, item 18, item 21, item 24, item 25, items 28 and 29, divisions 3, 4 and 6 in item 30, and part 10 in item 31". These items and divisions related to spectrum and pay TV, the disallowance of instruments and competition. This motion was put in response to an earlier motion to oppose these items and divisions put by Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald.(Read Senator Macdonald's explanation of his motion and the associated debate here, after 4:29 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

25th Nov 2010, 7:47 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Spectrum and pay TV - Division No. 12

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (81% turnout) 25
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 24
National Party (100% turnout) 5
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (84% turnout) 31 33

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald. Those amendments were opposition amendments (1), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11), (12), (14), (15), (17), (24), (34), (36) to (40), (45) to (57), (64) and (65) and they related to spectrum and pay TV.(Read Senator Macdonald's explanation of the amendments and the associated debate here, after 4:29 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

24th Nov 2010, 11:05 AM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Second Reading - Read a second time - Division No. 1

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (84% turnout) 26
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (90% turnout) 27
National Party (60% turnout) 3
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (84% turnout) 33 31

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that they can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

16th Nov 2010, 8:12 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail - Merit review and procedural fairness - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (97% turnout) 68
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1 3
Liberal Party (98% turnout) 59
National Party (92% turnout) 11
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (97% turnout) 72 73

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful. Mr Turnbull explained that these amendments related to merit review and procedural fairness.(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 6:35 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

16th Nov 2010, 6:29 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowance of instruments and competition - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (97% turnout) 68
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 4
Liberal Party (100% turnout) 60
National Party (92% turnout) 11
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (97% turnout) 72 74

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful.

Mr Turnbull explained that the amendments related to the disallowance of instruments and competition. He said that their purpose was to: (1) replace ‘in writing’ with the words ‘in a legislative instrument’ so that any ministerial direction to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding the criteria for acceptance of a functional separation would be a disallowable instrument and therefore subject to the scrutiny of parliament; and (2) ensure that the normal operation of the Competition and Consumer Act, formerly the Trade Practices Act, would apply to the deal involving Telstra and NBN Co.(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 5:39 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

16th Nov 2010, 5:33 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowable instruments to limit Telstra - Division No. 1

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (99% turnout) 69
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 4
Liberal Party (100% turnout) 60
National Party (92% turnout) 11
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (98% turnout) 72 75

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful.

Mr Turnbull explained that "[t]hese amendments serve to remove the ‘gun at the head’ provisions of the [bill] which provide ministerial discretion to bar Telstra from bidding for next-generation 4G wireless spectrum, via a disallowable instrument". He described this as "profoundly offensive" because they "force a private company which was sold to the public as an integrated telecommunications company by the Commonwealth to take, under extreme pressure, certain actions to restructure its own business".(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation here, after 4:52 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

15th Nov 2010, 8:05 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Second Reading — Read a second time - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (99% turnout) 69
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 4
Liberal Party (98% turnout) 59
National Party (100% turnout) 12
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (98% turnout) 75 72

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that they can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

16th Mar 2010, 6:59 PM – Senate Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 — In Committee - Sending private information offshore - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (48% turnout) 15
Country Liberal Party (0.0% turnout)
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (20% turnout) 6
National Party (60% turnout) 3
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (41% turnout) 7 24

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, which means that it was unsuccessful.

Senator Xenophon explained that: "Currently, data, including credit card numbers, passport details, PINs, licence numbers, marital status, home address and employment details can be, and are, sent to offshore locations without a customer’s consent". This amendment, he said, "will require banking institutions to obtain written, informed consent from customers before their personal information can be transferred to a person outside Australia".(Read Senator Xenophon's full explanation of the amendment and the associated debate here, after 6:48 pm. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced in response to an inquiry by the Productivity Commission into the consumer policy framework and a subsequent government consultation.(Read about that inquiry and the subsequent government consultation in the bills digest. ) It is the first of two bills to implement a national consumer law regime, to be called the Australian Consumer Law. This first bill will set the ground work for the regime and will only introduce the provisions about unfair contract terms, which are terms "that disadvantage one party but that are not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the other".(More information about this bill and its soon-to-be-introduced counterpart can be found in the bills digest.)

The second bill, which has not yet been introduced, will implement the bulk of the Australian Consumer Law reforms.

16th Mar 2010, 6:45 PM – Senate Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 — In Committee — Additional fees for payment in person or in cash - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (74% turnout) 23
Country Liberal Party (0.0% turnout)
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (27% turnout) 8
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (57% turnout) 7 36

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, which means that it was rejected.

Senator Xenophon explained that "[u]nder this amendment it will be considered an unfair contract term if businesses charge customers additional fees for paying bills in person or with cash - with legal tender".(Read Senator Xenophon's whole explanation of the amendment and the associated debate here, after 6:27 pm. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced in response to an inquiry by the Productivity Commission into the consumer policy framework and a subsequent government consultation.(Read about that inquiry and the subsequent government consultation in the bills digest. ) It is the first of two bills to implement a national consumer law regime, to be called the Australian Consumer Law. This first bill will set the ground work for the regime and will only introduce the provisions about unfair contract terms, which are terms "that disadvantage one party but that are not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the other".(More information about this bill and its soon-to-be-introduced counterpart can be found in the bills digest.)

The second bill, which has not yet been introduced, will implement the bulk of the Australian Consumer Law reforms.

22nd Oct 2009, 2:01 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Third Reading - Read a third time - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (93% turnout) 75
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (67% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (87% turnout) 46
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (89% turnout) 78 54

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill is now passed in the House of Representatives and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.

Background to the bill

The bill relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by the bill include:

  • causing Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated in order to improve competition within the telecommunications markets
  • reduce the susceptibility of the telecommunications access regime to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • making the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) clearer and so more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by the issue of infringement notices.(Read more about these changes in the bills digest (678 KB).)

22nd Oct 2009, 1:48 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Second Reading - Read a second time - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (91% turnout) 74
Deputy Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Independent (67% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (85% turnout) 45
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (87% turnout) 76 53

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that they can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

The bill relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by the bill include:

  • causing Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated in order to improve competition within the telecommunications markets
  • reduce the susceptibility of the telecommunications access regime to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • making the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) clearer and so more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by the issue of infringement notices.(Read more about these changes in the bills digest (678 KB).)

12th Nov 2008, 11:38 AM – Senate National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and related bill — Second Reading — Read a second time - Division No. 1

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (90% turnout) 28
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (90% turnout) 27
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (89% turnout) 34 34

An equal number of senators voted in favour and against the motion to read the bills for a second time,(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) which means that it was unsuccessful and that the bills will not be considered any further.

Background to the bills

This National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)

5th Jun 2008, 5:51 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 — Third Reading - Read a third time - Division No. 9

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (88% turnout) 71
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (0.0% turnout)
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 44
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (83% turnout) 72 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be read for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill is now passed in the House of Representatives and that it will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)

5th Jun 2008, 5:49 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Read a second time - Division No. 8

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (88% turnout) 71
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (0.0% turnout)
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 44
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (83% turnout) 72 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be read for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)

5th Jun 2008, 5:46 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Third Reading - Read a third time - Division No. 7

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (88% turnout) 71
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (0.0% turnout)
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 44
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (83% turnout) 72 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be read for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill has passed in the House of Representatives and that it will now be sent to the Senate.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)

5th Jun 2008, 5:43 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Read a second time - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “Yes (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (89% turnout) 72
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (50% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 44
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (85% turnout) 74 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be read for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)

5th Jun 2008, 5:36 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Keep motion to read a second time unchanged - Division No. 5

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (90% turnout) 73
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (50% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (80% turnout) 44
National Party (89% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (85% turnout) 75 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Dutton’s amendment) stand part of the question", which means that the words will remain as they are.

Liberal MP Peter Dutton had proposed to amend the original second reading motion "That this bill be now read a second time" with the following:(Read Mr Dutton's explanation of his amendment here. ) That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House declines to give the bill a second reading and rejects in particular the obligation that fuel prices be fixed for 24 hours.”

Because the majority wanted the words of the original second reading to remain unchanged, it could now be put.(See the second reading division here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced along with the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to establish a National Fuelwatch Scheme, which would be created and administered by by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).(Read more about the Scheme on ABC News here. ) The National Fuelwatch Scheme would require petrol retailers "to notify the ACCC of their next day’s fuel prices by 2 pm each day and maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period from 6 am the next day".(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here. )

The National Fuelwatch Scheme was proposed in response to an ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, which found that:

  • there is an imbalance in fuel pricing information between petrol retailers and consumers at the retail level; and
  • consumers' capacity to take advantage of the lowest prices is limited by intraday fuel price changes (sometimes as often as three or four times per day).(Read more about the ACCC's inquiry in the explanatory memorandum.)