DEFENDER of the downtrodden, champion of the oppressed, the ACCC’s brief is clear – to use its coercive powers to punish anti-competitive behaviour and help consumers.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And yet it appears the commission has again abrogated its duty when it comes to petrol prices in the bush.
In a pro-forma letter (peppered with motherhood statements and a few “Tamworths” for good measure), the consumer watchdog this week showed it doesn’t have the bite to match its bark.
Responding to concerns by Tamworth MP Kevin Anderson that local fuel prices were artificially high, the ACCC regurgitated its standard lines: petrol prices in regional areas were a function of the level of competition, the volume of fuel sold, the distance from a depot and convenience store sales.
Of course, none of those factors explains why Tamworth motorists consistently pay more for fuel than residents of smaller surrounding towns, where competition, volume and convenience store sales are less and the tyranny of distance is greater.
The commission conceded prices in regional centres could be “sticky” – whatever that means – but claimed Tamworth prices compared favourably with “a number of other towns in the region”.
This is patent nonsense.
Anyone who has driven through the New England North West is painfully aware of how price boards mysteriously rise when you enter the Tamworth city limits.
There can only be one valid reason for this – implicit collusion.
Fuel retailers don’t meet at an underground lair each morning and set prices, but it’s obvious they’re also not in fierce competition for the lowest price.
It can’t be said enough that, like electricity, fuel is a staple, and as such
its pricing must be held to the highest level of scrutiny by authorities.
And if Tamworth’s long-running fuel debacle doesn’t “qualify” for an investigation, then the ACCC isn’t worth the taxes we pay to keep it going.
