When the Victorian Premier announced the Fair Fuel Plan in January 2025, the fuel industry tentatively welcomed the move. At a high level, the initiative promised to introduce greater transparency into retail fuel pricing—an outcome long supported by industry and community groups alike. Consistency with other state and territory schemes, a clear and measured transition process, and improved consumer access to price information were all cited as core principles underpinning the initiative.
However, just five months on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Victorian Government’s approach to implementing Stage 1 of this Plan—namely the introduction of mandatory fuel price reporting laws—is fundamentally flawed. The process appears rushed, inconsistent with national norms, and driven more by political expediency than policy rigor. For an industry that thrives on operational certainty and fair regulation, the current state of play presents real and immediate risks for fuel retailers and, ironically, delivers limited benefit to Victorian consumers.
Legislative and Operational Uncertainty
One of the most troubling aspects of the current approach is the Victorian Government’s intent to begin onboarding retailers into the new fuel price reporting regime before the consultation on the draft regulations closes on 20 June 2025, and well before the laws are formally enacted—currently scheduled for 31 July 2025.
This premature action bypasses a critical step in the legislative process: the finalisation and publication of enforceable rules. The upshot is that businesses are being asked to implement reporting systems, operational procedures, and data transfer mechanisms against a regulatory framework that is not yet released in draft format, let alone finalised. In a sector where compliance carries real costs and risks, this is both unworkable and unacceptable.
Such an approach also stands in contrast to how similar laws have been rolled out in other Australian jurisdictions. In New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, governments allowed a minimum six-month implementation period after the finalisation of regulatory instruments, affording retailers sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to systems, staffing, and procedures. Victoria’s decision to buck this trend—while offering no substantial justification—only deepens concerns about the integrity of the process.
Reduced Consumer Utility: A Missed Opportunity
Beyond the industry’s legitimate concerns around process and operational risk, there is a larger issue at stake: the potential for this legislation to fall short of its stated consumer objectives.
Despite repeated calls from industry and independent consumer bodies, the Victorian Government has yet to commit to making the reported fuel price data available to third-party publishers—such as RACV, MotorMouth, and Petrol Spy. These platforms already enjoy strong community trust and high user engagement across Victoria and beyond. Denying them access to this vital data diminishes the law’s utility by restricting fuel price transparency to a single government-controlled platform: the Services Victoria App.
This is a particularly acute issue for consumers in border communities such as Albury/Wodonga, where residents routinely move between jurisdictions and rely on integrated, multi-source fuel price data to make informed purchasing decisions. By walling off Victorian data from broader distribution, the government is not only reducing price visibility but also introducing unnecessary complexity into what should be a simple consumer decision.
In effect, the Victorian model threatens to deliver a parochial and protectionist solution to what should be a nationally integrated public good. It’s a decision that prioritises bureaucratic control over consumer empowerment—raising valid questions about the underlying motivations of the reform.
Consultation in Name Only
What adds insult to injury is the way consultation has been conducted. Despite multiple representations from industry stakeholders—including detailed technical feedback on platform architecture, onboarding timelines, and data-sharing protocols—there is little evidence that these inputs have meaningfully shaped the government’s approach.
What should have been a transparent and collaborative process has instead felt performative, with decisions seemingly preordained. Fuel retailers have been treated less as partners in reform and more as obstacles to be managed. This disingenuous approach erodes trust—not just between government and industry, but ultimately between the government and the Victorian public, who deserve better than half-formed legislation delivered under the guise of transparency.
A Constructive Path Forward
The fuel industry supports fuel price transparency. We support a fair and competitive market. And we support regulation that empowers consumers to make informed decisions about where and when to buy fuel.
But we cannot support legislation developed through a rushed, opaque, and dismissive process. Nor can we endorse reforms that restrict access to price data to a single platform—particularly when all other Australian States and Territories have already demonstrated the success of a multi-publisher model.
The Victorian Government must urgently pause its current rollout and recommit to a genuine consultation process. This means finalising regulations before implementation begins, allowing for a realistic industry transition period, and ensuring that all community-focused fuel price publishers can access the data.
Anything less risks delivering a scheme that is inefficient, inconsistent with national standards, and, most importantly, fails to deliver the consumer benefit it claims to pursue.
Transparency begins with process. If the Victorian Government truly wishes to lead on fuel pricing fairness, it must first lead by example.
ACAPMA
