In a recent submission, ACAPMA outlined a range of serious concerns about both the integrity of the consultation process and the economic assumptions underpinning the proposed reforms.
While ACAPMA has long supported fuel price reporting laws as a means to promote consumer confidence and competitive pricing, it has called for reforms to be built on sound principles and developed in genuine consultation with industry.
National Consistency is Key
ACAPMA maintains that any new fuel price reporting regulation must align closely with those already operating in other Australian jurisdictions. Fuel retailers operating across multiple states require regulatory consistency to minimise administrative burden and ensure fair competition. Diverging frameworks, such as those now proposed in Victoria, risk undermining efficiency and equity in the national fuel market.
Enforcement Must Be Funded and Proactive
ACAPMA’s experience with fuel price reporting laws—dating back to the introduction of NSW Fuel Watch in 2016—underscores the importance of proactive enforcement. Without adequate monitoring and penalties for false or late price reporting, the laws can be exploited, ultimately reducing their benefit for consumers. ACAPMA has formally raised concerns with the NSW Government in May 2025 over a recent rise in non-compliance. Victoria risks repeating the same mistake by failing to budget adequately for enforcement resources under its proposed scheme.
Open Access to Fuel Price Data
Perhaps the most concerning element of the Victorian Government’s proposal is its intention to restrict access to fuel price data solely to the Victorian Government Services app. ACAPMA warns that monopolising public data in this way limits consumer choice, diminishes the competitive benefits of transparency, and prevents smaller businesses from using third-party data services to meet compliance obligations. This approach is at odds with every other state and territory in Australia, where data is made freely available to third-party apps like Petrol Spy, Informed Sources, and RACV.
ACAPMA argues that failing to make data accessible will not only reduce consumer utility but also impose disproportionate costs on small retailers—who will be forced to invest in expensive new reporting systems instead of using cost-effective data aggregation services.
A Deeply Flawed Consultation Process
ACAPMA did not mince words in its critique of the Victorian Government’s consultation process. The Association described the process as “sporadic, unstructured, and rushed,” noting that retailers were invited to onboard with a regulatory scheme that had not yet been formally legislated.
ACAPMA believes this has led to a RIS that poorly reflects industry realities and fails to consider substantive stakeholder input.
Contestable and Unsupported Assumptions
The Association raised concerns that the RIS is based on contestable departmental assumptions that are neither supported by data nor aligned with industry experience. These include:
- A claim that third-party fuel price apps currently cover only 60–70% of the market, when industry estimates place coverage at over 85%.
- A suggestion that price transparency laws encourage tacit collusion and may result in higher fuel prices—despite no such trend emerging in the eight years these laws have operated elsewhere.
- An assumption that compliance costs will range from $500 to $1000 per site—figures ACAPMA says are out of step with real-world experience.
The Association also flagged serious flaws in the RIS’s assessment of consumer benefits. The analysis appears to overstate the impact of the new government app by assuming it will generate 40% uptake, without accounting for the fact that many Victorians already use fuel price apps. The incremental benefit may therefore be closer to 10%, a far cry from the projected gains in the RIS.
Moreover, the RIS ignores data from the ACCC, which has confirmed that fuel price apps contribute to tangible savings for consumers. ACAPMA argues that this independent evidence should form the basis of any assessment of consumer benefit, not theoretical projections.
Uneven Burden, Unacknowledged Risks
The RIS concedes that compliance costs will hit smaller retailers hardest but does not quantify the economic impact of this disparity. Nor does it explore solutions—like enabling data aggregators to assist small businesses—that are used successfully in every other jurisdiction.
ACAPMA warns that this uneven burden creates a serious risk of competition distortion in Victoria’s retail fuel market. Larger operators may absorb compliance costs with ease, while smaller independents may be forced out—potentially accelerating market concentration and undermining consumer choice.
Underestimation of Enforcement Costs
Finally, the RIS appears to drastically understate the cost of enforcement. ACAPMA argues that Victoria’s current enforcement staffing projections are grossly inadequate. Based on experience in other jurisdictions, enforcement teams would likely need to be at least three times larger than currently planned to ensure the integrity of the scheme.
Conclusion: Make It Fair, or Don’t Do It
While ACAPMA supports the intent of the Victorian Government’s initiative to increase fuel price transparency, it warns that the current proposal is deeply flawed in both substance and process. Unless the Government ensures open access to price data, enforces the law fairly, and reduces the compliance burden for small businesses, the regulation will likely create more harm than good.
As it stands, the proposed framework risks disadvantaging small retailers, reducing consumer benefit, and weakening competition—all while consuming taxpayer dollars on a duplicative government app that excludes already popular platforms.
ACAPMA urges the Victorian Government to amend the proposed laws to allow fair and open data access, and to work with industry to ensure a national, consistent, and genuinely competitive framework for fuel price transparency.
ACAPMA
