Petrol retailers should not use the current pandemic to further increase profits, which the latest ACCC petrol industry report shows have risen in recent years, and should pass on the full benefit of falling oil prices to motorists, the ACCC has said.

Weekly average international crude oil prices have decreased by around US$ 50 per barrel since the beginning of the year and this has largely flowed through to Australian wholesale petrol prices, which have decreased by around 50 cents per litre (cpl) in the same period.

Over the same period, seven-day rolling average petrol prices across the five largest cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth) have decreased by around 45 cpl. These cities have regular petrol price cycles, which makes it difficult to assess the exact flow through of falls in international crude oil and refined petrol prices in the short term.

“The drop in the crude oil price is good news for the Australian motorists. At this time the Australian economy needs all the assistance it can get, and lower world crude oil prices are one of the few positives from current world events,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“In the larger Australian capital cities, petrol retailers took too long to pass on the savings from the rapid drop in international oil prices, and this did not reflect well on them.”

In Hobart, Canberra and Darwin as well as many regional locations, retail prices have been much slower to come down and the extent of the falls has varied widely.

Fuel prices are generally higher in regional Australia due to a number of factors, including lower population and demand, meaning there are fewer petrol stations, which often leads to less competition. There are also higher costs for transport and storage of fuel, and less convenience sales which can support the operation costs of petrol retailers when fuel prices are low.

Price changes in regional centres can lag up to six weeks behind changes in the larger capital cities, because the turnover of stock is generally lower in the country. The reduction in demand for petrol due to current travel restrictions may have further exacerbated the lag.

“We have previously found that the lack of vigorous and effective competition in some regional locations was a major reason for higher prices in those locations,” Mr Sims said.

“Where there is competition, you tend to see lower prices. Giving your business to outlets that are pricing competitively sends a strong message to those that have high prices that they will lose your business. We recommend motorists compare prices on fuel price apps and websites, such as MotorMouth and the government schemes in NSW, WA and the NT, which also provide information on retail prices in regional locations.”

“Especially at this difficult time, retailers must not take advantage of the situation to increase their profits, but should pass on savings to motorists,” Mr Sims said.

“The ACCC’s role is to monitor the market closely, and we will continue to do this, particularly to keep the pressure on the petrol retailers at this time.”

New ACCC report shows retail profits increased over time

The latest ACCC petrol industry report reports on the revenues, costs and profits in the Australian petroleum industry up to June 2018. It includes financial results for the retail and wholesale sectors as well as for refining and across the total downstream industry.

Retail sector net profits across all fuel products, convenience store and non-fuel services were $616 million in 2017-18, the last year covered by this report.

The sector generated a record high $333 million in net profits on petrol products – regular unleaded petrol (RULP), premium unleaded petrol (PULP) and ethanol blended petrol (EBP). This equates to a record net profit of 3.0 cpl on petrol products, which was almost double the average in the period 2008-09 to 2013-14 of 1.6 cpl.

About 60 per cent of petrol net profits ($199 million) were made on premium fuels, which only accounted for about a third of petrol sales by volume.

“Much of the increase in net profits on petrol products was driven by sales of PULP, which has a significantly higher profit margin for retailers,” Mr Sims said.

Net profits on PULP 95 and PULP 98 were 5.8 cpl and 5.9 cpl respectively, while net profits on regular unleaded were 1.5 cpl in 2017-18.

PULP 95 and PULP 98 have become more expensive relative to the retail price of RULP. The annual average price differential between RULP and PULP 98, for instance, increased to 20.4 cpl in 2017-18, an increase of 3.9 cpl since 2009-10. Profits were also influenced by higher sales volumes of PULP (particularly PULP 98).

Retailers also earn substantial profits from convenience store sales. Convenience and other non-fuel sales contributed around 37 per cent of total retail sector net profits (or $226 million) in 2017-18, illustrating their importance to petrol retailers’ businesses as the profit margins on these products are significant.

“Petrol stations make most of their profits from convenience sales and premium fuel. The average net profits on regular unleaded, at about 1.5 cpl are only a small part of the price motorists pay,” Mr Sims said.

The annual average retail price of RULP in the five largest cities in 2017-18 was 134.5 cpl.

“Drivers who have the option, can save money by resisting the temptation of convenience foods at petrol stations and using regular unleaded petrol, although motorists should follow their car manufacturers’ advice,” Mr Sims said.

Net profits in 2017-18 were stronger for refining and across the total downstream industry

The number of refineries halved from eight in 2002-03 to four in 2017-18, significantly rationalising operations. The financial performance of the refining sector fluctuated over the same period.

Refining net profits however recovered following several years of net losses after the Global Financial Crisis. Net profits reached $845 million in 2017-18, the highest since 2007-08. Overall profits for the total supply sector (which comprises refining, importing and transactions between refiners) were $1.19 billion in 2017-18.

Wholesale sector net profits were about $976 million in 2017-18 across all products and services. They have fluctuated over time but have been relatively consistent since 2008-09.

Net profits for the total downstream industry across all products and services were $2.78 billion (or 2.9 cpl), the highest recorded since 2007-08 and more than double the figure recorded for 2013-14 ($1.24 billion, or 1.4 cpl).

For petrol products, total industry net profits were $1.44 billion in 2017-18, or 4.2 cpl, the highest recorded by the ACCC. They were around double the profits on petrol products across the industry in 2013-14 ($723 million, or 2.0 cpl).

Notes to editors

On 16 December 2019, the Treasurer issued a new direction to the ACCC to monitor the prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of petroleum products in the petroleum industry in Australia. As part of this direction, the ACCC produces industry reports that focus on particular aspects of consumer interest in the fuel market in relation to prices, costs and profits.

This is the first industry report under the new direction. It reports on the revenues, costs and profits for the total downstream petroleum industry as well as for the following industry sectors: retail, wholesale, and total supply (which comprises refining, importing and transactions between refiners).

The focus of this report is to provide transparency around the financial performance and the profitability of the downstream petroleum industry. It presents results from analysis of this data.

The ACCC analysed the financial data of 11 companies:

• refiner–wholesalers – BP, Caltex, Mobil and Viva Energy
• independent wholesalers – Liberty, Puma Energy and United
• supermarket chains – Coles Express and Woolworths
• large independent retailers – 7-Eleven and On The Run.

The ACCC previously reported on financial results to the end of 2013-14.

This report includes data from 2002-03 to 2017-18 (the latest data analysed), but excludes results for 2014-15 and 2015-16, which was a period when the ACCC conducted other financial analysis of the industry as part of its regional market study reports.

All results in this report are in real terms in 2017-18 dollars.

The Federal Court has ordered that STA Travel Pty Ltd (STA Travel) pay $14 million in penalties for making false or misleading claims when advertising its MultiFLEX Pass product.

STA Travel admitted that, between March 2014 and August 2019, it made misleading representations in MultiFLEX Pass advertising that consumers who bought the airfare add-on could change their flights without paying fees or charges.

“Consumers were misled into purchasing the MultiFLEX Pass on the representation that they would not have to pay anything further for date changes to their flights, when, in fact, STA often charged consumers hundreds of dollars for changing their flights” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

In many cases, STA Travel’s charges were not reflective of additional fees imposed by the airline. For example, in almost a quarter of cases where a customer was charged extra by STA Travel, the amount was more than double the additional airfare and tax imposed by the airline.

“In 12 per cent of cases, STA Travel charged MultiFLEX Pass customers to make a change to a flight although the airline itself had not charged STA Travel anything at all for the change,” Ms Court said.

“These penalties serve as a timely reminder to all travel businesses that they must not misrepresent the costs applicable when travel services are changed.”

The MultiFLEX Pass cost up to $149 to purchase upfront. Between 2015 and 2019, STA Travel estimates it sold on average approximately 16,000 MultiFLEX Passes per year.

STA Travel admitted liability and made joint submissions with the ACCC to the Federal Court. STA Travel will also contribute to the ACCC’s legal costs.

Notes to Editors

The ACCC initiated proceedings against STA Travel in March 2019 and the proceedings are unrelated to any COVID-19 issues.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACCC is assessing the impacts on consumers and working with the travel industry more broadly. Given the circumstances, the ACCC is urging all businesses to treat customers fairly in these exceptional times.

More information on consumer rights during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found here: COVID-19 (coronavirus) information for consumers.

Background:

STA Travel is a national supplier of travel and tourism services. Its advertising targets students and young people and emphasises discounts and flexibility.

STA Travel promoted the MultiFLEX Pass via multiple channels including its website, brochures/flyers, in store posters, a YouTube video and in-store LCD screen displays.

STA Travel sold a range of MultiFLEX Passes to consumers, namely:

• the ONEFlex Pass, costing $49 and allowing one flight date change;
• the ‘3 Change Pass’ or ‘Multiflex Pass’, costing $99 and allowing three flight date changes; and
• the ‘Unlimited’ or ‘Ultimate’ change pass, costing $149 and allowing unlimited flight date changes.

An example of one of STA Travel’s misleading advertisements is below:

Members of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and other mining associations will be able to work together to manage critical services and supplies during the COVID 19 pandemic, after the ACCC granted interim authorisation for the arrangements today.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to shortages and supply chain disruptions for some critical services and supplies used by the mining sector.

The interim authorisation will help ensure Australia’s mining industry continues to operate safely and efficiently, by allowing members that have been notified to the ACCC to co-ordinate on the sourcing, purchase and distribution of crucial supplies and services such as health and safety equipment, logistics, equipment maintenance and consumables like fuel and explosives.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on global manufacturing and supply chains, which has created challenges for those sectors, such as mining, that are still operating and still in need of crucial equipment and services,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“To help address these challenges, we have authorised mining companies to co-ordinate on a limited range of activities to help ensure they can continue to operate safely and efficiently.”

The authorisation only applies to activities relating to these critical services and supplies. It will, for example, allow companies to share inventories and manage demand for these critical services and supplies, coordinate deliveries, and share details of potential suppliers of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N95 masks needed to work in underground mines.

“Importantly, the approval does not allow mining companies to coordinate on the terms, conditions or prices in supply contracts,” Mr Sims said.

“We are going to closely monitor the effect of these arrangements and when it is appropriate for this authorisation to be revoked.”

The authorisation applies to members of the MCA and seven other mining associations. The ACCC must be notified in advance of any arrangements made under the authorisation.

The ACCC will now seek feedback on interim authorisation, as well as the application for final authorisation, which is sought for a period of 12 months from the date of authorisation. More information, including the ACCC’s statement of reasons, a list of associations included, and the supplies and services covered by the authorisation, is available at Minerals Council of Australia.

Background

The Minerals Council of Australia’s membership includes many of Australia’s biggest mining companies. It has 51 full member companies and 29 associate member companies including mining service providers, state chambers, energy and transport companies and consultancy firms.

Notes to editors

ACCC authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.

Broadly, the ACCC may grant a final authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has today delivered its judgment on the ACCC’s appeal in relation to proceedings brought to stop Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal in Brisbane by Aurizon (ASX: AZJ).

The ACCC had appealed the 2019 judgment of the Federal Court which held that the acquisition would not be likely to substantially lessen competition due to an undertaking that Pacific National had offered the Court.

While the ACCC was successful in relation to a number of legal issues, the Full Court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that the acquisition was likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, and dismissed the ACCC’s appeal.

Although the majority of the Full Court agreed with the ACCC’s position on the meaning of ‘likely’, the case hinged on the ACCC establishing the likelihood of another player seeking to enter the market in the next five to ten years. The Full Court considered that the prospect of new entry was no more than speculative.

“This was a particularly important case for Australia’s merger laws, and the outcome demonstrates the real difficulty of applying the substantial lessening of competition provisions in the legislation,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

The result of the Full Court’s decision is that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal may proceed, without the access undertaking accepted by the trial judge.

“This is also a sad day for the economy, because the ACCC’s view is that the prospects of competition in rail freight have been significantly diminished and the impacts of this will be with us for more than a decade,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s case was that Pacific National’s ownership of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would allow it to effectively prevent access to new entrants, entrenching Pacific National’s position as the dominant rail freight carrier on the east coast.

“We will now carefully consider the Full Court’s judgment. The ACCC will continue to consider what changes are needed to make Australia’s merger laws work in the way they need to, to safeguard the economy from highly concentrated markets,” Mr Sims said.

Notes to editors

The term ‘intermodal’ freight is used to describe the carriage of general freight usually in a container using two or more modes of transportation, such as truck and rail. ‘Intermodal rail linehaul’ refers to the rail leg of the movement of intermodal freight. ‘Steel rail linehaul’ refers to similar services that are provided in respect of steel products.

An intermodal terminal, such as the Acacia Ridge Terminal, comprises infrastructure with a connection to a rail line where containers can be transferred between transportation modes.

Background

The ACCC commenced proceedings on 18 July 2018 alleging that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal from Aurizon would have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in breach of section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The ACCC was concerned that the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would deter a new entrant from providing interstate linehaul services in competition with Pacific National.

The ACCC had commenced a public investigation of Aurizon’s proposed exit plans, including the proposed acquisitions by Pacific National of the Acacia Ridge Terminal and Queensland intermodal business on 27 October 2017. The ACCC issued a statement of issues on 15 March 2018.

The Federal Court dismissed the ACCC’s proceedings on 15 May 2019. The trial judge found that, with Pacific National’s undertaking offered to the Court, the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would not be likely to substantially lessen competition.

The ACCC lodged an appeal on 27 June 2019. The appeal, and cross appeals by Pacific National and Aurizon, were heard before the Full Court of the Federal Court from 17 – 20 February 2020.

The ACCC has revoked an interim authorisation due to the change in market conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The ACCC granted the interim authorisation in February to five major car rental companies to jointly negotiate with Cairns Airport including discussions about their lease agreement for space, such as parking bays and counter space at the airport.

The rental companies, Avis, Budget, Hertz, Europcar, and Thrifty, had lodged their application for authorisation in late 2019, but since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the economy’s travel and car rental sectors.

The ACCC decided to revoke the interim authorisation after a request by the car rental companies that the ACCC delay its decision about the substantive application. This request has been granted.

The companies also indicated they would voluntary suspend collective negotiations, permitted under the interim authorisation, during the delay in considering the application.

“As the companies are not proposing to engage in the authorised conduct in the current circumstances, the interim authorisation is clearly no longer needed and it is appropriate we revoke it,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.

“Any authorisation, including interim authorisations, should only be in place for as long as they are needed.”

“The car rental companies have indicated they have no current need to be allowed to engage in the conduct, which, without authorisation, could be in breach of competition laws,” Mr Ridgeway said.

“We are closely monitoring when to revoke any interim authorisations, including those granted because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we expect them to cease when they are no longer appropriate. We also expect authorised parties to keep the ACCC updated of any relevant changes that impact their authorisation.”

The substantive application involved a request for the five car rental companies to collectively negotiate all terms and conditions (both price and non-price) related to the acquisition of airport space and services from Cairns Airport under licence and lease agreements, including a turnover percentage, car parking fees, rental payment and concessions.

The interim authorisation did not extend to entering into collectively negotiated agreements.

“Irrespective of ACCC monitoring in place of the arrangements, allowing the interim authorisation to continue during this period could involve some risk of adverse effects to the interest of Cairns Airport, during the extended review timetable for this matter. The car rental companies can easily and quickly re-apply for interim authorisation at any stage if it becomes necessary,” Mr Ridgeway said.

The ACCC extended the timetable to make a final decision on the application for authorisation by six months. It will seek feedback from interested parties at a later stage.

More information, including the ACCC’s revocation authorisation decision, is available at Car rental operators at Cairns Airport.

Background

On 28 November 2019, the ACCC received an application by six car rental companies seeking authorisation for 10 years in relation to negotiations for space, including counter space, car parking bays and shared facilities, at Cairns Airport. The ACCC conducted public consultations.

On 13 February 2020 the ACCC granted interim authorisation to WTH Pty Ltd trading as Avis Australia, Budget Rent a Car Australia Pty Ltd, Hertz Australia Pty Limited, CLA Trading Pty Ltd trading as Europcar, and Kingmill Pty Ltd trading as Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Car Rental to prepare for negotiations, and negotiate with Cairns Airport Pty Ltd.

A sixth rental company, Redspot Head Office Pty Ltd (trading as Enterprise, Alamo, National and Redspot), withdrew its request for authorisation on 28 April.

On 26 March 2020, the ACCC issued a draft determination proposing to grant authorisation for five years and sought submissions from interested parties.

Notes to editors

ACCC authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.

Broadly, the ACCC may grant a final authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.