Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy from moving the following motion immediately—That:

(1) this House notes that:

(a) the Coles and Woolworths oligopoly is having an appalling impact on farmers and consumers around Australia;

(b) the people of Australia are being overcharged punitively by the supermarket giants whilst the nation's farmers are being paid prices which are below cost of production and do not provide them a liveable income;

(c) urgent action is required to level the playing field between the farmers and consumers on the one hand and the supermarket giants on the other;

(d) the Member for Kennedy and Member for Clark introduced the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 earlier this year which divests supermarkets of this market power, specifically by setting market power limits with associated timeframes, providing significant penalties and establishing an oversight body; and

(e) the Government's legislation merely increasing penalties does nothing to reform the supermarket sector and will only further line the pockets of the legal fraternity, and the current code penalty of $64,000 has rarely, if ever, been enforced; and

(2) the Member for Kennedy be permitted to present the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 immediately, and the bill be given priority over all other business in order to stop any further delay in providing affordability to consumers and fairness to farmers.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the member for Kennedy's motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shortly I will present to the House the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024. That will put in place the penalties regime that will underpin a mandatory food and grocery code. The government will not be supporting the member for Kennedy's bill, because we are keen that the parliament move ahead with the most important reform to the food and grocery code this decade. This is a reform which is broadly supported by horticulture suppliers. It is the result of extensive engagement by the government, and I thank the National Farmers Federation, their horticulture council and the many people who have worked with Craig Emerson and his expert review.

This government is about getting a fairer deal for farmers and a fairer deal for families. When the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct was set up by the Liberals and Nationals in 2015, they set it up as a toothless voluntary code. Then, in 2018, when the member for Maranoa, now the shadow agriculture minister, was the agriculture minister, they reviewed it and they decided that it should remain a toothless voluntary code. Labor disagrees. We have worked constructively with the supplier groups in order to put in place what will soon be a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct with multimillion-dollar penalties. This change will be vital in changing the power imbalance between supermarkets and their suppliers. It is something that has been long called for. I acknowledge those suppliers who've spoken out confidentially and have said that under the current regime they feel there is a power imbalance that makes it impossible for them to deal with supermarkets without the risk of retaliation.

The food and grocery code's structure remains unchanged, but it's penalties significantly ramp up. Craig Emerson's work, in engaging with these groups, has made clear that the system that we were left by the Liberals and Nationals when we came to office was manifestly inadequate. The Liberals and Nationals left us with a system that was unable to deal with the concerns of farmers and unable to deal with the concerns of suppliers.

When we are concerned about the power of large firms, we'll often speak about monopoly power—about the way in which big firms can squeeze their consumers. But there's another concept that goes back to Joan Robinson, and that is monopsony power. Monopsony power is when you squeeze your suppliers—when you squeeze those upstream. It's when suppliers and workers can be hurt by the power of big firms throwing their weight around. Monopsony power is the evil twin of monopoly power.

In our supermarket reforms, we are dealing with both these evil twins. We're dealing with monopsony power through making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We are dealing with monopoly power by our reforms to put in place an ACCC review of the way in which the supermarkets operate, through providing CHOICE with funding to carry out quarterly grocery price monitoring, providing Australians the information they need about where to get the very best deal at the checkout. We are providing the ACCC with resources to enforce the Unit Pricing Code, because Australians are sick of shrinkflation, sick of going into the supermarkets and finding that the pricing isn't the way it should be. So, through our reforms, we are ensuring that suppliers to supermarkets get a better deal and that consumers from supermarkets get a better deal.

Australia's supermarket sector is one of the most concentrated in the world. The top two supermarkets have two-thirds of the market. The top three supermarkets have three-quarters of the market. That is a more concentrated grocery sector than all but a couple of other countries in the OECD.

With great power comes great responsibility. It is important that we have reforms in place that deal with the potential of those large supermarkets to throw their weight around. We've heard stories about fresh produce suppliers going out of business because of their inability to get proper redress through the current toothless, voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. We've seen accounts of farmers who feel that, if they're bringing perishables to market and there are only a couple of places they can sell those perishables to, the current Food and Grocery Code of Conduct doesn't allow them to raise appropriate complaints.

I acknowledge the work that the code mediator has done, but the code mediator has been operating under a voluntary code. Chris Leptos has done his best work with the rules that are available to him, but the rules available to him—rules set up by the Liberal and National parties—just aren't good enough. A voluntary code of conduct was good enough for the Liberals and Nationals in office; it is not good enough for Labor in office. The agriculture minister, Julie Collins, has been a strong champion of a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct.

We, on this side, understand that competition can be a double squeeze on farmers. Farmers buy their inputs from highly concentrated sectors. There are sometimes only a few firms that supply certain tractors or from which you can buy your fertiliser or seeds. Farmers then sell into concentrated markets—just a couple of supermarkets, just a few processors. Farming itself is a pretty competitive industry. In a lot of sectors there are a lot of farmers. So they're competing against one another, but they're getting squeezed upstream and squeezed downstream. The consequence is that some farmers are just choosing to walk off the land.

The Albanese government understands this challenge. We recognise that the way in which competition policy works in Australia just isn't good enough for farmers. We understand that a more competitive and dynamic economy matters for the productivity of the entire economy but particularly matters in our farming sector. Our farming sector is almost a case study of the problems of a lack of dynamism and competition in the economy.

Under those opposite, we saw a rise in market concentration. We saw a rise in mark-ups, which is a fancy economics term for the gap between what it costs firms to produce a product and what they sell that product for. We saw a decline in the creation rate of employing small businesses. All of that suggests that a lack of competition is one of the reasons why productivity growth in the 2010s was so lousy under those opposite. They were asleep at the wheel when it came to competition policy, and Australia's productivity performance paid the price.

A revitalisation of competition policy will be good for productivity and will flow through to the wellbeing of Australian households. On the Productivity Commission's estimate, the national competition policy reforms of the 1990s boosted GDP by a permanent lift of 2.5 per cent. In today's money, that's $5,000 for every Australian household. The estimates that Treasury has done of a revitalisation of national competition policy again are of a similar order of magnitude. We now have the Senate considering the biggest merger reforms in 50 years, merger reforms that those opposite were too fearful to take on. I vividly remember, in August 2021, when Rod Sims, then the head of the ACCC, gave us a carefully considered speech in which he outlined the merger reforms supported by the ACCC. Treasurer Frydenberg ruled it out within hours. That's how unwilling those opposite were to consider competition reform to one of the most critical parts of the competition ecosystem.

We have worked constructively with business, we've engaged with stakeholders and we have brought to the parliament a merger shake-up which will ensure the system is more efficient, more transparent and more streamlined and that the ACCC focuses on the high-risk mergers, not the low-risk ones. I pay tribute to the Treasurer and the competition taskforce and their expert panel for their work on those reforms. Labor is the party of consumers. Labor is the party of competition. More competition means a better deal for consumers, a better deal for workers and a more productive and dynamic economy. A lack of competition has been holding Australia back. More competition will be good for our economy and will deliver for Australian households. I look forward, in a few moments, to being able to introduce Labor's fairer for farmers and families bill.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Kennedy seeking the call?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stood up before the minister to move my legislation—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just asking you for a ruling. I stood up before him. Deputy Speaker Claydon gave the call to him, and she said she'd come back to me for my legislation. Do I have a right to put the legislation forward or don't I?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're suspending standing orders.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not the Speaker, and I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy has addressed his question to the Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to answer that question. My understanding is that you do not have another opportunity to speak, as you have already done so in this debate.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not spoken in this debate—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry. I wasn't in the chair, but my understanding is that you have moved this motion, so as mover you have spoken already.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't get to speak. That's my point—

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've spoken. We heard you speak.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will need leave to speak. I could either ask if leave is granted or give the call to the member for Calare.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the orders, if I moved my legislation—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted for the member for Kennedy to speak?

Honourable members interjecting—

Through the chair, the proposition is that the member for Kennedy allow the Deputy Speaker to give the call to the member for Calare whilst a conversation takes place. That's my understanding.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure if I'm speaking on my bill or his bill. But it doesn't matter. If I'm just given the opportunity to speak, I'll take advantage of that opportunity. Now—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy doesn't have the call. The member for Kennedy is seeking leave. Is leave granted?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted. The member for Kennedy does not have the call.

Leave was not granted to the member for Kennedy; therefore, the member for Kennedy does not have leave to speak. I would ask that the member for Kennedy take—

I'm not sure that you can do that, member for Kennedy.

To assist the House, is the member for Calare seeking to speak on this motion? I give the call to the member for Calare, and I would ask the member for Kennedy to take his seat.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I must say that I support the member for Kennedy in his desire to be heard on this matter of urgency that he and the member for Clark have brought to this place. I believe that leave should've been granted for the member for Kennedy to have his say on this very important issue to not only the people of country Queensland but country Australians everywhere—indeed, Australians all over our great nation, because this is a very urgent matter that this House faces today. This cost-of-living crisis is doing immense damage all around our country. It's being made much worse by the actions of supermarket giants who are price gouging farmers at the farm gate, and they are price gouging consumers at the checkout as well. Therefore, I am a very strong supporter of the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark's Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 because it actually takes real and effective action to do something about this arrant price gouging that farmers and consumers have been putting up with for far too long. It actually brings in, and ushers in, real change and lasting change, not more talk.

With respect to the major parties, we have seen a lot of talk on this issue but not enough real action. What the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark are doing in this House today is giving members the opportunity to vote for real and effective action that would reduce the market power of the supermarket giants and limit the amount of profits they could make. They would stamp out the price gouging and every member of this House will have an opportunity to vote on this game-changing legislation.

We've heard a lot about the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Well, folks, I'm here to tell you, the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is not worth the paper it's written on. It is an absolute joke. It has been ineffective for years, and making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, as the major parties are suggesting, won't do anything. I'm pretty shocked that the National Party is suggesting that making it mandatory will have some sort of effect. All of the major players are already signed up—signed, sealed and delivered into the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct—and it has made no difference for years. It has not stopped the price gouging. It has not stopped the damage that is being inflicted on farmers and consumers all around our country. What the bill from the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark will do is actually bring in real and mandatory divesture of the supermarket giants. I know that the Liberals and Nationals have brought in their own bill, but it would be totally ineffective. As drafted, their divestiture powers are highly unlikely to ever be used, and if they are it will just amount to a lawyer's picnic that will last for years and will do nothing to stop the rampant price gouging in the cost-of-living crisis that is occurring right now. This conduct which farmers and consumers are putting up with day in and day out is unconscionable.

The coalition is spruiking, as I said, that the code will now be mandatory. The government is now spruiking that as well, but the major supermarkets signed up to that long ago, and it hasn't stopped farmers and consumers being stung by them for years. What the member for Kennedy and member for Clark are doing is giving members of this House the opportunity to take real and effective action right now—to stand up for our farmers and not just talk the talk but actually cast a vote in this House, our national parliament, to do something about finally reducing the dominance of these supermarket giants who are doing so much damage to farmers and consumers around Australia.

That's why I fully support the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark in their efforts. This legislation is game changing. I had the member for Kennedy come to my own electorate to speak to local residents and local farmers about the importance of backing this bill. We were rudely interrupted, when he came to Orange, by a National Party senator. I'm very pleased that the member for Kennedy, in a style that only he could fashion, shirt fronted the National Party senator, actually sat that Senator down and sent him on his way. It just shows you that the major parties, including the National Party, are not serious about stopping the price gouging and getting behind real legislation that can make a difference to farmers and consumers around Australia.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I mean to address an issue that would reduce the price of food in this country by 30 per cent and then to be given five minutes after three efforts to move the resolution and exercise my rights in the standing orders of this parliament. I know a little bit about those, because I have been here for 30 years, which is more than anyone else can say. Let me turn to the issue in the four minutes I've got left. I'm very angry, and I'm going to take this matter further, I can assure you.

In 1991, Coles and Woolworths had 51 per cent of the market, and their mark-up was near enough to 97 per cent. I think that's outrageous. My family have had clothing stores for generations in Australia, and we never went over 50 per cent. And this is fashion goods. After two years, you just have to throw them away, and we used a 50 per cent mark-up. Well, these people were using a 100 per cent markup on food. This was in 1991, when they had 51 per cent of the market. By 2001, they had 70 per cent of the market. Those are not my figures; the government figures said 68 per cent of the market, and the ANOP grocery world figures said it was 72 per cent of the market. So there's no doubt that they've risen from 51 to 70 per cent and that the mark-up went from 100 per cent to 200 per cent. Since then—what, they haven't grown since then? They were growing at two per cent a year. They didn't suddenly stop in the year 2001. The mark-up now is more than 200 per cent. It's probably climbing up close to 300 per cent. Now, we are not a government department, so all we could do was select 15 items. It was quite clear that the mark-up had gone from 100 per cent to 200 per cent to nearly 300 per cent in that period of time.

The people in this place that are taking $300,000 a year off the taxpayers have done absolutely nothing, and here we are yet again. The member for Clark, myself, the member for Calare and all the crossbenchers are moving once again to do something about it. All the government is doing is saying, 'We're going to have a look at it, and if they're naughty boys we're going to punish them.' That is the essence of the legislation, right? So how are you going to prove they're naughty boys? They've got a bigger turnover, I think, than the government has got. You've got Buckley's chance of proving anything against them.

There is no other country on earth—England was the worst, when we looked, and, in England, the top six had 36 per cent of the market and there were people squealing in England over it, and they were the worst. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.