Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Greens bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, amends section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit a corporation with substantial market power from abusing that power by charging an excessive price for a good or for a service, otherwise known as price gouging. Any Australian who has ended up with a half-full supermarket trolley at the supermarket checkout knows what price gouging is, because Coles and Woolworths are engaged in price gouging. If you want some evidence of that practice and the fact that Coles and Woolworths are carrying it out, I simply refer people to the recent legal action launched by the ACCC against Coles and Woolworths for behaviour that clearly included price gouging.

Just to be clear, this is what the ACCC is alleging Coles and Woolworths did. They took a product that was at a particular price, significantly raised its price, simply because they could, then dropped the price partially but not all the way back down to its original price, and then claimed that product was on a discount, when in fact it wasn't on a discount at all; its price had been inflated. The reason Coles and Woolworths can engage in price-gouging behaviour like that is because they can—because their market dominance is so significant. Taken together, they have over two-thirds of the market share in the Australian food and grocery sector, and that share is climbing. What they are doing is misusing their market dominance to price gouge shoppers. As an aside, they're also misusing their market power to do over their suppliers, many of whom are Australian farmers.

This bill is based on recommendation 1.5 of the ACTU inquiry into price gouging, which was led by former chair of the ACCC Professor Allan Fels. It's also based on recommendation 2 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, established by the Greens. Both of those reports recommended amending section 46 of the competition act to make it illegal to charge excessive prices, and they recommended that that happen in terms similar to the provisions which are currently extant in the European Union. Under this bill the ACCC will be able to apply to the court for an order where it believes a corporation has abused its market power by price gouging. If a corporation is found to have illegally price gouged, the court can impose orders under section 76 of the competition act, which includes a maximum civil penalty of $50 million.

I want to pause and say that, ultimately, when corporations behave badly, yes, there should be corporate fines levied. But we've got to get past that and start fining the people making the decisions: the CEOs of the big corporations. Corporate CEOs in Australia are making off like bandits. In the case of Coles and Woolworths, their CEOs are on multimillion-dollar salary and bonus packages, and it's about time the CEOs were hit where it hurts—in their wallets or in their bank accounts—when they engage in price gouging.

We all remember what happened when the Greens negotiated with the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones, to include personal fines for dodgy bankers. The CEO of the Banking Association, former Queensland premier Anna Bligh, reached into the offices of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and Mr Jones was instructed to renege on the deal that he'd shaken hands on. He walked away from his promise to introduce personal fines for dodgy bankers. Again, this is because the corporate CEO class in this country don't want to be held accountable for their actions and don't want to have to pay fines when they fail to meet the responsibilities that almost every Australian would think that they should have.

Under section 87B of the competition act the ACCC can also require enforceable undertakings by a corporation. The undertakings the ACCC can impose are sufficiently broad to allow the ACCC to require a corporation to lower the price of a product to the price it would be if it were sold in a competitive market. That can be done for a specified period of time, while guaranteeing supply of the product. What that means is, in effect, that corporations that engage in illegal price gouging are liable for a significant penalty and that the ACCC and the courts can intervene to lower the price of a product. That is what we need to see in this country: a mechanism to force corporations to lower the price of a particular product if they are price gouging and misusing their market power. To determine whether a price is excessive, the bill requires the court to consider the price of the product if the corporation did not have substantial market power.

We've drafted this bill in such a way as to keep the definition of 'excessive price' deliberately broad to provide the courts with the discretion to determine whether price gouging has occurred based on the specific circumstances of each case. We obviously note that different industries will have different thresholds for what is considered an excessive price. However, in making that determination, the courts can consider whether the price is excessive relative to cost, whether the price is excessive relative to the economic value of the product provided, whether the price is excessive compared to a circumstance where there was greater competition in the market and also whether a corporation has used the cover of an unusual event that has led to a shortage of a good or service or excessive demand for a good or service to increase prices above what is required to cover an increase in input costs.

We've introduced this bill to respond to the urgent need in Australia to rein in corporate price gouging. What we have seen since the Greens initiated the Senate inquiry into supermarket prices is the opposition actually coming some way towards a solution by announcing their policy of supporting divestiture powers in the supermarket sector. Because the Greens have driven this debate and because the opposition has shifted, albeit slightly, towards a position of being prepared to take on the big supermarket corporations, it is now just Labor standing hand in hand with Coles and Woolworths, defending their market dominance and defending their price gouging.

We've all seen the photos of the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, in a Coles vest, standing with the CEO of Coles, who is receiving a multimillion-dollar salary and bonus packages that are in part funded by the price gouging of ordinary Australian shoppers. It is a shame on the Labor Party and a shame on the Prime Minister that he is prepared to engage in repeated photo ops with the CEO of Coles and, no doubt, similar meetings with the CEO of Woolworths while those big corporations are actually price gouging ordinary Australian shoppers.

Everywhere you turn at the moment, prices are going through the roof, whether it's power, transport, rents, mortgages or food and groceries, and the common denominator amongst so many of those skyrocketing prices is corporate profiteering and corporate price gouging. It's about time we had more people in this parliament who are prepared to stand up to the big corporations, prepared to take them on and prepared to hold them to account. That's what the Greens are here to do. We want to see economy-wide divestiture powers that would help us not just bust up the supermarket duopoly but also put more competition into things like the airline sector in this country. We want to see price gouging made illegal because we want genuine cost-of-living relief for Australian shoppers.

Since Labor came into power two short years ago, the price of food is up by over 10 per cent. Rents have gone up by 31 per cent. The average mortgage payment is up by over $1,600 a month. Power bills, insurance costs, medical bills, seeing your GP—it's all skyrocketing out of control. And, while those costs are going up, wages have not kept pace. The share of the national economy that is going to corporate profits has never been higher, and the share of the national economy that is going to wages has never been lower. Millions of Australians are getting smashed by an economy-wide crisis, and this government is doing no more than fiddling at the margins. That's not enough to provide genuine relief for the millions of Australians who need it. We need urgent intervention and urgent action. We need a government that is prepared to take on the big corporations and fight for the interests of ordinary Australians, rather than fighting for the interests of the big corporations and the corporate CEO class.

All of this was made even worse last week when the Prime Minister came out with his grand announcement: taking on the amount of air in chip packets. Then he turned around and tried to describe that as addressing shrinkflation. I don't think Mr Albanese knows what shrinkflation is. I want to say to Mr Albanese: if you want to take on shrinkflation, adopt the Greens policy, which was also a recommendation of the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, of requiring the big supermarkets to notify, in plain, clear terms on the shelves, when the size of a product has decreased. That's what these corporations are doing; they're shrinking the product and keeping the price the same or, in some cases, even putting the price up. If Mr Albanese wanted to address shrinkflation, it would be a very easy thing to address. But, of course, that would require him to stand up to the big corporations, and that's what he's continually shown that he's not prepared to do.

The dollars extracted by big corporate price gouging in this country flow to corporate CEO pay and salary packages. Recent analysis by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors shows that chief executives of Australia's largest corporations take home, on average, 50 times the pay of a typical worker. In the early 1990s, corporate CEOs earned about 17 times the salary of ordinary, typical workers. Now, they earn over 50 times the pay of a typical worker. Former Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci, who refused repeatedly to answer reasonable questions during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, received $8.65 million in 2023, about 127 times the pay of a full-time Woolies shop floor worker.

This is obscene. This is outrageous. This is grossly unfair. The rich are getting richer while ordinary Australians have to work harder and harder just to be able to afford the essentials of life. The big corporations are making off like bandits, booking obscene profits, their CEOs are making obscene bank, and millions of ordinary Australians are getting smashed in an economy-wide crisis. It is time for action. It's time that people in this place were prepared to stand up to big corporations, stand up to corporate CEOs, stop taking political donations in a system of institutionalised bribery and actually start standing up for ordinary Australians. It is just the Labor Party now who continues to stand with the big corporate interests of Coles and Woolworths, and, in doing so, they are absolutely abrogating their responsibility to ordinary Australian shoppers who are being price gouged to buggery.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Raise your hand if you've ever been personally victimised by high supermarket prices. I'm pretty sure every single one of us has stood at the check-out, looked at the number on the screen, looked at our bags, looked back at the screen and wondered how on earth just a few things can cost that much. I've been there. I was a single mum living on Centrelink payments. I know what it's like to stand in the supermarket aisle weighing up two things that you really need but can only afford one, the way you look around to check no-one is watching you as you're putting something back on the shelf and the way you feel ashamed, guilty and embarrassed that you can't afford a few simple groceries to feed your family.

That was 25 years ago. Today, people are feeling the pinch more than ever in our current cost-of-living crisis. Groceries are a cost you can't afford or avoid. You do everything you can to scrimp and save and try to find things cheaper, but, at the end of the day, you have to buy food, and you have to buy it from a store that's available to you. People in regional areas like Tassie are paying more for their groceries because of the lack of options. We don't have Aldi or Costco or any of those other stores the mainland has, and we're quite literally paying the price for it.

During the Senate supermarket prices inquiry, we heard that, when a new grocery store opened in a town, prices at Woolies and Coles went down. Increase the players in the game, and the other stores will lower their prices to compare. That's why in my comments to the committee report I called on the federal government to work with states and territories to address competition issues, especially in regional areas like Tasmania. Since then, report after report has echoed these words. CHOICE surveys, the ACCC interim supermarket report—they all say that regional areas are paying the price for a lack of supermarket competition. It's pretty clear I'm on the money. Tassie needs more supermarket choices.

But how do we encourage more competition? There are a lot of factors that go into why it's so hard for new supermarkets to compete with the big two, and cowboy behaviour from Woolies and Coles is a major part of that. We know that Woolies and Coles engage in practices like land banking to stop other grocery stores from entering the game. Land banking is when a company buys up land or space in a shopping centre just so no-one else can have it. They could have bought the prime development sites 10, 15 years ago, and they're still just sitting there empty. There are examples of this everywhere, even on Tassie's north-west coast.

Burnie has a population of about 20,000 people. It has one Woolies and one Coles. A brand new Woolies is being built less than five minutes drive from the existing Woolies. I can't say for certain that this is land banking, but I can tell you that Burnie didn't really need another Woolies.

Some people would say that private businesses have a right to buy the land they want, and I agree, but there is a line between buying a space as a genuine business decision and buying it just to stop someone else from having it. The ACCC could do something about allegations of land banking, but they don't have the power to investigate it. It's a point we keep coming back to over and over. If we really want to hold the major supermarkets to account, we have to give someone the power to do it. The ACCC is currently a lapdog with false teeth. They want to do more, but they're hamstrung by government legislation.

Just a few weeks ago the ACCC announced that they're taking Woolies and Coles to court over their dodgy promotions. I think everybody in Australia said, 'About time.' But the investigation is only about misleading sales. The case has nothing to do with the actual prices that supermarkets are charging, because the ACCC doesn't have the power to do that. Pollies of every colour of have been taking the supermarkets to task for charging huge prices. The $6.50 for Tim Tams has really got them going. But nothing will change unless the government gives the ACCC more bite. That's why I support the intent of this bill by Senator McKim and his team. We can't keep talking about reining in cowboy behaviour by the two major supermarkets if no-one has the power to take them to task.

Every single person that has been to a Woolies or Coles lately has noticed that prices are going up and up and up. The supermarkets say they're not charging excessive prices. They say their costs, for freight, fuel, wages and inflation, have gone up too. To be fair, some of those costs have gone up—but not by that much. If you knew that the prices were going up but that that money was going back to farmers and producers, you would probably feel a little bit better about it, but it's not. Producers are getting a measly few cents here and there and barely getting by.

The supermarkets are ripping off customers and farmers and making record profits. Coles had a profit this year of $1.1 billion. Woolies had a profit of $1.7 billion. These are some of the highest profit margins in the world of supermarkets everywhere. It's pouring salt into the wound. Coles and Woolies say they're doing it tough, but they don't know what it's like to cut back to two meals a day because you can't afford three. They don't know what it's like to not have a price rise in a decade, like the farmers who supply them—farmers who are giving up family farms and having thoughts of self-harm because dealing with the major supermarkets is so bad. Businesses should make a reasonable profit for their shareholders, but at what point is it just taking advantage of struggling Australians?

This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, will give the ACCC a stick to take the supermarkets to task if their prices are excessive. It wouldn't see the ACCC taking Coles and Woolies to court every month over an item here or there. It would allow the ACCC to apply to the court if they thought Coles or Woolies were price gouging, similar to what they're doing with the dodgy promotions.

But this bill doesn't just apply to the supermarkets. It would apply to any business with a turnover of over $10 million. We're talking about not only supermarkets but also airlines, insurance companies, retailers like Kmart or Bunnings—any business you can think of. The ACCC doesn't have the resources to monitor every single big business in Australia for price gouging. I think this bill should, at first, only apply to supermarkets. Let's test the waters to see that it works and that the powers can be used to get results for consumers. If it does, funding and resources to the ACCC can be expanded along with the scope of the bill.

My other concern is how we define 'excessive'. What's an excessive price to one person could be different to another. Some people might think that $10 for grated cheese is too high. Other people might think, 'That's okay.' One thing we all agree on is that $6.50 for a packet of Tim Tams is way too high! Senator McKim says the definition of 'excessive price' in the bill is deliberately broad to allow for the courts to decide what is or isn't price gouging, but there has to be some kind of threshold for the ACCC to make a referral to the court in the first place. So who decides when something enters the price-gouging territory and how could that threshold change? If there was another year of high inflation like we saw in the past two years, would this change the threshold? There's too little information in this bill to figure out how can you tell if someone has been price gouging or not. We need to equip the ACCC with the tools they need to do the job and take the supermarkets to task.

When you're heading into battle, you make sure you've got everything you know you're going to need and a few extras just in case. If the power to investigate price gouging is the 'just in case' the ACCC needs, let's give them that. But it needs to be done in a way that's actually going to deliver the results. If the bill is too broad or the idea of excessive prices is too vague, it's not going to help the people who really need it. Trust in supermarkets is down. People are feeling the pinch at the hip pocket every single time they go to the checkout. But that pain isn't equal. It's like comparing a scratch to a knife wound.

People in regional areas and people in Tasmania are paying more for groceries because of a lack of competition. Changing that begins with looking at more powers around land, banking and price gouging. It begins with looking at the high freight costs stopping supermarkets from getting shops up in Tasmania. Living in a regional or remote location shouldn't automatically mean you sign up for higher grocery costs simply because of a lack of competition. Sure, you expect to pay a bit more and not have as much choice, because there are fewer people buying the food. It takes extra freight to get the goods to the supermarket. But less competition shouldn't mean prices are one-third more. Yes, I said one-third. That figure comes from a CHOICE survey showing the average basket of groceries costs $68 in Tasmanian Woolies but $50 in New South Wales, Queensland and here in the ACT. We don't deserve to be at the mercy of Woolies and Coles just because of where we live.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition shares the frustration of Senator McKim and others over Labor's inaction and incompetence in this critical policy area. The Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, and his assistant competition minister, Dr Leigh, have been missing in action, constantly exposed as being on the back foot, and Australians are paying a very high price as both suppliers to our supermarkets and consumers at the checkout. But that is where the common ground with Senator McKim's private senator's bill and the coalition ends, because we see this for what it is: an ideological and symbolic attack on big business in Australia.

This bill has been designed, as Senator McKim's Senate inquiry was, to attract wide publicity and deliver a very narrow outcome. This issue is too important to fall victim to culture wars in this place. It is also an overreach which, in many cases, fails to stack up against the evidence. What is needed here is a comprehensive and well-planned package of reforms that will change the supermarket sector for the better in the years to come. That is not Senator McKim's bill, and that is why the coalition will not support it.

The bill is modelled on recommendations of the Greens initiated Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices and the ACTU inquiry into price gouging. It would amend the Competition and Consumer Act so the ACCC could apply for a court order where it believes a corporation has abused its market power by price gouging. The court could impose orders under section 76 of the Competition Act, which includes a maximum civil penalty of $50 million. Senator McKim made significant claims when it comes to justifying his bill in both his second reading speech and the bill's explanatory memorandum, and they are claims worth putting to the test. Senator McKim said:

Wherever you look, massive corporations … are profiteering from people's pain and making the cost-of-living crisis worse.

He added:

The share of income going to big corporations has never been higher …

Senator McKim also said:

Lack of competition allows corporations to take advantage of their dominant market power to hike prices above what would be required to meet increases in their input costs.

And, most notably, he told the Senate:

Banning price gouging should not be radical or controversial.

But I think it's important to test those claims with what others say. What do others think of these claims? Do they support Senator McKim's view on what he refers to as 'price gouging' by Australian companies? The answer on almost every measure is no.

Firstly, grocery prices have largely followed economic pressures, including inflation. In her 24 September media conference, reflecting on data published by the RBA earlier this year, the Governor of the RBA, Michele Bullock, said:

… leave mining to one side—profit margins haven't expanded. What that was telling us was that as costs were going up, on average businesses were just passing on the costs but they weren't any more than passing on the costs.

The interim report of the ACCC's supermarkets inquiry, which was also released last month, concluded:

Grocery prices have significantly increased over the last 5 years, with price rises in all categories of grocery products.

…   …   …

This growth is largely in-line with inflation in other goods and services …

It noted:

Operating costs for suppliers and supermarkets have likely increased substantially between 2020 and 2023. Factors cited … as driving increasing operating costs in this period include rising interest rates, higher energy and transport costs, changing labour market conditions and legislation, and insurance costs.

Secondly, Australian grocery prices have increased less than those in similar countries. Before the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Ms Tanya Barden, gave evidence, saying:

… while we have seen a significant uptake in food and grocery inflation in Australia, it is still below other markets around the world. Countries like the UK have incurred far higher rates of increasing food and grocery prices than we have in Australia.

And, thirdly, supermarket profits are in line with comparable domestic and international corporations. The Australian Financial Review, in an article headlined 'Why it's a dangerous time to make a big profit in Australia', on 23 February this year, cited:

Analysis from the Australian Shareholders' Association published on Friday, made the salient point that with annual sales of $63.4 billion last financial year, Woolies' $1.6 billion profit represented just 2.5 per cent of sales and a return on capital at the middle of the range for Australian firms.

"Coles, Metcash, Wesfarmers, and JB HiFi had higher [return on capital], and Harvey Norman, Myer and Endeavour had lower ROC. Profit was not out of line with the size of the company," the analysis concluded.

The interim report of ACCC's supermarkets inquiry found:

When profitability is considered with reference to a company's return on capital, Coles and Woolworths do not appear significantly more profitable than international peers.

It's the rising costs and inflation, issues that both sit at the feet of the Anthony Albanese Labor government, and its poor economic mismanagement and its disastrous energy and industrial relations platforms that are hurting Australian households. This may be the one thing that the coalition and Senator McKim can genuinely agree on. In the bill's explanatory memorandum, he correctly observes:

Since the Labor Government came to power in 2022, the cost of essentials including rent, food, power bills and mortgage repayments has skyrocketed. Wages have not kept up, making it even harder for millions of people to make ends meet.

The coalition could not have said it better itself. Labor is the real reason Australians are struggling to pay their grocery bills after 18 months of household recession. Inflation data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms inflation is still homegrown, still too high and still too sticky. Despite the Albanese government having had three budgets to get this under control, its policies have made matters worse for Australian households. In fact, the final budget outcome reveals Labor is taxing more and spending more than any government in Australia's history has. Labor has performed—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the surplus?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We might have a debate about the surplus in a few months time, when we've seen the final budget—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we see the surplus crash into deficit after deficit.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right, yes. You might speak too soon, Senator Farrell, but I'll hold you to account at another time for that interjection.

But clearly Labor is failing on competition reform. Labor has performed just as miserably on competition reform as it has on other areas of economic matters. Had Labor given this reform the attention it desperately needs, Senator McKim's bill may never have needed to be written. The coalition has been calling for stronger competition laws in the supermarket sector since the election, but it has fallen on deaf ears. The allegations last month, by the ACCC, of anticompetitive behaviour by Coles and Woolworths were a reminder of the urgency of supermarket sector reform. How telling that Labor, in a panic, only released draft legislation to reform the food and grocery code on the very same day the ACCC announced it was taking this legal action—a full three months after Labor's own hand-picked reviewer had recommended it. Even now, this draft legislation is unlikely to be legislated before the next election, leaving Australian consumers exposed yet again.

In contrast, what would the coalition do? The coalition will stand up for Australian small businesses, farmers, and consumers by delivering stronger penalties for anticompetitive behaviour in the supermarket and hardware sectors. So far we've announced a comprehensive package to target this, including, firstly, a supermarket commissioner, who will act as an impartial, confidential avenue for farmers and suppliers and provide this information to the ACCC; secondly, infringement notices up to $2 million for contraventions of the food and grocery code; and, finally, divestiture powers to address serious allegations of land banking, anticompetitive discounting and costs being unfairly passed on to suppliers in the supermarket sector, with appropriate safeguards in place and to be used as a last resort. It's a sensible, carefully designed divestiture proposal for supermarkets.

In summary, the coalition will oppose this bill, because increasing competition is the most effective and reliable way of preventing price gouging in the long term. It is improved competition that will ensure lower prices, create greater employment opportunities and foster innovation. It will not be ideology, it will not be overreach and it will not be Senator McKim's bill, which, despite what it claims, is both radical and controversial. What we need is lasting, well-designed reform, and that is what the coalition will deliver.

In the meantime, we can continue to pressure the Albanese government—which was exposed once again last month for going slow on competition reform—to take immediate action that struggling Australians need it to take now.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that Australians want to get a better deal at the supermarket check-out, and we know that Australians need to get a better deal at the supermarket check-out. We also know that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 is unfortunately not going to be the solution that Australians need right now today. The work to address supermarket prices is already underway, and what we're seeing in the chamber this morning is yet another attempt at a symbolic headline grab from the Australian Greens political party, while the Albanese Labor government gets on with the work of holding supermarkets to account and delivering a better deal at the check-out for Australians.

We don't want to see families, pensioners and workers taken for a ride at the supermarket; no-one does. We don't want shoppers paying more than they need to when they head down to Coles or Woolworths to do their family shop every week, so we are delivering the reforms that are needed. We are delivering the changes that Australians need. We are delivering changes that will drive a fairer deal at the checkout. Businesses need to do the right thing by Australians and their consumers, and that includes our big supermarket chains. We need to have the proper scrutiny and the right frameworks in place to make sure our supermarkets are respecting Australians and respecting their customers.

This is exactly what the Albanese Labor government has been focused on: making sure that supermarket chains do the right thing and ensuring that there is greater competition that will put downward pressure on prices. We're focused on offering more choices for Australians, who are dealing with cost-of-living challenges. Our government has provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a $30 million boost to crack down on market conduct, including misleading and deceptive pricing practices from the supermarkets. This is a really significant boost to the work of the ACCC. We are also making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We are consulting on that right now to make sure that supermarkets do the right thing by everyone—their suppliers and their customers. The legislation to make the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory will be introduced by the end of the year.

National competition policy is a really important agenda for our government, and that's why we're working with the states and territories to revitalise our competition policy, including issues surrounding planning and zoning. We know that land banking is a significant problem. It has the potential for Coles and Woolworths to be able to freeze out competition, and we know that supermarket competition is absolutely critical in bringing down prices. That's why we're working with the states and territories on competition policy, including taking on these zoning issues that can promote land banking and prevent competition. We're cracking down on shrinkflation. This is such a frustrating practice of the supermarket chains for customers to face, where they are basically charged the same for less. It's a really tricky practice. It's a frustrating practice, where customers—regular people—don't know whether they're getting value for money or whether they're getting ripped off. It has to stop.

We have also banned unfair contract terms, and we've increased penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. Of course, it will be this government, the Albanese government, that delivers the most significant merger reform in Australia in almost 50 years. That is going to be critical to improving competition not just in our supermarket sector, as we're talking about today, but also across the economy. One of the really important measures that we've put in place is supporting the fantastic work of CHOICE in helping Australians compare the prices across our major supermarket chains. Their quarterly reports have shown that, for a similar basket of goods that people need to buy each week, Aldi is significantly cheaper than Coles and Woolworths today. That information is really important to help customers vote with their feet, find a better deal and promote competition in the supermarket chains. This is giving Australians accurate data on where to get the cheapest groceries.

All of this work, together, is making a difference and will make a difference. It's making sure that supermarkets do the right thing by Australians, that they do the right thing by their consumers. If they don't, there are significant actions that can be taken against them, and we've seen that with action taken by the ACCC just recently. Our consumer regulator commenced proceedings against Coles and Woolworths for alleged breaches of the law, where they were putting the price of something up, just to discount it and slap a 'special' sticker on it weeks later. This is a practice that is, again, tricky and incredibly frustrating for consumers. It's important that the ACCC is taking this action against Coles and Woolworths for their alleged breaches. If wrongdoing is found, there are substantial fines, going into the tens of millions of dollars, and that's because this government increased those fines, increased the penalties available for the ACCC to pursue and for the courts to apply. We want to deter and we want to punish this kind of dodgy behaviour. Change is underway, and we're starting to see this change flow through to consumers. And that change will continue to flow through to consumers.

Obviously, we all want to make sure that price gouging isn't happening, but what this bill does is it proposes pretty significant changes to competition policy in Australia. When we're doing that, we need to do more than manufacture a headline. What we actually need to do is review and consider the changes that are being proposed, and that is exactly what we think should happen with this bill. It needs to be consulted on, it needs to be considered and it is not ready to be passed in its current form. All the changes proposed in this bill need to be properly worked through to make sure that the bill will actually help consumers, who, at the end of the day, we're all here to protect, we're all here to assist in getting a better deal at the supermarket check-out. Unfortunately, this bill is not ready for debate. The work hasn't been done, and there needs to be proper process and proper scrutiny to properly debate this bill. It needs a proper looking into to better understand what the experience has been with these sorts of efforts, including the international experience. Until then, this measure can't be supported.

In the meantime, this government will continue to hold the supermarkets to account. We'll continue to support and fund the important work of the ACCC. We'll provide the extra funding, as we have, to the ACCC to make sure that they can take on supermarket prices, and we'll continue to put the cost of living at No. 1, 2 and 3 on our agenda, because we know these pressures are real for people. Right now, across my home state of Victoria, the first instalment of our $300 energy bill relief is in place, and people are seeing it on their bills. We know that's making an important difference for people. As well, over the past couple of months, every single Australian taxpayer has started to see the results of our tax cuts in their pay packets, which gives them a bit of extra income to help deal with cost-of-living pressures. These measures, amongst so many other measures that we're putting in place, all help, while we're putting downward pressure on inflation, inflation which is now, of course, half the level that it was when we took office just over two years ago.

We on this side of the chamber absolutely want to see the supermarkets held to account. We support the ACCC in doing just that. We've given them extra penalties to pursue. We've given them extra funding. We support the important work of the ACCC. This bill, as it stands, requires more discussion. It requires more review for the measures it seeks to introduce. In the meantime, we'll keep working with the ACCC, we'll keep promoting competition, including in the supermarket sector, and we'll continue to provide the cost-of-living support that Australians need today and into the future.

I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2025".

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. The Albanese Labor government believes every Australian deserves a fair deal on their weekly shop when going to the supermarket. It's appalling how big corporations have been allowed to take advantage of everyday Australians by jacking up and manipulating prices to trick people into believing they're getting a better deal than they really are. I can remember being part of the national price watch organisation and going out on a monthly basis checking prices. I found it extraordinary at that time that it depended on which suburb you lived in as to the differences in the stores of the two major chains. They were always blaming coming to Tasmania; it was all about freight and transport. The reality is all the groceries go into the one central point, and then they're transported out. To be frank with you, it would be no more than four kilometres between Newstead and Mowbray, so the changes in those areas—one is more affluent, and the other one is more working class. The working-class supermarket was the most expensive. That was the reality in the 1990s and early 2000s.

What we've been doing since we've come into government is listening to the Australian community. We know that people are struggling right now and that everyday Australians are dreading the weekly trip to the supermarket. This is why the Albanese Labor government is cracking down on these dodgy corporations that have been steadily raising their prices for years, unlike the Liberals who, over their decade of incompetence and neglect when they were in government, did absolutely nothing to prevent it or force these changes to happen.

What we've seen in the contributions that have been made here this morning is the good Liberal senator from WA putting all of this at the foot of the Labor government—that it's all our fault. The prices are rising, and the cost of living is going up. Yet they were in government, and the cost of living during that time was going up. They're talking about wages and cost. Their policy was, intentionally, to keep Australian low-income earners' wages lower. That was their policy. What we have done since we've been in government is address the neglect by those on the other side, because they did nothing to prevent the foreseeable outcomes of prices rising or respond to the flashing neon signs that were warning us about the rise in the costs of living. They did nothing, as I said, which is why we had to clean up, yet again, another mess that they left behind after a decade of neglect.

We know that the Greens political party are the experts that come into this chamber and grandstand on any issue that they believe will make good social media or that they can get good media grabs from. That's what they do. The Greens political party MPs and senators are really like a group of children, throwing tantrums because they can't always get their own way.

Let's talk about the housing policy—the bleating through the media and in this chamber about not addressing social and affordable housing in this country. Yet, this government has invested more in housing than any government in the last 100 years. But, when the Greens have the opportunity to vote for legislation to bring about change that's going to help house 40,000 Australian families, what do they do? They team up with the Liberals to prevent a vote on that very legislation. They didn't have the guts to vote it down, but they also have no foresight to support good legislation. They need to be called out. But I digress. I really should stick to the issue of groceries and what's happening and affecting everyday Australians, but I can't help it. They make my blood boil, they really do, because they're such hypocrites.

I want to talk about the improvements that the Labor government has made to help Australians deal with the cost of living. I don't want to be someone who comes into this chamber and whinges about things without being part of a government that makes changes and addresses the concerns that are affecting my fellow Australians. Like I said before, the Liberals want to blame Labor for everything, including interest rates, low wages and inflation. It's almost like they think we designed this. We didn't. What we're doing is taking good policies and bringing good legislation into this place to address those very issues.

Today, we're tackling issues at the forefront of this deception of shrinkflation. Shrinkflation is a tactic these organisations use to deceive customers slowly over time in an attempt to go undetected where they slowly increase the price of a product and blame the price rise on inflation while simultaneously decreasing the size and amount of the useable product. This use of manipulation and blatant deception is unacceptable in our country, and we, as a government, are not going to stand by and allow that to happen any longer. We're a government of action. Our government is dedicated to ensuring that every Australian knows that what they're paying for at the check-out is a fair price and that there is no deception attached to that.

Our government plans to implement laws that will both force these organisations to display clearer unit pricing and fine companies severely for not abiding by these laws. The way we'll go about this is through amending the Unit Pricing Code to ensure that corporations are providing the information needed for Australians to make an informed decision and to get the best deals possible. I don't know whether you've found this, but when I go grocery shopping and they have a little tag that says, 'This is a deal,' or that it's reduced I always check underneath to make sure. It is amazing how many times you will find that, when there's a great deal, the price is the same. It's just a con to get you to actually believe that they're doing something to help you. So the issue is: buyers beware.

As I've said, through the measures we will be putting into legislation, we will be strengthening this code to protect Australians from that greed currently infecting supermarkets and the view they have of the world that, as a duopoly, they as major organisations have the right to do what they want. Well, we're going to take them head-on. We are currently focusing on improving the visibility and readiness of price tags to allow for shoppers an easy time comparing prices. For much the same reason we're looking at ways to address the major inconsistency when it comes to the units of measurement used across various supermarkets. Both of these underhanded tactics are meant to make it more difficult for consumers to determine the best deals. As we all know, everyone is so busy. People want to go into the supermarket, grab their groceries and know with confidence that they're not being ripped off when they get to the check-out.

The Albanese Labor government is already investing $30 million into the ACCC to further crack down on supermarkets and their deceptive practices. So we're investing in the ACCC, who will also take action and monitor what is happening in the supermarkets. This money is a great investment and will go a long way in supporting Australians to take the pressure off the cost of living and allow for rates to decrease at a much faster rate in terms of pricing. There has to be real justification for increasing the prices at the supermarket.

Another thing this government is doing is following the recommendations it's received from Dr Craig Emerson in his review. The review has allowed the Albanese Labor government to commence accurate and meaningful consultation for a new mandatory food and grocery code. We have further enforced competition and consumer laws by banning unfair contract terms as well as increased the penalties for breaching the said laws. Our government is working hard on delivering substantial progress on the most significant merger reforms in this country for over five decades. Due to our efficient communications with states and the fact that we are willing to work with state governments and our ability to make things happen, we're working with them across this issue, as we are with so many others, to revitalise the national competition policy, which includes both planning and zoning for supermarkets.

On top of all of this amazing work and our plans to address these deceptive practices from these major corporations, we have also supported CHOICE to release their second price-monitoring report. This report will, once again, give the Australian people extremely accurate data on where they can get the best deals, in order to put even more pressure on the supermarkets. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to fund this because we know Australians are doing it tough and because we care. We know how hard it is to manage your personal budget.

These corporations have been warned. We are prepared to work with them. We will do it diligently, though we will do it with Australian consumers at the forefront of our concerns. We will work with them so that Australians know that any increase in their grocery prices are based on legitimate reasons and we will ensure that we end this deceptive practice of raising the price while reducing the size of the product. Groceries are a massive factor in the cost of living in Australia right now, and, by working to address these issues, our government will help every single hardworking Aussie.

Labor has a long legacy of being for the people. Unlike the previous government, we are acting in the areas that we believe count the most and have the greatest impact on Australian consumers. We have given tax cuts, we have given energy bill relief and we have supplied cheaper medicines. Just as a reminder to anyone that's listening to this, those tax cuts we gave were given to all Australian workers. Under the Liberals' proposal, there were low-income workers who were not going to get a tax cut at all. So we've have done that. They voted against our increase to the tax cuts. They voted against cheaper medicines. Every single piece of legislation that we've brought in, including energy bill assistance for Australians and small businesses, the previous government did nothing towards when they were in government. They had 22 failed policies, and now we know they've gone for the mushroom cloud effect, led by Mr Dutton.

The big difference is that we are addressing the issues. We have listened to the Australian people. We know their genuine concerns about what's happening out in the supermarkets. Like Senator Tyrrell and Senator Urquhart, I come from Tasmania. We don't have the same opportunities for Aldi, because Aldi has chosen not to come to Tasmania. Why? Because they obviously won't make enough money. That's the only reason they won't come, but Tasmanians are calling out for that competition. So, today, my call to Aldi is: 'Come down, and you will be surprised how well supported you are.'

The difference with this legislation—even though the intent may very well be a good one, which is unusual for the Greens—is that it needs so much work. Coming into this chamber and introducing legislation should not be based on a child's tantrum approach of: 'Let's get some publicity. Let's try and con the Australian people before a federal election.' That's what they're doing. On one hand, they're saying they're talking for Australian consumers; on the other hand, the Greens in Tasmania are rallying outside retailers who sell legitimately clean salmon from Tasmania. That's what these people are doing. They are such hypocrites. They want to close down retailers who sell Tasmanian salmon, which is the best salmon in the world—we export internationally. We have a clean, green environment in which they are grown. But what do the Greens do? Again, it's all about politics, not about achievement.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Polley. I was going to call Senator Green, who I have next on the list.

An honourable senator: I think Senator Pocock was first.

Order! Senator Pocock.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just get some advice. Order. Can you just take your seat. Senator Green, you're next.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Acting Deputy President—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you don't want me to speak—

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order. Firstly, for your information—I'm not sure what you have in front of you—the speaking list does actually have Senator Pocock next, not Senator Green. I've got a copy of that on my desk in front of me. Secondly, I would make the point that this is a Greens bill. The government has had two speakers, but the Greens have only had one speaker. What's going on here is Labor is so scared of the supermarket corporations it's trying to stop this bill from coming to a vote.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. I was looking at the wrong speakers list. I have two versions here. I did go to Senator Green because I thought she was next, but I have an updated speakers list here. I'm going to give the call now to Senator Pocock. My apologies, Senator Green.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I thought you wanted to speak.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my speech. I move that the question be put.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, can I seek some clarity. I was on my feet. You gave me the call.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, even though I was on the speaking list, I'm not getting an opportunity to speak?

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I'm sorry; I had the wrong list here. I had gone to Senator Pocock because Senator McKim said Senator Pocock wanted to make a contribution. Now it seems that she doesn't want to make a contribution, so I am now going to give you the call so you can make a contribution, and then we'll go to Senator Pocock.

Senator McKim, I'll take your point of order.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, the situation is very clear. You gave Senator Pocock the call—actually twice now—and Senator Pocock has twice, after you gave her the call, moved that the question now be put. That is the clearly the question before the chair: that the question now be put. Under the standing orders that is required to be put without debate.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll seek some more advice, Senator McKim. I've just walked into this debate, so you have to be generous here, if you can. I've taken advice from the clerk. The position is that I had given the call to Senator Pocock. She has moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for debate has expired.