Subjects: The Coalition’s plan to keep supermarkets in check; Labor’s cost of living crisis; the Coalition’s commitment to Australia’s live sheep export industry; the Coalition’s plan to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy; Labor’s energy policy shambles; nuclear energy; NATO.
E&OE.
PETER DUTTON:
Everyone, thank you for being here today and I look forward to seeing all of you tomorrow night at the premier event for this place – depending on your perspective.
I want to say thank you very much to David Littleproud and Angus Taylor for being here as well. As you know, the Coalition has, for a long time been very worried on behalf of every Australian at the rising cost of food prices.
People know when they go to the checkout now it’s just getting harder and harder, and the Albanese Government’s got a train wreck of an energy policy which is feeding into an increase in food prices, but we also know that the situation in Australia at the moment is that there’s a massive concentration of market share within the two major companies, within Coles and Woolies.
There are complaints, understandably, from farmers and suppliers and many others in the supply chain, but equally, there are many complaints and validly made by consumers as well, who are worried about what it means when they go to the checkout with ever increasing prices.
We know that internationally there’s examples of divestiture, which means that where there’s an abuse of market share or that power, then there’s a consequence to pay for that – and we have taken a decision as a Coalition to support a regime that allows for divestiture. I’ll ask David and Angus to go through this in some detail because they’ve both been working on it for some time.
But it’s a very clear message that the Coalition stands with consumers and with farmers, for a fairer deal, for fairer prices, we want cheaper prices at the checkout, and Mr Albanese has yet again demonstrated a complete lack of leadership, a weakness in leadership, an inability to stand up to these companies and we’re prepared to do that.
I’ll also just comment, if I might – just given the number of farmers who are in the building at the moment from Western Australia – the Albanese Government’s made a decision which was politically based, it was based off the back of trying to get preferences from the Animal Justice Party and from the Greens, to cancel live sheep exports.
We’ve been very clear that we stand with those farmers, and not just the farmers, the shearers and others in the local communities that will see people leave the community because there’s not a secondary opportunity in that local economy for them. Once they go, the kids go from the school, once they go, they’re not spending money at the local shops, and it ultimately weakens or destroys those local towns.
So, we have been very clear in our support of those farmers. They have introduced world leading standards in relation to animal welfare, and they have worked very hard on making sure that they can open up those markets. So we have been very clear about the fact that we stand with those farmers, but also that we would reinstate that industry after the next election. That’s something we’ve been certainly up front in our discussions with them about, but I wanted to make that very clear today. DLP?
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Yeah, thanks Dutto. The first action that I’ll take as the Agriculture Minister is to bring in legislation to reinstate that industry, but my first international trip will be to show respect to those Middle Eastern countries: Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, so that they understand their food security will be secured by Australian farmers, as we have in the best way anyone else has been able to achieve anywhere around the world.
There’s no scientific or economic reason to phase this industry out, and we give an ironclad guarantee that we will reinstate this industry. After next election, that will be the very first action that I take as Agriculture Minister, and make sure that that industry should have confidence that we back them, because if we don’t, there’ll be the perverse and horrific death of millions of sheep from other parts of the world that’ll take our market because we’ve cut and run. Australians don’t cut and run. Anthony Albanese is prepared to cut and run for a few preferences with Animal Justice Party. This is about doing what’s right, and what’s right is to stay and get the job done, and that’s what we’ll do. It’s not just about the economics, this is animal welfare. Those animal activists are morally bankrupt when they would value the welfare and the life of a sheep of Australia, above that from another country. We’re going to make sure we do this right, we lead the world and we keep the world to our standard. That’s what Australians do, and that’s what I’m going to make sure that my first action is.
But today is another big day for the Coalition. This has been a natural progression of where the Coalition’s been heading. It’s important to understand that in our last year as Government, we instituted an ACCC inquiry into perishable goods. We actually worked through those four recommendations. The ACCC at that point made no reference to having divestiture powers. Subsequent to that, we now have an ACCC Chair that has made it very clear that divestiture powers would be a good tool to have in the toolbox. That is what we’re giving her today, to make sure that we have a range of penalties, scaling penalties, to change the culture, to make sure that there is fairness and transparency from the farm gate to your plate. This isn’t about fixing prices, and it won’t mean that tomorrow or when we get into government, that we’re going to break up the supermarkets straight away. This is a deterrent. It is a deterrent to make sure they work within the regulatory guardrails.
In this country, the big three supermarkets control 74 per cent of the grocery market. In the UK and US, their big three control about 30 to 40 per cent of the market. So we have market concentration, and we are hearing the harrowing evidence from farmers who are being mistreated by supermarkets because they are the market. That’s not a fair market, and government should only get involved in markets when there is not fairness. And so that today, is why we’re saying that divestiture powers will be given for supermarkets and hardware, but we’re also moving to make sure that the grocery code will be mandatory.
We will put the horticulture code and the dairy code as schedules of them and we’ll continue to respect their unique supply chains in ensuring that they fall within the grocery code, so that there is full coverage from the farm gate through supply chains to the supermarket, and we will be respecting the Emerson Inquiry’s recommendation around penalties of $10 million, or 10 per cent of turnover below divestiture, and then what we want to do is make sure that we go well beyond what this Government has done in terms of facing up to the threat of supermarkets, to consumers and farmers. They’ve been too weak to take them on, and so we will now institute a Supermarket Commissioner and their role will be one that allows them to work with suppliers, farmers, who feel aggrieved with the dealings that they’ve had with supermarkets to come forward, and to either conciliate that with farmers and the supermarkets openly, but where farmers fear retribution – and there are many cases of that – then the Supermarket Commissioner can lift that and accelerate that through to the ACCC for further investigation and use section 155 of the Consumer Competition Act, which gives them the power, the open power, to open up the books and investigate – not just the supermarkets – but farmers involved in the supply chain so that they can garner the evidence and make sure that there has been no wrongdoing.
We’re also going to make sure that we equip the ACCC with greater tools and penalties along that way. At the moment, infringement notices that the Albanese Government’s prepared to put on supermarkets in terms of infringement notices, maxes out at $187,800. We will max out at $2 million. This is about giving them the tools to change the culture, about making sure that we have an agile system that allows the ACCC to move quickly, to give infringement notices – but where that can’t be achieved, then obviously the greater penalties, whether that be the 10 per cent of turnover, or $10 million, or divestiture, will be determined by a court of law, not by politicians, but by a court of law. That is a fair way to make sure that the regulatory guardrails are there to ensure there is fairness from the farm gate to your plate.
This is all about making sure there is equity. This is a sensible policy solution of us taking on the supermarkets and making sure they understand they’re on notice, that they’re going to be looked at, and the evidence was clear when we saw beef and sheep prices drop by 60 to 70 per cent in June, but only an eight per cent reduction at the checkout – someone was cleaning up, and it was them.
So, we need to make sure we give our regulators the tools which you need, and this is just the commonsense solution that the Coalition is bringing. It’s a natural progression that we’ve been working on, and I’m proud to stand next to Peter Dutton, who has the courage and conviction to stand up for farmers and retailers.
ANGUS TAYLOR:
Thanks David, Peter.
Look, this has been a great opportunity for the Nationals and Liberals to work together on protecting and looking after consumers, farmers and small business, and making sure they get a fair go. Of course, it’s no secret that under Labor, we’ve seen prices raging, home grown inflation has been running at we’ve seen over 10 per cent increase, or around 10 per cent increase in prices in the last two years, and of course household disposable incomes, real wages for employees, absolutely smashed in the last two years. We know one of the pain points for consumers, one of the causes of great pain, is the rising price of groceries and everything that they buy every single day.
Now, Australia is unusual in two respects. One of which, David has already spoken about in our competition regulation. The first is that we have a retail sector, a grocery sector, that’s highly concentrated. Much more concentrated than peer countries like the US and the UK. We are also unusual in that we don’t have a broad ranging divestment power attached to the offences in our Consumer and Competition Act. In the US and the UK, those powers are there.
What we’re proposing to do is to have a balanced power within the Consumer and Competition Act attached to section 46 – the misuse of market power clause, that we altered when we were in Government to include an effects test – to make sure that consumers, farmers, small businesses, supplying our major grocery retailers and hardware retailers to make sure they get a fair go.
Now, this is about getting the balance right, and there’s some important safeguards we’re building into this initiative that are crucial to ensure that the balance is right, and distinguish this from other proposals that have been running around.
The first point to make is that it’s based on section 46, there’s no new offence here. It’s based on section 46 – misuse of market power – which is well known, and has been in the Consumer and Competition Act for some time with the modification we made when we were in Government.
Secondly, it is confined to supermarkets, and hardware, as David said a moment ago.
The third point is, it will only be applied where divestment can lead to a substantial improvement in competition. So there must be a very real benefit that is proven in a court, and demonstrated will provide benefits to consumers, to small businesses, to farmers who are supplying those retailers.
Finally, it must pass a public interest test. There’s been criticism around that this could result in loss of jobs, or significant loss of shareholder value. The public interest test ensures that that is not possible. The proponent will have to demonstrate that it has passed the public interest test and that there aren’t job losses that would outweigh any of those benefits to consumers, to farmers, or to small businesses.
These are important safeguards, and they’re the sort of balance that we see in a sensible competition regime, and they bring us very much into line with the sorts of regimes we see in countries like the US and the UK. The important point here is it would have to go through a court, and it won’t be for politicians or regulators indeed, to make these decisions, it’ll be for the courts to make those decisions.
QUESTION:
When you were last in Government, when you brought in the divestiture laws for the electricity sector, you resisted then extending those to supermarkets. I think the Nationals wanted to. What’s changed between then and now?
ANGUS TAYLOR:
Well, if you haven’t noticed, the prices have gone up a fair bit in the supermarkets since then, Phil.
QUESTION:
The Nationals were making that same complaints years ago.
ANGUS TAYLOR:
Well, we’ve seen raging inflation in this country. It’s been home-grown inflation. It’s been Labor’s inflation. It’s been ‘Jim-flation’, indeed. There is no question, as you pointed out this morning, Phil, and there’s no question that it is hurting Australians in ways we haven’t seen in a long, long time. So, we’ve got to make sure that we can have complete faith in our supermarkets, that they’re doing the right thing by consumers and doing the right thing by farmers and small businesses.
QUESTION:
Just on nuclear – if the Coalition’s…
PETER DUTTON:
On what, sorry?
QUESTION:
Nuclear.
PETER DUTTON:
Yeah.
QUESTION:
If the Coalition’s policy is that the seven sites go ahead, regardless of the local opinion and that compulsory acquisition of land is on the table, what exactly is the nature of the community consultation going on at the moment? And will your costings include an estimate of what it might cost if you have to compulsorily acquire that land?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Clare, what we know is that there are a lot of people who are really conflicted in this space at the moment, so a lot of companies who have a lot of taxpayers’ money at their disposal, who are investing into all sorts of renewable types of energy, and our programme, as you know, is not just about nuclear, it’s about renewables, it’s certainly about gas, because without something in the interim, bearing in mind that the fact is that by 2034 – so over the next 10 years – 90 per cent of baseload comes out of the system. Green hydrogen’s not commercially available. So when people talk about the timelines on nuclear, or the cost, or when that’s going to roll out, the Prime Minister says that his baseload solution is green hydrogen. It’s not commercialised, it’s not a proven technology, and frankly, it’s not going to be rolled out. Let’s be honest about it. The Japanese and others are pushing it to the right.
So, they’re all issues that are at play. Our argument is that it’s in our national interest, as is the case for 19 of the 20 biggest economies around the world at the moment, to have reliable baseload energy, because the renewables are incredibly important in the system, but you need to have that baseload, and we think the cheapest way to do that is through nuclear.
So, there’ll be an engagement with those communities. Met with some Mayors this morning where we’re talking about the economic benefit to the local community, and the economic benefit is significant. It will underpin jobs and economic activity for between 80 and 100 years. We know from the international experience that heavy industry, and in the modern era, data centres and technologies that require a big baseload power will be attracted into those areas so the economic benefit will be significant. One of the main conversations with those local communities is, ‘how do they see all of that industry working in a complementary way?’, so that we can create that economic activity, those jobs locally, but to be of national benefit as well.
QUESTION:
Just on this policy announcement, I’m sure that Australians would agree that supermarkets aren’t the only place where there is a great concentration of ownership – airlines, banks, I’m sure other things that they would single out. Would you consider divestiture or break up powers for those?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we’ve had a look at all of the options available to us. Our argument is that where we have a real problem with a situation – as people feel every day when they go to the supermarket, and it’s a similar situation with Bunnings as well, which has significant market share – we think that distinguishes it from other areas of the economy. People are paying more than 11 per cent for groceries than they were when Mr Albanese first came into Government.
I think it’s why most Australians feel now, that whether it’s when you see your mortgage payment coming out each fortnight, or each month, or when you’re paying your insurance bill, when you’re filling up the car, when you’re paying for your grocery bill, no Australian is better off today than they were two years ago when Mr Albanese was elected Prime Minister. I don’t think Australians can afford three more years of this failed Government. The policy that we’ve got today is measured, there are safeguards in place, but it recognises the unique Australian nature of what we’re facing at the moment.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, with Dr Emerson’s Review of the Grocery Code, he said that the reason divestiture powers weren’t one of his recommendations was that they sound like a good idea, but it relies on there being companies that would swoop in and buy up supermarkets or the like, when those divestiture powers are used, and they don’t exist at the moment in the Australian economy. Who do you think is actually waiting in the wings to snap up some of these supermarkets, if indeed those four sell offs were where demanded?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, let’s look at somebody more objective, if I might say, than Dr Emerson in this debate, and that is the current ACCC Chair, who talks about the value of having this power in the toolkit. As Angus pointed out before, this is a power that exists in the United States, the United Kingdom, it’s been there for a long period of time. We’ve got proper safeguards in place, but ultimately, our desire is to help families cope with the cost of living crisis. What Labor’s done here in creating an energy policy crisis, a housing crisis, and a cost of living crisis, we can’t just ignore that. We need to take steps to get our country back on track, and that’s exactly what we propose to do.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, on the PM not going to NATO, can you clarify what your position is? You’ve previously said he was Airbus Albo for going overseas too much, and now there’s criticism that he’s choosing not to go overseas?
PETER DUTTON:
Well look, I think if it’s a vanity trip, then the Prime Minister would want to reflect on that, but if it’s a trip that’s in our national interest, and that is particularly at a time when the Prime Minister says that we live in the most precarious period since the 1930s. This is an engagement with NATO. There’s war in Europe, there’s war in the Middle East, there’s a great prospect of war spreading further into Europe, there’s great uncertainty in our own region, as the Prime Minister’s pointed out, now is the time to engage with world leaders, like minded, and to send a very clear message to Putin, to send a very clear message to North Korea, to Iran, to Hezbollah and others, that we stand with countries who share our values and we always will.
If the Prime Minister doesn’t see that as a priority – I think a lot of Australians are very unsettled at the moment. They’re worried about safety, they’re worried about security, and they’ve got a Prime Minister who wants to put local politicking ahead of his obligation to stand up for our country and to send a united message. He has the ability to do that and he hasn’t done it. That’s a decision for him.
I don’t understand many aspects of his weak leadership, but I think Australians now are coming to know this Prime Minister as somebody who does things through the lens of ‘what can it do to win votes in inner city seats from the Greens?’. That’s basically the sole lens that he looks through. It’s why he’s walked both sides of the street in relation to the anti-Semitism debate. His conduct has been appalling, to be honest, and it’s given rise to the levels of anti-Semitism our country has never seen. I think it’s right for the Prime Minister to stand up now for our country’s interests, at a time of great global uncertainty and he’s failed that basic test.
Charles?
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, this policy you’re announcing today is supported in some ways by the Greens. Do you think government intervention in something as fundamental as grocery shops is in line with the free market principles of the Party you lead?
PETER DUTTON:
I think if you look at the Party – and Robert Menzies up on the wall there – Robert Menzies spoke about the Liberal Party being the champion of small business, of the entrepreneur, of the tradie. That’s exactly how I see the Party and it’s how my colleagues see the Party as well. Menzies was quick to point out that big business can take care of themselves. I’m not anti-big business, I want to see them continue to grow, but I want to take care of consumers at a time when they’re hurting most, and they’ve been hurt by the Labor Government with bad decisions in three budgets. Interest rates are through the roof, the Government’s spending is out of control, which has led to higher inflation, and the Reserve Bank Governor has pointed that out, that Australians are paying more for that reason.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Can I just say also?
PETER DUTTON:
Please mate.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Look, this is a commodity that underpins all life. When you’ve got Australians making tough decisions at a supermarket every day to put fresh produce back on the shelf because they can’t afford it, then we’ve been given a privileged position to come to this House, and we should do whatever we can to make sure there’s fairness in that pricing so that they can make those decisions a little bit easier. This isn’t about saying they can’t make profit, it’s just how they make profit and make sure it’s fair. But these are the tough decisions that we’re prepared to make when Australians are making those tough decisions.
Your fellow Australians are going without meals because there isn’t transparency and fairness from the farm gate to your plate. I take my position and the privilege I’ve been given to be here to do something about that. When we produce enough food and fibre for 80 million people, and we’re 27 million people, and they’re making those decisions, surely you would have thought any Government would have stood up and done anything they possibly can to help any Australian to make that decision in the supermarket just that little bit easier.
QUESTION:
Just back to what Matt was saying, can you give a guarantee that say it’s Coles that has been forced to divest, that then Woolworths doesn’t swoop in? Will that be a safeguard locked in, and can you give that guarantee?
PETER DUTTON:
Yeah, so we’re not going to see greater concentration within one of the two companies. That’s not the objective of what we’re seeking to do here at all. When you hear some of the stories about an IGA site, for example, one of the companies will buy up the whole site, not just that tenancy where the IGA is, and then freeze out that IGA in time.
When you see circumstances where, in a local town, one of the major companies has a footprint in their local supermarket and starts buying up other sites around that local area where another supermarket could go; that’s a complete distortion of the market. That’s not an operation of the free market. If they’re becoming property developers to try and kill off competition and to drive up prices that they’re charging consumers, then that should be addressed and that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Alright. Thank you very much.
[ends]