Bob Katter

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

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Andrew Wilkie

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

Andrew Leigh

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

Is the member for Kennedy seeking the call?

Bob Katter

I stood up before the minister to move my legislation—

Maria Vamvakinou

On a point of order?

Bob Katter

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

You're suspending standing orders.

Bob Katter

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

Maria Vamvakinou

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

I have not spoken in this debate—

Maria Vamvakinou

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

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

Andrew Giles

You've spoken. We heard you speak.

Maria Vamvakinou

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

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

Maria Vamvakinou

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

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

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

Andrew Giles

Leave is not granted.

Maria Vamvakinou

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.

Long debate text truncated.

Summary

Date and time: 4:54 PM on 2024-11-27
Allegra Spender's vote: No
Total number of "aye" votes: 11
Total number of "no" votes: 51
Total number of abstentions: 89

Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au