Wednesday, 21 February 2024

Motions

Supermarket prices

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:22): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) Victorians are struggling to afford food and other essentials due to the high prices set by supermarkets;

(2) the supermarket duopoly of Coles and Woolworths are increasing their profits;

(3) section 4 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 gives the government the power to declare an industry to be a regulated industry;

and calls on the Victorian government to declare groceries a regulated industry to prevent supermarkets from price gouging.

We need to make food more affordable, and we need to stop Coles and Woolies from price gouging. This Labor government has the power to do this by regulating supermarkets and stopping them from charging unfair prices. So far they have chosen not to use it. We all know people are really struggling right now. They are skipping meals. They are going without fresh food, and they are having to make awful decisions between putting food on the table and buying medication or paying their bills. This should not be happening in our state. It is unacceptable, and it is time that Labor in government step up and take action.

At the same time as so many people are under immense financial strain Coles and Woolworths are jacking their prices up and they are reporting billions of dollars in profits. It is obscene. The Labor government needs to step in to stop supermarket price gouging so that everyone can afford fresh, healthy food at their supermarket. We know that supermarkets will not stop this behaviour on their own. They will keep ripping everyone off for as long as they can get away with it. Labor has the power to declare supermarkets as a regulated industry and to rein in those two big juggernauts.

Let us be clear on what the government have the power to do and what we are calling on them to do. Section 4 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 clearly states:

… the Governor in Council may by Order declare an industry to be a regulated industry after having regard to …

It goes on to point out that:

The Order may declare –

(a) which prices are to be prescribed prices in respect of a regulated industry;

(b) which goods and services are to be prescribed goods and services in respect of a regulated industry …

With this power the Essential Services Commission could monitor and report on grocery prices and, if necessary, stop supermarkets from price gouging.

We need to keep food and other essential items at affordable rates for Victorians. Currently those big two, Coles and Woolies, are controlling the market and they are keeping prices high. We want to stop unfair price hikes while also making sure that farmers and other suppliers get paid a fair price. We saw on Four Corners earlier this week a third-generation cherry farmer who had been pushed to his limit. He had had crops turned away for questionable reasons, and he was at the mercy of the prices offered by Coles. He was leaving the industry, as he just could not survive on the margins offered by that supermarket.

We have all I think noticed the prices on the shelves rising higher and higher on everyday items when we go to Coles or Woolies. It feels like every week things cost a little more, while they are also a little smaller in size, and money generally does not stretch as far. This comes at the same time as so many people are under all sorts of financial pressure. From rent increases to interest rate rises creating mortgage stress, from higher petrol prices to increasing Myki fares, from rising power bills to school expenses, many are feeling the squeeze from every angle. It is not like people can just stop eating, right? Food is essential, and it should be treated as such. Having access to sufficient, healthy, fresh food is critical to wellbeing, our physical and mental health. It is a basic human right. It impacts on our quality of life and our ability to thrive in our communities. However, huge numbers of people just cannot afford to stock their cupboards. Over a quarter of a million Victorian households are accessing food relief every month. Foodbank reported that over 365,000 children lived in households that were severely food insecure in the year up until their 2023 report, and we know that things have not improved since then. It is beholden on this Labor government and this Parliament to get involved. We cannot sit idly by while so many people, so many children, are hungry and going without meals. It is time to take on those big supermarkets and to rein them in.

Woolies and Coles have the market cornered. The vast majority of the community shop there – about two-thirds of us – and they seem to behave like they can treat us all with contempt. They charge whatever they want. They try to blame inflation while jacking their prices way beyond those levels and still posting megaprofits. They are whining about an increase in shoplifting while failing to acknowledge that people are stealing their food because they are hungry and they are desperate. But instead of dropping their prices in response, supermarkets are installing security gates and more cameras to watch our literal every move. Their workers have rallied for better pay and conditions, which is understandable given what we have heard about the treatment of staff in dark stores being pushed to pack at unrelenting rates in sometimes scorching hot conditions. Farmers are speaking up about their shrinking margins. But Coles and Woolies are holding all the cards, and the power imbalance is huge. The only real winners at the moment are the shareholders of those two big supermarkets.

What we need to do is to stop supermarket greed, to hold Coles and Woolies to account and make sure that they are charging fair prices for their groceries, and this can be done by regulating them. There are precedents for taking action to stop out-of-control price rises on groceries, from Labor governments, both occurring right here in Victoria. Back in the Cain years – some of you might remember that far back; I am afraid I was not around at the time – they had a bill in Parliament. It was called the Prices Bill 1989, which replaced the Grocery Prices Act 1987. I will just read you a bit of the second-reading speech of that Prices Bill 1989. It is quite telling:

The government has been fearless in highlighting companies engaged in unfair or excessive pricing and brought them to task publicly. This in itself has a significant impact, although without the support of legislation many companies are prepared to ignore such exposure and continue their practices.

I think it is a very different tone from what we hear now from the current Labor government, who hoot and holler every time the Greens mention taking on the greedy supermarkets. We are often told instead that it is the ACCC’s responsibility to address unfair prices or that it is a federal matter, but in fact when it comes to this kind of regulation the feds cannot do anything about it. That has actually been decided twice constitutionally with a referendum. If we again look back to years long gone, before my time, those golden Whitlam years, Gough sought these powers at the federal level and he failed, and instead it remains completely legal for supermarkets to charge as much as they like.

Some will say that we just need to name and shame those supermarkets, Coles and Woolies – I think we saw a bit of that with Four Corners this week – so that then they will be embarrassed by their actions and they will spontaneously stop their out-of-control price rises and start charging people a fair amount for groceries and other essential items. But let us be real. The only allegiance Coles and Woolies hold is to their shareholders, and their mission is to maximise their profits. We need to see people prioritised over those profits, and this is going to require action from the Labor government to regulate these supermarkets and to pull them into line.

Too many people are cutting back on fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. They are skipping meals. They are facing empty cupboards, and they are having to access food aid. Four Corners this week further highlighted and exposed the very, very dark side of Coles and Woolies, who are using ruthless and frankly dishonest tactics to make sure that they always win, at the loss of everyone else. This is simply not good enough, and this state government needs to step in and fix it. We cannot live without food, it is as simple as that. Labor, you need to regulate the supermarkets to stop them from charging too much.

What can I say? Pressure works. People have scoffed at and scorned the calls for supermarkets to be hauled into line, and what we have seen in the course of a week, or less than that, is the CEO of Woolies stand aside after, frankly, quite a shocking interview in that Four Corners exposé. We need to see this pressure continue. This moment is a beginning. We need our state governments to pull in their fair share of this conversation to tackle the greedy supermarkets and make sure that Victorians, everyday people, are put first over profits. I commend this motion to the house.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:32): I am pleased to rise and speak on Mr Puglielli’s motion in relation to the regulation of grocery prices in the state. I think we need to start the debate and the contributions today with very clear acknowledgement that there is absolutely a cost-of-living crunch underway in Victoria and in Australia. It is absolutely clear from the people we go and speak to in the community and what we see ourselves when we go to the shops and when we talk to our constituents that everyone feels like they are paying more – and they are – for the things that they rely on. That is absolutely undeniable.

We see it too in the official data in the Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly surveys of consumer prices. When you look at the more reliable quarterly index, you see that prices absolutely are rising in the economy and they have been doing so for a number of years. I think the one silver lining from the last set of quarterly data the ABS published is that the rate of growth that we have seen over the last couple of years is moderating, and I think if that trend continues it will be absolutely welcome news for consumers. In Melbourne in particular – and you can break down capital city data out of the quarterly ABS stats – the rate of growth for prices in the last 12 months was around half of what it was in the 12 months prior; it was around 4 per cent in the last 12 months in Melbourne, and it was around 8 per cent in the 12 months to the end of 2022. I think what we are hopefully seeing is a moderation of the peak of inflation, and that is good news. I did want to start by injecting some facts into this debate, because I am worried that they are not always evident.

The other thing that is quite clear is that governments are acting on this problem. The state government has been acting in areas where we are best competent to act, and the federal government has been acting in areas that it is best competent to act. Principally the Commonwealth, as the level of government responsible for corporations and competition policy, has been taking pretty significant action in respect of particularly the supermarket duopoly that Mr Puglielli is so concerned with, and rightly so. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has the powers, has been asked to do investigations into supermarket prices. The federal government – the federal Treasurer – has just appointed former trade minister Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the grocery code of conduct. As someone who knows Craig and who used to work with him, he is going to be absolutely forensic in this task of finding out how we best deal with the range of supply chain issues that we have seen with the supermarket duopoly and both the monopoly and the monopsonies that exist on both a consumer and supplier level. That is where action needs to happen.

What we have seen here and recently from the Greens on this topic is not a policy formulation designed to fix the problem, it is a political campaign designed to get clicks on social media and do data harvesting of signatures on petitions. The Greens have been preying on people’s vulnerabilities to gain attention for themselves on social media and to collect names, addresses and email addresses of people in the community so that they can add them to their mailing lists. That is exactly what this entire campaign has been about. Instead of being concerned about taking action, they have tried to exploit people’s vulnerabilities. If they were serious about taking action, they would not be calling on a state government to use some power that they think could apply to supermarkets and saying, ‘This is going to solve all of the problems.’ I will come to that in just a moment.

I have said what the federal government is doing now, and I will get to what the state government is doing in a minute. But the question of whether we should regulate prices in the economy is not a new question. It is a question that has been debated over the course of post-Federation history here in Australia, and it has been something that in the past the Labor Party has had very strong views about – such strong views in fact that we took a referendum to the Australian people to give the Commonwealth the power to do this very thing not once but twice. In 1948 Ben Chifley, suffering quite horrendous post-war inflation in the national economy, sought to take a piece of legislation to regulate prices in the economy. It was rejected by the Australian people at a referendum. Gough Whitlam in 1973, post oil shock, similarly wanted to control oil prices in the economy and did not succeed again. Twice Labor has taken a proposition like this to the Australian people at a federal level, and twice it has been defeated.

So what is the approach we are taking now? Instead of trying to reprosecute agendas which have not had success in the past, we are now trying to figure out how to actually do something about it in the here and now. We see the attempts to look at the way that the food and grocery code can be strengthened and the way the ACCC can use anti-competition laws to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour and conduct in the course of the supermarket industry, and I hope those will be successful.

We also know that this kind of approach is fraught with complexity – complexity that is absolutely absent from the campaign the Greens have been running. My question to them in the course of this debate, which I hope some of their other speakers, if they want to speak on this debate, will come up and articulate, is: how will this work? Give us the next sentence and the sentence after that, after you say that the state has the power to regulate prices. Which supermarkets will it apply to? What products is this going to apply to? Are we just talking about Coles and Woolworths, or are we also talking about Aldi or IGA or 7-Eleven or the corner store? And which products – is it milk, is it bread, is it Vegemite, is it fresh fruit? What are the products that you propose to regulate the price of, and in which outlets? You have talked about the profits of the largest two supermarkets. They have a significant amount of market power in this country, and that needs to be addressed.

But my question is: what about the profits of the milk bar at the corner, whose price of bread and milk you should be regulating or you might be regulating? And if you are not going to be regulating them but you are going to be forcing supermarkets to have lower prices on their shelves, won’t you be driving consumers away from fruit and veg markets? Won’t you be driving consumers away from shopping at independent retailers who are not subject to your price controls? Because by taking this course of action you will unleash a wave of disruption across the entire way that this economy works that will result in more people shopping at large supermarkets, where you have regulated prices, and fewer people shopping at their local shops, at their local stores, eliminating competition in the market.

We do absolutely need to do something about the supermarket duopoly here in Australia. The federal government is taking action using the powers of the ACCC to do that, but governments at a state and federal level are also taking action on the cost of living, and that is where I want to end my contribution. This state government does believe, does understand, that there are cost-of-living pressures in the community. That is why we have done so many rounds of the power saving bonus to help people with their electricity prices. That is why regional train fares are now lower than they were and the same as they are in metro. That is why we have got free kinder. That is why we have got free TAFE. That is why we are providing free pads and tampons in public places and free registration for apprentices. We have continued the baby bundle and the veterans card. We have got free dental care going into our schools, and those kids are also getting free school breakfasts in breakfast club. Mr Puglielli mentioned medicine. The federal government has reduced the cost of medicine, and we have got a round of tax cuts coming on 1 July – and I am not sure whether the Greens are supporting those or not. We are acting on the cost of living; they are not.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:42):I rise to speak on this motion by my colleague Mr Puglielli. Just a couple of things: I heard a member for North-Eastern Metro speaking about the billions in profits of the big supermarkets. You would have seen the recent news that a company just recorded a $781 million loss. They had about a 2.5 per cent margin in their annual report. And I will agree with Mr Batchelor that there is no detail on what they would actually do. How much would you regulate and control prices by? If you control prices by too much, Woolies is going to go bankrupt. So I am starting to think that the Greens might be for, not a duopoly, a monopoly and just having Coles be the one brand everywhere. That is not going to send prices down, down; that is going to send prices up, up. I do not think that is what you want.

I have got no love for Woolies and Coles, right? The Greens were probably cheering on their Australia Day stunt. Maybe Greens shareholders in Woolies forced that position on Australia Day, forced the CEO, maybe in a Woolworths shareholder AGM – which seems to me these days more like a Greens party caucus, the shareholder meeting – and forced that position. And how embarrassing that the Woolworths CEO had to come out only a week later and say, ‘Oh, we still love Australia Day. Everyone, please buy our food, please buy our food.’ They obviously saw the data, saw the public reaction, and backtracked and thought, ‘Oh, gee, a lot of people do actually have barbecues on Australia Day. We might be missing out on a pretty big market here.’

But what I would say just on a principles point – my family used to shop at Woolies, right? We used to. We do not anymore because, again, I have got no love for them lately. I see what they are doing to farmers. They are consistently cutting costs for farmers, for producers across the state. And the price does add up. I know myself it is much more difficult for my constituents than for me, but with two kids the grocery shop does add up. We have actually switched to Victorian Farmers Direct, which pays farmers fairly. You can order directly from farmers in western Victoria and farmers in eastern Victoria, in Gippsland. It actually does not undercut them and it does not keep reducing their prices, and it delivers directly to your door. It ends up about the same price. If you can take practical steps yourself, I highly recommend it. It is a great service, very good customer service, on that front. We should be supporting our farmers, but I fear that the Greens policy of regulating prices will undercut farmers’ margins even more. That is what we have seen everywhere else where price controls have been introduced.

The Greens have identified a valid issue: Victorians are struggling to afford food and essentials and everything else. I acknowledge my colleague Richard Welch, who spoke very powerfully on this last night. We know the power of private enterprise and the free market, and we know that price regulation does not work. If the Greens were successful in this motion, not only would we see Victorians struggling to afford the basics; they would be lining up for bread and essentials, just like in Venezuela or the Soviet Union. Again, it is a very populist motion, but the detail is not quite right. It is not quite there. Again, we do not know what types of food they are looking to control.

You have to look at the basic realities on costs and the cost-of-living crisis under this Labor government. According to ABS data, in the period between June 2022 and December 2023 food costs rose by 9 per cent, electricity prices increased by 25 per cent and gas by 27 per cent. Insurance also increased by 22 per cent in the same period. These price increases do not just void into a black hole. It is a similar ideological fantasy to rent freezes – that someone will just magically swallow them up and they do not get passed on. I know these costs get passed on, because I speak to businesses in my electorate that are suffering from the increased land tax.

Energy plays a big role in the cost of food, and government decisions play a big role. If the price of gas increases by 27 per cent, that cost is passed on to consumers. If you try to ban gas, as this government is trying to do, that cost will be passed on to consumers. Our manufacturers and our food producers rely on gas to keep our food and our goods affordable, but this government does not seem to care. They want to ban gas. They want to restrict the supply of gas to households. This is what they are doing, and this is the effect this government has had. We saw the ABS data today where more businesses are fleeing Victoria than anywhere else, and you have to wonder why. Why – increased taxes, increased regulation and increased cost of energy. These are ultimately what businesses and investors look at when deciding to start new businesses.

The same goes for supermarkets: those costs get cut on. You can talk about the big profits for the big supermarkets. You have just heard about the massive loss that Woolworths is facing. Again, does this motion only apply to Coles and Woolworths, or will we see local milk bars and local IGAs having to deal with price controls – local family businesses like even the IGA in Glenroy, who are very concerned about energy prices? Are they going to be covered by the Greens motion? Or is it just going to be Woolworths and Coles? If you try to ban gas, as the government is trying to do – well, Lily calls it fossil gas; I mean, how pathetic – the increased prices will be felt at the check-out.

Since this government has been in power, the cost of housing has increased by 76 per cent and rents by 55 per cent, and the most recent increase in fuel took place, increasing from 48.8 cents to 49.6 cents. These are factors that have a real impact on prices, and we are seeing the impact. We have seen the recent ports war also result in additional costs on groceries, about $4 weekly at the check-out. I did not hear the Greens have anything to say about the ports dispute, about the $4 weekly at the check-out you are adding to the grocery bill of every single Victorian. I did not hear a whimper. These are the very real and material issues that we have to deal with when we are talking about grocery prices.

There are several reviews underway, particularly at the federal level. We need more competition. This does nothing to hamper competition. As I said, there are several innovative players in the market. Victorian Farmers Direct, which I use, is one of them. But there are several in the market that are now undercutting Woolies and Coles and providing a greater choice to consumers and also the people with a moral and ethical stand to support our farmers, which one would think the Greens would do. Maybe they would like to take out shares in some of these businesses instead of Woolworths; that would be nice. We can make moral choices ourselves. We need more competition in the market. We will not be supporting this motion.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:52): I also rise to speak on this motion by the Greens about regulating supermarkets. I would like to start by saying I am relieved to hear that the government has learned from past mistakes on price regulation and is rejecting outright the idea of price controls. I am very happy to hear that. But as we all know, inflation is a real problem that is hurting Victorians, hurting all Australians and in fact is hurting many people around the world at the moment. But supermarkets, and not just supermarkets but other businesses where these prices surface, are not the root cause of inflation. The root cause of inflation primarily is a monetary phenomenon.

Let us look at some of these causes of inflation: firstly, the pandemic. Governments borrowed – state and federal – ridiculous amounts of money, printed ridiculous amounts of money and pumped that into the economy. What does that do? It pushes up prices across the board. Eventually it feeds out into the economy, the government itself goes into competition with the private sector in chasing goods and services and we end up with inflation. Another thing, as my colleague Mr Mulholland pointed out, is that fuel prices are very expensive. I did not hear the Greens oppose all of this borrowing and spending that happened during the pandemic, which caused inflation.

I also have not heard the Greens oppose fuel tax excise. This feeds into everything that you buy at the supermarket. Everything goes there on trucks that run on diesel. That is taxed at an astronomical amount at the moment. It has just gone up again. Also farmers use a lot of diesel. I have heard many times the Greens talk about diesel fuel excise rebate as a fossil fuel subsidy. What that really means is that if they wanted to get rid of that diesel fuel tax excise rebate they would be forcing farmers to pay that tax on the farm machinery that they use, like tractors et cetera, which would push up their costs. Again the Greens are supporting something that pushes up inflation. On top of this, energy feeds into everything. Those refrigerators at the supermarket run on electricity. The lights run on electricity. I do not see the Greens pushing for a freer market in energy. In fact they are pushing for all sorts of interventions in the market, which will again push up prices. Land tax – I have not seen the Greens oppose that. That is a factor that actually was cited by Costco in their decision to move out of Docklands. Again, I do not see any calls for that. Payroll tax – another cost: I do not see the Greens opposing that either. Restrictions on planning controls, which is one of the major factors causing concentration of supermarket power at the moment – I do not see the Greens want to free up planning controls either. So if the Greens are worried about inflation and worried about who to blame, maybe they should look in the mirror.

On to the actual motion and what would happen if Victorians lost their freaking minds and voted and swept away the Labor Party and the Greens became the government: we would end up with our new commissar over price controls ordering companies like Woolworths to reduce prices by, let us say, 10 per cent. As Mr Mulholland pointed out, Woolies just this morning announced a loss of $781 million, so there are no profits already. But even if we looked in the past at their last annual report, the net margin on that was 2.5 per cent. That means if our new commissar over price controls ordered Woolies to reduce prices by 2.5 per cent, they would be basically pushing them to a break-even point. 2.5 per cent – $2.50 in $100: this is a very, very tiny amount. So let us say our new commissar orders a 10 per cent cut. They cannot operate on that sort of basis. They will have to go back and make some serious, hard decisions. They will go back to their suppliers. They will try to screw their suppliers. Their suppliers are farmers, a lot of them, for fresh produce, and, as we know, farmers are doing it tough. When they go back and try and screw their suppliers to get the prices down, the farmers will say, ‘I cannot do that.’ And you know what the response of the supermarkets will be – they will not sell their products anymore. That entire supply chain will be destroyed. This is the type of thing that they are talking about, as we have seen in countries that have price controls.

I can give you a very good example. I have an acquaintance who is Argentinian. He moved to Melbourne, ironically, to escape the price-control hell of Argentina in their socialist hellscape, which the Greens seem to like. He was taking photos of supermarkets in Victoria and sending them back to his friends in Argentina, and they were absolutely amazed by these pictures of tomatoes, of all things. I will tell you why they were amazed – because in Argentina, under price controls, there is one type of tomato that you get. You do not get a range of tomatoes. Go into any supermarket or grocer in Victoria, you can get 10, maybe more, types of tomatoes – all sorts of varieties. Under price controls what would happen is these supermarkets or grocers in desperation – if they are still operational under price controls, which in many cases they would not be – would go and try and find the lowest price, poorest quality product and something that they can get in under the price regulations and sell that. In Argentina, before we had the wonderful situation where President Milei was elected, you could buy one type of tomato. It was very poor quality, and that was all you could get. I think the Argentinians got off light; they could still buy tomatoes. But in Victoria maybe these price controls will lower the cost of living. Maybe all we will be able to buy is potatoes and onions. I do not know how we are going to get our protein, because they will probably want to ban meat as well.

What the Greens are proposing is for us to head down a tried and tested path that, as was pointed out even by the government, has been rejected by the Australian people in their good sense, and even the Labor Party, which in the past has supported these sorts of things, acknowledges the power of markets. If we want to reduce prices and the cost of living for people, we need to increase competition.

And I tell you what, if Victoria introduces price controls, who is going to set up a new competitor in the Victorian market? Can we name these mysterious international or local players that are going to set up in competition in a state that has just introduced price controls? We will not get more competition by doing this. It will reduce competition. Players will exit the market, and it will be an absolute economic disaster. We will reduce the variety of goods available to Victorians. We will potentially end up in shortages. As everyone knows – it is the iron law of economics – price caps equal shortages, and this is what we are talking about. There will be bread lines. There will be people queueing up for onions and potatoes, just like we have seen in every other country that has had these strict price controls. I condemn this motion.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:00): I rise to speak on this motion. Thank you for bringing it forward. We do know that a significant number of Victorians are struggling with cost of living at the moment, with high interest rates and higher shopping bills, so there is no doubt this is a challenging cost-of-living environment. I have absolutely enjoyed this debate already. In fact I must confess to feeling a bit discombobulated; I am completely disconcerted. I feel like the entire chamber has taken a huge step to the left. Everybody has gone in a different direction. We have got inner-city yuppies over here purchasing food in an ethical way, which is awesome, which is fantastic, and then we have got a communist or a socialist approach to food here. I must admit that I believe in the free market.

Samantha Ratnam: You mean a step to the right.

Jacinta ERMACORA: No, I think we have all gone around this way. Anyway, I do clarify my commitment to free market economics. I believe in the free market where the market provides a reasonable distribution of resources – sound familiar? – equitably across the community where we have got essential services and products. Where we have market failure, where something is not available – let us take health: people generally cannot afford to purchase health services or a range of other services like perhaps NDIS support. Do not get me started on my philosophies. I do not want to go off the topic too much. That is where government’s role is – where there is market failure.

When it comes to groceries and when it comes to supermarkets, I absolutely agree that we have got some challenges in this country when it comes to food distribution, but suggesting a simplistic solution that will make the problem even worse is definitely not the way to go. I must admit I share Mr Batchelor’s cynicism around the clickiness of capping grocery prices. It sounds good and certainly is attractive in a social media environment, but I think that really we do need to call the Greens to account for the actual implications of what is proposed. Definitely we will not be supporting the motion. There has been plenty of research done around this sort of space that really talks about – and I endorse Mr Limbrick’s contribution – the impact of regulating or capping supermarket prices of groceries. I remember going to I cannot remember the country now, but it was just coming out of a socialist environment. The supermarket had mink coats and laundry detergent and a full range of empty shelves. That is what you get when you have got control, so I totally agree with what you are saying in that space.

The other issue is the jurisdiction here. There is absolutely no doubt that this territory is the space of the federal government, and I will mention in a few minutes what the federal government are doing about this. The Allan Labor government were elected to deliver results in Victoria under Victorian legislation, and that is exactly what we are doing. Research has previously been conducted into this very matter. It showed that price controls on food simply do not work. What it showed was suppliers began providing subpar goods or services just to get the prices under the price cap. This causes negative impacts for everybody. It does not increase supply; as Mr Limbrick said, it reduces supply. I think it was a great example, the tomatoes. It is virtually a motion to ban diversity amongst tomatoes. I really agree with that point. We are going to end up with only one type of tomato. We know that only having one type of tomato is not going to give us a rich life, and it excludes all the other tomatoes.

At a time when so many Victorians are struggling with the cost of living, this motion would really make life more challenging for Victorians. We would see grocery shopping become a free-for-all, a lottery – first in, best dressed. You would be queueing up. It truly would be like an old communist country, and that would make it more and more difficult for Victorians when it comes to cost of living.

The University of Adelaide economics professor Ralph-Christopher Bayer in general terms said that this very idea is likely to lead to rationing of food due to capped prices, leading to more demand than supply. Do we really want less food? Do we want a poorer quality of food in our supermarkets and even black market scenarios? We know that most economists, most policymakers and most experts in this space have already proved that this is not a strategy, and that is what makes me a little bit cynical about the motivation for this motion. It is simplistic. Even basic economics teaches us that what brings down prices is competition – and I am not saying that I am obsessed about competition, because competition where there is not a competing marketplace can end up being discriminatory, can end up being exclusive and can end up leaving sections of communities out, and sometimes that happens in outer regional Victoria. Just pretending that there is competition when it is not there is not the answer.

We all eat; this is universal. We all eat, no matter where we live. In the United Kingdom they have already looked at these very issues. As the Institute of Economic Affairs economics fellow Julian Jessop said in May 2023:

Caps on food prices are at best a pointless gimmick –

I rest my case –

and, at worst, harmful to the very people they are supposed to help.

Just before I close, there are a range of other problems in the food sector in this country, and capping prices is the simplest of tiny little solutions – it is not even a solution – and does not address the bigger issues. I know the business rumour mill in Warrnambool a few years ago was running pretty wild about a company from Germany – not Aldi; we have got two Aldis in Warrnambool – wanting to buy in to the city, and they missed out to JB Hi-Fi and Officeworks. We know who owns those two companies. There are a range of other strategies going on that influence the cost of groceries in this country.

Whilst this motion is well intended and definitely tries to address that cost-of-living issue, really land banking, supplier payments, the way specials are structured, blocking new entrants to the market, insecure work in warehousing, phantom branding – we heard all about that on Monday night on Four Corners – are a broad set of complex issues that will not be addressed by simply a clickbait motion.

In closing, I want to say I really thank you for bringing up the issue, but I very, very strongly disagree with this strategy. If there is any appreciation for market theory and how marketplaces work, there is a need for a much more complex approach, and definitely that complex approach is going to be addressed by an inquiry conducted by the federal government; I am sure my colleagues might refer to that as well. That is the space that this issue needs to be addressed in.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:10): I am pleased to put the Nationals position – or my position of the Nationals position – on the record today on Mr Puglielli’s motion 307 on the notice paper. This will be a rarity, but I agree with my colleague who has just spoken, Ms Ermacora, on many of the issues – not all of them – and one thing I am on a unity ticket for is the opposition to this particular motion. As a Nationals MP I cannot stand up here without taking the opportunity to highlight the very important work that our agricultural sector does, from the structure of our communities in rural and regional Victoria to the financial and economic drivers that our agricultural sector provides within our state. Over 21,000 farms are the primary businesses and the places where we make our food and fibre in country Victoria. And not only that, but there are the supply chains and the various logistics and manufacturing businesses and the almost 70,000 associated jobs. There is $17.5 billion in production, and food and fibre exports are in that vicinity.

Victoria makes up over a quarter of national food and fibre exports. We are the food bowl, if you consider the landmass of Australia. I just want to put on record that we are the number one producer of table grapes and dried grapes: 70 per cent of Australia’s production. I know my dear colleague in the north in the form of Jade Benham has a great passion for, love of and interest in this and certainly represents the people up there in the dried and table grape region. Milk production: I am the daughter of a dairy farmer and I know how to milk a cow any way you shape it. The importance of milk production for our nation – 64 per cent of the national product. Sheep, fruit and nuts and vegetables – and I will take up the comment around the grape grower in a minute, because I think there are some points that need to be developed on that.

What I do find quite disingenuous about the Greens is that on one level we are concerned about farmers, we are concerned about the cherry farmer – as I am very much concerned about farmers and their right to earn a fair day’s wage for their product and concerned about what is happening in our larger supermarkets. But what I find really disingenuous is that they say they care: ‘I care about our farming communities.’ Yet they oppose protections in this house that better protect farmers – one only last sitting week. We saw the Greens oppose amendments to the BLAIR bill, the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023 that the government brought in, which actually adopted a Liberals and Nationals position to increase the penalties for people breaking biosecurity. I think if we went back and had a look at some of the contributions from the Greens, they want to support these extremists that feel it is actually the extremist’s right to trespass on farms, to go on and I think the term they often use is ‘protest’ – well, there is a significant difference between a protest and an extremist form of entering, trespassing and breaching biosecurity. This is what the Greens feel is justified, but then they can flip over and feel concern for farmers. Well, I feel concern for farmers in terms of not only their workplace and the protections they have in their workplace but also that they should get a fair and reasonable outcome for their world-class product.

I will go to the point that we saw on the Four Corners documentary that the supermarkets are price gouging. We do see that the federal Labor government has been aware of this for the last year and three-quarters. Since 2022 the government has been aware of this. We do see that the supermarkets are taking advantage of shoppers when they can least afford it, and I will go to that point in a moment. There was an example where a cherry farmer was about to quit the industry because of the result of this supermarket price gouging that Mr Puglielli put on the record. There are concerns that this produce of very good quality is being turned away without valid justification, and there are significant concerns that as a result of this undercutting of farmers 34 per cent of vegetable growers may have an intention to leave the industry within 12 months.

What we also know is that the federal government has been very tardy, very lazy, about investigating this meat and fresh produce price disparity and the difference between the farmgate and check-out prices. We see that the government should have pulled the levers further. It should have gone to the Australian competition commission, the ACCC, and instigated this inquiry as soon as it became aware.

I note Mr Batchelor’s comments, moving on. He talks about the cost-of-living crunch in Victoria. This government, the Andrews, now Allan, Labor government, has been the architect of and has written the rulebook on 53 new or increased taxes. When you talk about cost-of-living pressures on small businesses, on farmers, these are some of the impacts that are making those cost-of-living pressures. We know that people are doing it tough. We absolutely know people are doing it tough. Where Mr Batchelor departed from the conversation that I want to have is: they seem to exonerate the state’s position on this. They exonerated the fact that the now Allan government has been part of this problem.

This particular motion discusses the Essential Services Commission and talks about regulated industry, but the key thing that came out recently from the Essential Services Commission is that the default offer on electricity prices, the 2023–24 Victorian default offer, represented an annual increase of 25 per cent: $350 for residential customers and nearly $800 for small business customers – again, taxes, electricity prices. We saw the minister for the SEC, or whatever she is now, the honourable member in the other place, Minister D’Ambrosio, in Parliament say prices are going down, down, down, to quote a very good supermarket that I often shop at in my local town, the local Michael’s IGA. Down, down, down – well, I am sorry, the stats actually show that they are going up, up, up.

We also know that the Essential Services Commission spoke about the result of the wholesale prices in the energy market going up because of energy market volatility. When we talk about energy market volatility, we saw that case only last week when the infrastructure, the network system, went down due to some major windstorms, and I have spoken very much about my beautiful home area in Eastern Victoria Region getting smashed by that and the wonderful people that are trying to rebuild from that and recover. But one of the key things that we see is that the Andrews government, now Allan government, is botching up the transition to renewables. What we also see with the Greens is that they would have shut us down. They would have shut coal-fired power stations down come the start of this year. That is the motion that they had for debate on a Wednesday, which was sensibly defeated.

We have got the Greens, who are ideologically driving costs up. We see the Greens would have phased out coal by now. Now, it is on a trajectory; it is going to phase out. We note Yallourn is going to close potentially by 2028 – it is slated for closure; it is chugging along there – and we know Loy Yang A by 2032. But this government, along with the Greens support, is botching up the transmission lines and transition to renewables. We see also that the government is picking winners and then its federal Parliament is choosing losers in the Hastings renewable space at the terminal there.

I cannot stress highly enough: putting on caps, putting on over-regulation, will not solve this. It will not support the family person walking in that door trying to fill enough of the trolley to feed the family for the week. It will not solve that. The government certainly needs to do a backflip on its support not only for farmers and their protections but on a sensible renewable movement. The Nationals certainly oppose this motion today.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:20): I rise to speak to motion 307 brought on by Mr Aiv Puglielli. This motion recognises that Victorians are struggling to afford food and other essentials due to the high prices set by supermarkets. The supermarket duopoly of Coles and Woolworths are increasing their profits. People are doing it tough. The costs of everything are increasing, and many things, like food, we simply cannot go without. There is increasing concern that supermarkets are extorting the cost-of-living crisis and increasing their profits, and the evidence of this continues to pile up.

Just earlier this week we saw Four Corners reporting on how the supermarket industry profits off rising prices. It found they solicit pay-offs from suppliers so that they can increase the prices you pay for products, and they often seek rebates from suppliers when hiking prices. The only thing down, down, down these days is any semblance of trust we had. On that note, have you walked inside one of these supermarkets recently? It is dystopian. Talk about a lack of trust. There is clear understaffing. The number of checkouts that are not self-serve keep getting less and less, and when you are at a self-serve you are filmed by 50 different cameras on 50 different angles. ‘Are you sure you scanned that right? Would you like to try that again?’ ‘Here, let me show a video of your face in close-up from the overhead.’ ‘Oh, you want to leave the store? No, you can’t do that. There are some automatic gates there to stop your shopping pleasure.’ Seriously – all this for someone just trying to buy food that they need to live.

This motion also notes that section 4 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 gives the government the power to declare an industry to be a regulated industry and calls on the Victorian government to declare groceries a regulated industry to prevent supermarkets from price gouging. It is our position that the commission is not suited to fulfilling this kind of significant regulatory role. It lacks the funding, staff and other resources. Additionally, the commission’s wheelhouse is single-product monopolies. Yes, this commission does have some attractive mechanisms available to it – meaning reporting, price determinations, compliance, enforcements, auditing and dealing with new market entrants – but we think there are different ways to better do this intervention, which I will circle back to later.

First, I want to address the idea of price controls, as they are by far the most controversial element of this motion and there is no shortage of economic professors who will come out to dissuade you. In talking you out of price controls you will hear them use terms like ‘supply and demand’. They will tell you that capping prices will create shortages, the price of other items will go up, an illicit market will thrive, productivity will lower and it will instead have an inflationary effect. They will also tell you about how important prices are for signalling to consumers and producers how to change their purchasing and selling habits. All of these things are not necessarily untrue.

The UK did try and dip their toes into price caps to slow price increase. Ironically, three-quarters of their public were in support and three-quarters of economists were in opposition. But this never got off the ground. Zimbabwe tried with little success. Consumer panic caused shortages. Manufacturers stopped supplying, and retailers could not make a profit. But as we have mentioned, we have this wonderful thing here in Australia where these supermarkets have great big profit margins. Surely that gives us a bit of wiggle room.

If you want to talk about economics, let us talk about it – specifically elastic versus inelastic demand. Inelastic demand means that the demand of a product does not change proportionately with the rise and fall in its price. A good that we cannot live without – for instance food – is price inelastic. This means that significant increases in cost do not result in significant decreases in demand, because of course people cannot go without food. Colesworths knows this, and they are taking full advantage of it.

Another argument we have heard here is that we should target the cause, not the symptom. Let us fight inflation – great. But where the symptom is price gouging, controlling prices, perhaps we could do both. I have to say, looking at Coles posting a $1.1 billion profit, a 4.8 per cent rise, and Woolworths posting $1.62 billion, a 4.6 per cent rise, you can understand why we believe that maybe there is some wiggle room. We do not believe that price increases are being evenly spread across the supply chain. They are accumulating at the point at which people are buying their groceries. Suppliers are losing, consumers are losing and the supermarkets are winning. Woolworths now enjoys the double margins of peers like UK chain Sainsbury’s. Woolworths’ operating margin spiked by 5.3 per cent to 6 per cent during the last financial year for its Australian food division. This is not consistent growth, this is growth inflated out of pockets of consumers. If you want to talk about market manipulation and toying with supply and demand, maybe this government should walk up to the door of these grocery chains’ CEOs for a bit of a chat. I am certain they would love to talk about how they pass on the costs of inflation so that they can eat the cake at both ends, giving the supplier and the consumer a bad deal. I am sure the CEO of a major grocery chain would not try and walk away from the conversation out of fear of any sort of accountability; that has never been done before.

I do not pretend to be an economist, but I was so tickled by the ideas in some of the material sent to my office – in particular that if the market is left to its own devices, prices will eventually return to normal, consistent with historical prices. How exciting! I do not know about you, but I do not really trust these supermarkets. I do not trust the supermarket duopoly with meaningfully reducing prices when costs start to reduce. Why would they undercut their own profit margins like that, especially when they are not in a particularly competitive market? If we get this wrong, a major market intervention like this will cause people to go without, and we cannot risk that. Although we do encourage ambition and innovation, we want it to be thoughtfully done and backed with robust policy. If we are to suggest that this government undertake some of the most significant market interventions of this decade, they cannot be half-baked.

The Greens did raise the important point that it was the Cain Labor government in the mid-1980s who intervened to tackle excessive price rises by introducing price control legislation, an office for prices and a prices minister. This included price monitoring, investigations, promoting competition, supporting price action groups and submissions to inquiries. So for this government to throw their hands up and say there is not much they can do and their federal buddies are working on it is, we find, deeply disappointing. This is not to say that there is an absence of regulatory framework occurring at the federal level. The appointment of Dr Craig Emerson as an independent reviewer of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct and the ACCC’s inquiry into the supermarket sector are both good things.

We need supermarket practices examined on a national level, but we need to work at a state level too. Maybe it could be relaxed planning laws to lower barriers to entry for competitors. But maybe, given the current level of distrust in the grocery industry, market deregulation is not a great idea. As such Legalise Cannabis Victoria will not be supporting the motion. If we do this wrong, the consequences are that people could go without food, and we cannot risk that. But we remain committed to working across party lines to find cost-of-living relief for those who are doing it tough, including market interventions if needed. This motion is not the right way forward, but we do believe there is way more the government could be doing. There is never a time when ambition is more needed than a time of crisis. One cannot help but feel like this is one of those times. The government needs to avoid economic orthodoxy and come to the table with inventive solutions.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:30): I rise to speak against the motion at hand, which calls for the state government to declare supermarkets a regulated industry. In doing so I would like to first acknowledge that there are indeed enormous cost-of-living pressures facing many Victorians, especially when they get to the supermarket to buy this week’s groceries. Now, the Allan Labor government recognises these cost-of-living pressures, and across multiple industries we have worked tirelessly to assist struggling Victorians through initiatives such as the power saving bonus, short-term vehicle registration, free three- and four-year-old kindergarten and the veterans card, not to mention the revival of the State Electricity Commission, bringing down power bills through government-owned renewable energy. These are real solutions to the problems facing Victorians, and I am proud of the work our government has done to support the Victorian people over what has been an exceptionally difficult period both through and post COVID. Yet the Victorian Greens are now attempting to shove through this poorly considered motion, which would decimate supply and increase costs for essential supermarket goods.

At both state and federal levels of government we have held major supermarkets such as Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Metcash Food & Grocery, who own IGA, to account. All four have been signatories to the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, enshrined into law through the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, since 2015. This code of conduct has worked to increase commercial transparency, impose minimum standards on business practices and provide equitable dispute resolution, improving the bargaining power of suppliers and overall standards of business practices. On top of this the Commonwealth government is moving to tackle the issues head-on, with the federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers directing the ACCC to investigate supermarket prices and appoint economist and former Minister for Trade Dr Craig Emerson to review the code of conduct. These are both excellent measures undertaken by the federal government.

The best way to lower the prices for Victorians will be through competition. More competition leaves us better off, with lower prices, more variety, more supply, more choices and so forth. Now, competition is again a matter for the federal government. As stated just now, the Commonwealth is already acting on these matters, and I think it would be inappropriate to presume their outcomes. I find it ridiculous that time and time again the Greens try and pass on state responsibilities to the federal scene and Commonwealth issues to the state government. Perhaps if they spent more time reading up on economic theory and the Australian constitution and less time making cringey TikTok videos, we might finally be getting somewhere.

Mr Puglielli in his motion raises the fact that section 4 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 gives the government power to declare that this industry be regulated, yet he does not state whether, as it states in section 4(1)(b), the existence of the regulatory benefits would exceed the administration and compliance costs of becoming a regulated industry. To put it in more simple terms, the motion before us has not stated whether or not these new regulatory controls will cost Victorian consumers more. This really matters to Victorians, who might be burdened with the increased cost of regulations in their weekly grocery shopping trip. The motion talks big about the cost-of-living pressures Victorians face then calls for action that may very well raise the cost of groceries.

Declaring supermarkets and groceries to be government-regulated industries will ultimately do more harm than good. First and foremost, any decision taken by the state government will contradict the policies in existence of the federal government, such as the aforementioned Competition and Consumer Act. It is patently ridiculous for this matter to be brought to the Victorian Legislative Council, with the potential to conflict with the activities of the federal government and to risk an endless line of bureaucratic disputes and delays that leave Victorian consumers without access to affordable, essential goods.

The motion seems to admit the reality that the administrative and compliance costs of regulating these large corporations will be passed on to consumers in the form of staff and auditing costs, changes in marketing and pricing, application approval delays and more, in accordance with the Australian government’s regulatory burden measurement framework. This would negate any perceived potential cost reduction that this poorly considered motion implies and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of economics and regulatory processes. We would lose job opportunities for young people entering the workforce for the first time through a dramatic loss in business profits, denying them crucial opportunities for experience and access to markets that are crucial for stepping into adulthood, such as housing and rent.

Furthermore, by regulating the prices of goods we will reduce profits for Australian suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are integral for the Victorian economy. Without them there would simply be nothing to buy at the supermarkets. Something that may have passed over their heads is that some of the farmers and manufacturers in this state are experiencing the same cost-of-living and inflationary pressures as ordinary Victorians. Regulating supermarket prices through government intervention simply passes the costs on to them. Farmers and other workers who work tirelessly to provide for all of us are not some greedy, profit-hungry class, they are ordinary, decent people making an honest living in this state, and this motion in all its ignorance wants to impose higher costs on them, ultimately decimating the supply of goods available for Victorians.

Another matter present that has not been taken into consideration further down the supply chain is transport. If you want to pass on additional costs to the transport industry, that will lead to more deaths on the road than are currently happening as the Transport Workers’ Union continue their fight against unsafe roads in the national jurisdictions.

The cost-of-living pressures are also worsened by the difficult conditions that our state has been subject to over the past few years, such as natural disasters, seasonal issues, pandemic recovery and more. Producer supply is often impacted by bushfires, droughts and floods, leaving supermarkets without a market for locally produced goods. These situations inevitably impact supply, which leads to unexpected costs to supermarket providers through no fault of their own.

This motion again makes the blanket statement that corporations are increasing their profits with no nuance. By regulating supermarket prices without consideration for these extenuating circumstances, we will be throwing businesses, suppliers and consumers all under the bus. Our farmers and manufacturers are an integral part of our state and economy and deserve to see reasonable returns for their work, and this motion would risk creating a shortage of products available by reducing the incentive to sell or invest in the market. It is a basic question of supply and demand that will lead to increased costs for Victorian consumers, rather contrary to the stated aims of Mr Puglielli’s motion. No matter what the Victorian Greens may think, the iron laws of economics reign true in this state, as they do everywhere. The imposition of further controls on prices is not going to lead to what Mr Puglielli believes. There are consequences to unreasonable and harsh controls on any industry, but let us not go through what happens there.

We already know from consideration of this poor motion that there is going to be an increased cost for supermarkets from regulation. No business is going to just cop the cost on the chin and keep going. Maybe the Victorian Greens live in an alternative reality to me, but I have seen what always happens: the cost will be offloaded to consumers and suppliers, farmers will be paying more and more to supply their goods and consumers will be hit with higher and higher prices at the check-out – and this is supposedly going to help Victorians. I do not believe ordinary people should cop it on top of an already steep weekly grocery bill just to feed the Victorian Greens’ insatiable yearning for more and more regulation. This is nothing more than a bland Greens ideological piece that wants more government intervention for the sake of intervention rather than corrective measures. I know what the Victorian Greens will say – that we would use the regulations to control prices – but newsflash: price controls do not work. We know all too well that it leads to empty shelves and first come, first served as suppliers can no longer afford to supply at the same rate with artificially low prices. It is economics 101, with major economists and policymakers all united against this ridiculous over-the-top measure.

I would also like to note the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the final report of their inquiry into price gouging, published this month – a highly comprehensive detailing of the factors in supermarket cost increases – explicitly do not make recommendations towards price control or regulation. Nor do expert economics experts or research institutes such as the Grattan Institute, who advocate for exactly what the Allan Labor government is doing – direct support for Victorians who are struggling, increasing JobSeeker and offering provision for subsidies such as free kinder and the power bonus.

I am unsure as to why the Victorian Greens would propose a motion against the recommendation of union leaders, economists and industry experts. We know everyone with expertise in this area is opposed to the idea of price controls and such heavy-handed, blunt regulatory crackdowns, and we know that doing so will jack up the cost-of-living pressures on working families and suppliers. There is no scenario in which the motion leads to better outcomes. It leads to consumers taking a hit to their wallets, farmers having less cash in their pockets, less jobs and empty shelves. It is not the role of the state to intervene in business practices, except as a last resort, due to the risks that will come along with this, and I urge strong opposition to this motion.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:40): I am very pleased to speak to this motion moved by Mr Puglielli on behalf of the Greens today. It has been quite an extraordinary debate already, and it has been extraordinary on a number of fronts. Firstly, it has been extraordinary to see the lengths that the duopoly in this place will go to to protect the duopoly out there, which is squeezing the necks of Victorians, who cannot put food on the table. We have seen all the classic high school debating tactics being used: selective use of data, gross exaggerations of hypothetical scenarios far out into the future, scaremongering and, let us not forget the old classic, attacking the opponent to undermine their credibility, all in an attempt to avoid talking about what is at the heart of this debate. At the heart of this debate is the ability of Victorians to afford and access food, an essential for life.

There were some in this place who paid lip-service to the everyday reality of Victorians struggling with the cost of living, but that very quickly gave way to trying to duck and weave, not taking any responsibility – ‘It’s not our problem; pass it on.’ God forbid someone in this place actually talks to and cares about the community. It is almost like that is such a foreign concept to you all that you have to believe that anyone who wants to care about Victorians and provide some cost-of-living relief must be driven only by self-interest. Maybe that reflects more about how you think about the world than about us. But we do care, and we are going to continue caring.

There was also the classic case of buck-passing, state and federal Labor governments passing the buck between themselves while the community suffers. That is what is happening at the moment: the community is suffering. If anyone dared to actually speak to the community, they too would hear what we are hearing from the community every single day. When it comes to the crunch, federal governments, including Labor, have failed to implement ACCC recommendations, because they are beholden to the supermarkets. Well, you ignore the cares of the Victorian community at your peril, because the reality is Victorians are being hit hard by the skyrocketing cost of living, and the two big supermarkets have seen this as an opportunity for price gouging and profit. It is apparent now to anyone who has been paying attention that the supermarket giants cannot be trusted to be fair and to regulate themselves. The government must act now to regulate supermarkets to stop them from price gouging.

Coles and Woolworths have a vice grip on the supermarket industry, with the vast majority of consumers dependent on their stores, and they have consistently used this market dominance to put up the price of food and essentials, making the cost of living untenable for so many Victorians. For months now supermarkets have justified their prices by hiding behind excuses about supply chain disruptions and inflation, but the sinister truth is becoming more and more apparent with every inquiry, every investigation and every whistleblower. These companies have been price gouging Victorians, and they are increasing inflation as they do it. Not only that but, as many Australians would have seen on Four Corners this week, Coles and Woolworths are also engaging in anti-competitive tactics, land banking and bullying farmers and producers into lowering profit margins. None of you wanted to talk about that today, did you?

The Greens are not going to stop fiercely campaigning to regulate the big supermarkets. Let me say the public support for regulating the supermarket industry is strong, and it is growing. Ignore it at your peril. The people we have spoken to are very alive to the issue of supermarket price gouging, and they are frustrated and angry. People feel beholden to the whims of these two giant companies, which can charge whatever they want for the basic items people need to survive. It is a system that cannot be left to continue as it is, because business as usual for Coles and Woolworths is about profiteering at the expense of consumers and producers. Today we have heard the political duopoly say, ‘Leave it to the market. It’ll sort itself out.’ When have we heard that before – trying to afford a home, anyone?

The federal government has finally woken up to this issue thanks to the pressure of my Greens colleagues in the federal Parliament, but the Victorian government is continuing to shirk its responsibility, aided and abetted by its duopoly mates. We are told repeatedly by Victorian Labor that the responsibility for easing cost-of-living pressures lies with their federal counterparts, but this simply is untrue. As my colleague has told this chamber, this government has significant powers under the Essential Services Commission to act to regulate the supermarket industry and to set prices fairly. Labor governments have regulated unruly supermarkets in the past, and they should have the guts to do it now, because that is what Victorians need. If you ever wanted to witness a protection racket for the profiteering corporations, all you needed to do was tune in to the debate today. Well, we are here to hold you to account. We are not going anywhere. We are going to come in here day after day to fight for the needs of everyday Victorians because quite clearly both of you in the duopoly have forgotten them.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:46): Price regulations are popular in periods of economic stress. When people feel vulnerable to economic forces that are outside their control they understandably want to know who to blame, and then inevitably socialists and communists pop up to frame the problem as a class war between the evil, greedy owners and the poor and oppressed workers. Then just as inevitably their solution to the problem is to hand over total control to the most elite class of all, the one to which they themselves belong and which they curiously neglect to mention, and that is of course the political class – the government. But as basic economics and history have shown us over and over again, prices are not set arbitrarily. They reflect the underlying reality that socialist economics just does not work. The reality is that everything costs more in Victoria because we have absurdly high taxes, self-defeating energy policies and out-of-control debt. As Thomas Sowell reminds us, reality is just not optional, and we need to deal with it.

Price controls will not fix any of the underlying problems that have caused these increases in prices. So what are the other options that have been put forward? Well, there have been many, including a peak body to collect aggregated farmer price data, collating retailers’ weekly shelf prices and publishing the price differences and retailers’ gross margins by product and region; a grocery industry ombudsman with better powers to investigate complaints in a way that does not put suppliers at risk of retribution; changes to merger laws, which would make it harder for the major chains to create and maintain monopolies and duopolies; or unfair practice laws to open up the market by banning exclusive supply agreements, which hinder newcomers and prevent new players from acquiring sites. The political class does not need more power. The political class, which is all of us here, just needs to do its job, make sure that our markets are free and fair and stop gouging our taxpayers through taxes, debt and inflation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): It has been a pretty lively debate, this one, I will say that. To summarise, this is what we have heard from the major parties today, and to those watching at home it would have been quite an experience. We began, as noted by my colleague Dr Ratnam, with the brief acknowledgement from most if not all speakers that people are struggling in the community, but then there was no follow-through of action. We have a scenario where the state has the powers to regulate this industry – to regulate Coles and Woolies, take action, step up, step in and not allow these two profiteering corporations to hurt so many in the community. No, instead we heard the acknowledgement of the pain but not the follow-through.

In fact it was quite incredible that many speakers, particularly from the government, I will note, regard the use of social media to engage with the people who are reaching out to us who are moving this motion in the Greens as ridiculous. Really this is a contempt for young people. It is quite incredible that every opportunity is used to shirk that entire way of communicating with the electorate. How terrible that we would be hearing from hundreds and thousands of Victorians commenting on our social media feeds, telling us just how hard it is right now.

The disconnect in this place is profound, and as noted by my colleague Dr Ratnam, it feels like there is a duopoly in here mirroring that which we are seeing in the major supermarkets out in the community. We saw classic buck-passing with reference to the federal laws around competition that do exist. Yes, there are laws in all different jurisdictions to address this crisis, but we need to take every opportunity that we have. The state has significant powers. It was noted by the very first speaker from the government, Mr Batchelor, that we have had two federal constitutional referendums that have decided that states have the power to take this on, that that is where the power sits, and so the action must be taken by this state Labor government.

We then pushed off into the distance about which products, which supermarkets and where it would apply. It literally is a case for the Essential Services Commission; that is the point of the motion. I would not, to be honest, trust a lot of people in here to be choosing which products. We have an Essential Services Commission that would act for this purpose on a regulated industry, being groceries. We heard about the fear of market failure. We heard about the fear of an attack on the tomatoes. To be honest, what on earth? Market failure, this idea that we would be concerned about market failure, is not what we are seeing right now. People being unable to afford groceries, people skipping meals, people unable to provide for their families, people skipping medication because they cannot afford their food and people going into debt because they cannot afford essential groceries – how ridiculous. Is this not already market failure? At what point would we need to see further change for this government to step up and actually act? The time to do this is now. We have just seen the exposé this week. It could not be more glaringly obvious that the duopoly is rorting everyday Victorians.

There has overall been quite a theme of absolution of responsibility from those in this place – that we actually have a responsibility to do our part to take this on rather than just buck-passing to the federal Parliament. It is honestly as if many here have forgotten what it is like to care about the community. It must simply be self-interest that we would be moving this motion. How ridiculous. Shame on all who would use that argument.

We need to do everything that we can to haul Coles and Woolies before us, hold them to account and make sure that everyday Victorians can afford the food that they need – food, essential to life. The community expects more from this place, so I commend this motion to the house, and shame on all who do not support it.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (5): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Motion negatived.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.