Thursday, 22 February 2024

Bills

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:04)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will call Dr Ratnam to move her amendment number 1, which tests all of her amendments.

Samantha RATNAM: I move:

1. Clause 1, line 8, after “matters” insert “, to provide for a new function in relation to the operation of supermarkets”.

Firstly, before speaking directly to my amendment I would like to thank members of the chamber who supported the instruction motion to allow this amendment to be considered although technically it is considered out of scope. It is a really important function of this Parliament, particularly for non-government parties, who do not have the opportunity often to bring and debate legislation themselves because often they are not furnished with that opportunity to take a bill right through this Parliament. It is a really important opportunity for us to be able to debate matters of public importance, and there is nothing more important right now than the cost-of-living crisis that so many Victorians are facing. So I thank the chamber for supporting this procedural, instruction motion.

I would just like to remind especially the government it used to be a practice of this chamber to agree to instruction motions. You do not want people to abuse the privilege, but it was a practice of the government to agree to instruction motions, recognising that we have limited opportunities to debate bills in this kind of expansive fashion. We do not use it that often. It used to be a practice that they would be waved through, and then of course everyone had the prerogative to vote against the amendment if they did not like it. But in the last two years the government has changed its approach, to force a vote on every instruction motion, and what we are seeing now is that they are being defeated. I hope the government heeds the will of this chamber to debate really important matters of public importance via instruction motions even when they are considered out of scope. Thank you to the other members in this chamber for allowing this debate to proceed – and this debate is really important.

Having been granted this opportunity, I really hope that we have a good policy debate in this chamber rather than a partisan one. We had a go at it yesterday. There is an opportunity to heed what we heard yesterday and to think carefully about what we are talking about. There are people listening to what is happening in this chamber. As much as you all might joke that the only reason you think that anyone could possibly bring up these issues is to put them on TikTok, people actually care about what these places of decision-making do. It impacts their lives, and they are going to follow this debate, and they will hold you accountable. I urge everyone to take it seriously, because what we are talking about is the ability of people to put food on the table. That is what we are talking about. People out there who are struggling to put food on the table while keeping a roof over their head are listening to this conversation.

To briefly summarise my proposed amendments, amendment 3 proposes to insert new clauses 23A, 23B and 23C into the bill, which in turn amend sections 5 and 10 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001. Proposed new section 5(5) establishes that the ESC act applies to the essential service of the retail grocery industry and operation of supermarkets despite supermarkets not being defined as a regulated industry under the ESC act. This is the key difference between the Greens motion yesterday and our proposed amendments today. As I mentioned previously, we are offering the Parliament multiple avenues to take action on the cost-of-living crisis. You might not like one approach, so we are giving you other approaches. We are urging people, however, to consider doing something. If you do not like one approach, take the other approaches. We are doing the work. We are doing the background work and the policy work. We are trying to make it easier for all of us to make a decision to do something to support the thousands of Victorians doing it really tough right now.

These amendments propose a clearly defined role for the commission in terms of supermarkets as an essential service but do not make them a regulated industry. These discrete commission functions in relation to supermarkets are established in proposed new section 10F of the ESC act:

to monitor and report on prices in supermarkets, including but not limited to –

retail prices; and

supply chain prices, including producer, manufacturer and wholesale prices …

As well as:

to monitor and report on the competitiveness of the Victorian retail grocery industry involving the operation of supermarkets.”.’.

So what we are debating here is whether to provide the Essential Services Commission (ESC) with some ongoing monitoring and reporting powers in relation to supermarket prices and competition, distinct from static inquiries such as the ACCC inquiry into the supermarkets in 2008 as well as the one more recently announced this year. We have heard Labor MPs speak at length about why the ACCC supermarket inquiry means they do not have to do anything at a state level, and there is of course crossover between the functions of the ACCC in terms of overseeing consumer and competition law and essential services and prices, which, as Mr Batchelor reminded us yesterday, remains constitutionally a state power. But as much as they want it to cross over, it does not absolve the state government of responsibility for monitoring and reporting on competition on retail competition for essential services. This is why the Essential Services Commission Act already provides the commission with powers to monitor and report on competitiveness and efficiency in Victoria’s electricity and gas retail sector, which are practically the same powers that my amendment provides today in regard to supermarkets. The ACCC also reports on electricity and gas retail competition, by the way, but given the importance of energy it makes more sense to have the ESC also provide specific oversight for the Victorian retail context and report to the state jurisdiction for policy reform. There are at least 34 energy retailers in Victoria compared to at best four supermarket retailers, suggesting that at least to some degree these reporting powers for retail energy are working.

While we hope that the ACCC inquiry does result in some positive outcomes, past history suggests that the Victorian Labor government will not act on any of its recommendations. They certainly have completely ignored the recommendations from the 2008 report, including at least one that was squarely aimed at state governments, which I will read out in full:

The ACCC recommends that all appropriate levels of government consider ways in which zoning and planning laws, and decisions in respect of individual planning applications where additional retail space for the purpose of operating a supermarket is contemplated, should have specific regard to the likely impact of the proposal on competition between supermarkets in the area. Particular regard should be had to whether the proposal will facilitate the entry of a supermarket operator not currently trading in the area.

I wonder which level of government it is referring to when it is talking about changing planning laws to ban land banking by the duopoly – certainly not the federal government.

The fact that Victorian Labor has ignored the ACCC recommendations for well over a decade in regard to supermarkets certainly does not bode well for their supposed new-found commitment to its inquiries and casts serious doubt about whether they will ever act to reduce barriers to entry and increase competition in this jurisdiction. If they had acted on the 2008 recommendations, we may well have at least been talking about a slightly less condensed market of five rather than four retailers, with the Kaufland stores entering the market. But in contrast, with the Victorian government’s attempt to avoid the issue this week we have now seen how important scrutiny and reporting on the supermarkets is and how sensitive the supermarket duopoly is to scrutiny, brand damage and being called out. This needs to be ongoing. We have a really important role to keep up this pressure, rather than it just being a one-off, if they are ever going to change their business practices, not just their CEOs.

The Essential Services Commission needs these powers to name and shame the supermarket companies that do the wrong thing but more importantly to try and move a Victorian government that is determined to deny its responsibility for regulating all essential retail services. I commend our amendment to the house and remind everyone we are talking about a function to monitor and report on potential price gouging.

David LIMBRICK: I would like to start by firstly just pushing back against the insinuation that the Greens are the only ones that care about people getting food on their table in Victoria. I find that rather offensive. But aside from that, I have got a couple of questions about this amendment. Firstly, supermarket supply chains are extremely complicated – in fact far more complicated than, say, electricity or gas, which are currently monitored by the ESC – and have very deep supply chains with very large numbers of products. How much will it cost supermarkets to report on this to the ESC?

Samantha RATNAM: Thank you, Mr Limbrick, for your engagement with this issue. I do not have the answer to that question, but what is really important to remember here is there is precedent for applying these types of monitoring and reporting requirements to other sectors – privatised sectors like energy, for example. Quite obviously, given the plethora of energy companies available in the market, it has not sent them bankrupt to add reporting and monitoring to their ordinary work. In fact it should be assumed that this type of monitoring and reporting is taking place and I believe will be able to solve the problems, but we need to be able to resource the ESC to be able to do this work. These are functions that the ESC could provide to Victorians that could really make a material difference in their lives. We have done it before and we can do it again, and we are seeing private companies operating just fine with these types of monitoring and reporting requirements already.

David LIMBRICK: I note that the member did not answer my question. I said, ‘How much is this going to cost supermarkets?’

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

David LIMBRICK: We do not know? All right.

Samantha Ratnam: They made a $1.6 billion profit last year. I am sure they can afford it.

David LIMBRICK: They are making a loss at the moment actually. Will this increase costs for supermarkets, having this reporting?

Samantha RATNAM: I believe I furnished your original question, which is very related to your subsequent question. What we are talking about here are supermarkets who are making billions of dollars of profits – $1.6 billion to be exact for Woolworths in the last financial year, commensurate with what the other duopoly partner is making. They are making megaprofits on the back of people not being able to put food on their tables. We have got farmers telling us they are not seeing those profits in their profit margin sheets. So what is happening? These supermarket giants are making huge amounts of profit on the back of people’s misery. What we are asking for here today is monitoring and reporting so we can understand if price gouging is occurring. That is what this amendment is about. You can try and distract and obfuscate with hypotheticals about how the supermarkets are suddenly going to go down because they have to monitor and report. Actually what we are asking is for the ESC to conduct monitoring and reporting so we can understand the trends and understand if price gouging is taking place, because something is clearly going wrong.

David LIMBRICK: In the construction of this amendment was any consultation done with any supermarkets?

Samantha RATNAM: No, I do not believe so. But we have certainly been consulting with a lot of consumers.

David LIMBRICK: In the construction of this amendment was any consultation done with any economists?

Samantha RATNAM: We have a range of very learned economic advisers around the table when we make these decisions, and I am very confident in the advice that sits behind these amendments before the house. Can I just remind everyone that what we are talking about here in these amendments is a monitoring and reporting function of the Essential Services Commission. So as much as Mr Limbrick wants to make this about how the poor, poor supermarkets are going to be doing it so tough because somebody is going to be monitoring and reporting on whether they are gouging Victorian consumers who cannot afford food on the table, that argument just does not carry in this place, and it does not carry for the thousands of Victorians who are doing it really, really tough right now. Your efforts are to try and distract this debate from what it is, which is the Essential Services Commission being able to monitor and report on price gouging that might be occurring. Let us get back to what this amendment is about.

David LIMBRICK: I will note that the amendment did not name any of the economists that were consulted. I would also respond to that, in that if you are concerned about the prices that consumers are paying, this sort of mechanism increases the overheads for these businesses in the first place, which will increase prices. What the Greens are proposing here is adding more overheads and more regulations on businesses that they are saying are providing products that are too expensive. The Greens are saying that they have made billions of dollars in profit. Their net margin in the last annual report – Woolworths – was 2.5 per cent. This is not a megaprofitable business. Well, 2.5 per cent – it is not a lot.

Samantha Ratnam: Yes, commensurate with global averages for supermarket profits, what’s actually happening in Australia –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Dr Ratnam, Mr Limbrick has the call.

David LIMBRICK: That is correct. With supply chains many of these pricing agreements are highly confidential. What sort of impact does the member think that this would have on the confidentiality of those agreements, which are commercial in nature?

Samantha RATNAM: Firstly, I just remind you once again and the chamber that this amendment is about the ESC, the Essential Services Commission, having the function to monitor and report on potential price gouging, a function that it already uses in a number of sectors, including the energy sector, where there is much competition and there are very, very profitable companies. So I do not actually think your question is relevant to the amendment, and I do not see how that tangential question speaks to what I am trying to propose. It is taking us off into another direction.

But I would like to respond to what you were just claiming about the poor supermarkets and their poor 2.5 per cent profit margin. It would do everyone well to watch the Four Corners exposé this week, because it was very, very informative and a very deep-dive investigation into what is happening. It actually found that the Australian supermarkets, the duopoly, are making much higher profits when compared to their international competitors. They said that something is happening particularly in Australia that gives rise to huge profit margins that are well above international averages, and that tells us that something is going wrong. At the same time we are hearing from hundreds if not thousands of our own constituents – and I am sure you are hearing from them too – who cannot put food on the table, who cannot keep a roof over their head, who are coming to us when they have got nowhere else to turn because the homelessness services cannot provide them with anything but a tent because there is not enough money to go around. That is what we are talking about here. It pays well for everyone to remember the context in which we are having this debate. We are asking for the Essential Services Commission to have the power to monitor and report on potential price gouging – an essential first step if we are actually serious about taking on the duopoly.

David LIMBRICK: My question was not tangential, because if the Essential Services Commission is going to have that power, the data would need to be provided by the supermarkets – and their suppliers and the farmers for that matter.

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Well, they do have that data, and I asked – it is commercial in nature. You are asking the Essential Services Commission to intervene and collect data which is commercial in nature. What consideration has been given to this?

Samantha RATNAM: What I responded with in my previous answer, and again I find this a very tangential question – trying to distract this debate from what it is actually about, perhaps very, very intentionally so that we do not actually concentrate on the really poor behaviour by these corporate giants that are gouging Victorian consumers right now. In terms of this being potentially commercial in confidence, it pays well to look at what is already happening and what the ESC already does. In terms of monitoring and reporting, it does monitor and report on other privatised sectors, and we have not seen them complaining that suddenly all their commercial-in-confidence deals have been breached.

David LIMBRICK: Are there any other jurisdictions in Australia that have a system similar to this?

Samantha RATNAM: I am not aware of it. However, I think it would be a really incredible opportunity for Victoria to lead the way. We are hearing from so many people that the cost of living is unbearable for them. We finally had, as a result of our Greens colleagues and community activists and communities advocating very strongly for their parliamentarians to take action, some belated action at a federal level with the announcement of the ACCC inquiry. Somebody has to show leadership when our decision-makers are missing, and right now they are missing for millions of Australians who are doing it really, really tough. So how about we be the first. How about we show them the way. How about we work with our federal colleagues to say, ‘How about we do this urgently and do it together.’ That is what this chamber could show them today.

David LIMBRICK: I note that Dr Ratnam has expressed interest in increasing competition. I share that concern, actually. I think that there is a problem with competition – there are many issues with that – but I do not agree that increasing reporting requirements and monitoring by the government is going to increase competition. I would be interested to hear from the member how increasing reporting and monitoring requirements by the state, in only this state, would increase competition in Victoria.

Samantha RATNAM: As I mentioned in my opening remarks regarding this amendment, you just have to look at the energy retail sector, where there are at least 34 competitors, and in the supermarket sector we have four.

David LIMBRICK: I would say that energy is a very, very different industry to retail supermarkets. In fact there are very few industries as heavily regulated and intervened in by the government than energy. This is one of the reasons why the Essential Services Commission is all over energy – because it is so heavily regulated already. It is my firm belief that one of the reasons we have some sort of competition is because the government is not managing these markets and is staying out of the retail market. I will get to another point. The member spoke before about how our supermarket profits are out of line with other parts of the world. My question to Dr Ratnam is this: what level of net profit margin do you think is acceptable?

Samantha RATNAM: I do think we are straying from the intention of this amendment, but that being said, with the recent public conversation about this and really important investigative journalistic pieces about this, what we are hearing is that international standards are around 2, 2.5 per cent, as I understand. There is an anomaly with the profit margins in Australia – that is the thing that has warranted the question of what is going wrong in the Australian market. There are international standards. There are a number of people talking about what appropriate profit margins are, and I think you would benefit from looking into what those international profit margin trends are, which are approximately 2 to 3 per cent, as I understand it. Look, those things will vary.

If I can just add one more comment before we stray tangentially off the amendment topic: we should just remind ourselves that the amendment is about providing the ESC with the function and powers to monitor and report, potentially picking up price gouging and sending a really important signal to this essential service. It is an essential service – food is an essential service – and we should be qualified as such to be able to do something about it. We hear governments talk about this kind of monitoring and reporting all the time. We have established something to help monitor and report it as a first step. It is an essential first step because it puts people on notice if they are engaging in improper practices.

I know, Mr Limbrick, you want to have an ideological debate with me today: here is an opportunity to talk about how no regulation, no laws are needed because people and society should just be able to operate by themselves. Look, we have a very different ideological view of the world, and we can prosecute it however you want. It is not going to be very helpful for this chamber, and I do not think it is going to work. However, I think it is important to say that what we are seeing now – and I am sure anyone who is listening to their constituents and looking at what is happening out there would agree – is a system that is becoming more and more unequal, to the point where we have homelessness services saying, ‘Sorry, all we can provide you is a tent tonight.’ And those workers – think about those homelessness housing workers who have to be at the front lines and who have dedicated their lives to helping people. They thought they would work in their sector, for very low pay, to be able to support people, and they cannot provide people with shelter, even for a night.

We have got food banks with lines outside them like we have never seen before. We have got more and more people – I am not sure about you, but they are certainly coming to us – saying, ‘Can you help us? Can someone please speak out for us? We can’t afford our rent. We don’t know how to make the choice between rent and food, or basic essentials for the kids to go to school.’ That is what we are hearing from the community. I do not know who you are talking to, but I think you are probably going to hear the same. So I think it is really important we listen to them and do everything that we can, and what we have put before you today is one step. In fact it could be considered quite a moderate step in the grand scheme of all the actions we could take. Before you, we put another step yesterday. We heard excuses and obfuscations and scary hypothetical scenarios that we know will never happen, but people want to scaremonger in order to get out of taking any action. But listen to those people out there who are really doing it tough. The system is really struggling and becoming more unequal.

David Limbrick: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think we have veered far, far, far away from my question, and I would ask you to direct the member to go back to the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Dr Ratnam has concluded her answer.

David LIMBRICK: A question that is very pertinent to this amendment: what is a supermarket?

Samantha RATNAM: What is a supermarket?

David LIMBRICK: I will add: this amendment specifically talks about supermarkets. We need a clear definition of what a supermarket actually is. I think it is very relevant to this amendment. If we do not have a definition of a supermarket, how can the ESC monitor prices in supermarkets when it is not defined what a supermarket is?

Samantha RATNAM: Look, I understand what you are trying to do, Mr Limbrick. You are trying to distract this debate with really obscure questions, and I understand –

David LIMBRICK: It was a simple question. It is a very –

Samantha RATNAM: Oh, yes, it is very definitional. Of course, it is so important. How could you even know what you are talking about if we do not have a definition of ‘supermarket’ in front of us?

David LIMBRICK: The ESC will need a definition.

Samantha RATNAM: Well, we understand what supermarkets are obligated to provide. Well, not obligated – what they are traditionally responsible for: the provision of food and other goods. Whether you are talking about the technicalities and what is needed for this amendment, these are the types of definitions that can be worked out through legislation. We understand the process. Let us remind ourselves that what we are asking for here is the Parliament’s agreement, even if it is in principle today, to start work on asking the Essential Services Commission to be able to monitor and report on potential price gouging by the people who sell us our food.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will be pretty quick. There has been a heap of hot air flung about over this issue, but there is one remaining fact: we are talking about high prices, and we are adding an overhead. So it must drive up prices, because the supermarkets are not going to accept it. I cannot accept the amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will not repeat my remarks from yesterday, but the Liberals and Nationals will be respectfully opposing the amendment.

Harriet SHING: I have a couple of questions if I may, Dr Ratnam, further to Mr Limbrick’s questions about foundational definitions. What is an ‘essential service’ within the meaning of your amendment? I am not asking you to stray beyond the meaning of the amendment. What is the definition of ‘essential service’?

Samantha RATNAM: What the amendment is proposing is to provide for the Essential Services Commission to be able to monitor and report on prices by supermarket retailers and potentially monitor any potential price gouging.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, I am still a little bit confused as to how it is that the provision of goods under a retail arrangement, depending on what your definition of supermarket may or may not be, constitutes an essential service rather than the provision of goods under unrelated legislation.

Samantha RATNAM: I think it is worth noting here, similar to what we saw in the debate yesterday, the lengths that people will go to to deny taking any action on a crisis that is facing Victorians. That is what is happening right now – be very clear about what is happening here. Everyone knows what they are doing. These are really clever tricks you are playing: ‘Let’s ask for definitions. Let’s make them bring out the dictionary, because we don’t want to talk about the heart of what’s going on here.’ We saw it all on display yesterday, the monolithic behaviour of the other duopoly. Here we have the Labor and the Liberal parties, at a state and a federal level, in cahoots –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Deputy President, committee stages are an opportunity to ask questions and to have those questions answered. I am asking what the definition is of an essential service for the purpose of the amendment that Dr Ratnam has put. It is an exercise in wanting to know more about the amendment. This is based on a desire to understand the rationale and the detail of what it is that Dr Ratnam is proposing, that she is seeking to put before this house, so that when a decision is contemplated as to the amendment and what it is proposing to do and the extent that it gets the support of this place or not, we are in a position to understand what it is that she is intending in the detail that respects and responds to the questions. This is not anything other than an exercise in looking to get further detail about what it is that she is proposing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would draw Dr Ratnam back to the substantive question rather than straying into political debate.

Samantha RATNAM: Understood. Minister, I did furnish that when I spoke to my amendment.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, for my benefit I would be grateful if you could actually go through that detail, because I am still yet to understand the basis upon which you distinguish between an essential service on the one hand and the nature and the primary purpose of operations for the provision of goods on the other. I appreciate you have said you have spoken to it. If you could indulge perhaps the chamber and those members who were not here for that answer, I would be grateful.

Samantha RATNAM: I did speak to it in both my second reading and my substantive contribution on the background to this amendment. I will repeat it once again: proposed new section 5(5) establishes that the ESC act applies to the essential service of the retail grocery industry in the operation of supermarkets despite supermarkets not being defined as a regulated industry under the ESC act.

Harriet SHING: Can you tell me or tell this place what the distinction is between the powers that the ACCC already has under federal legislation on the one hand and what is proposed by way of an amendment that would give effect to, to my reading, a duplicating system of regulation under a state framework, pursuant to the creation of a framework for the role of the Essential Services Commission?

Samantha RATNAM: I am happy to take that question on notice. And to the previous point, it is worth reminding the chamber I think in the context of this line of questioning that the whole point is that we are trying to ask the Parliament to define retail grocery as an essential service, and essential services are defined in the act as including the provision of goods.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, you are asking this chamber and this Parliament to accept, on a point that you will take on notice, that the Essential Services Commission is the most appropriate place for work of the nature proposed by this amendment when the ACCC has a range of powers – which are to interrogate, regulate, report, make inquiries and reach findings and responses and decisions – within the federal statute book already. To what end do you say that the imposition of an Essential Services Commission oversight function will do anything new or anything beyond the powers already held by the ACCC?

Samantha RATNAM: In terms of that kind of scenario, there are other spaces where there might be potential overlap, but that overlap does not absolve the state of also taking action in ways that it can take action. So what we have been putting forward before this Parliament, especially for the last two days, are ways that a state jurisdiction can act, regardless of if there is some overlap. What we have seen is that while the ACCC might have these powers and is conducting its own inquiry and despite the 2008 inquiry, we are seeing the cost-of-living crisis largely borne out by the cost of food that the duopoly controls. So something is not working.

Despite those powers that might exist, what we are asking the Parliament to consider, and particularly the state government to consider, is what more you can do. What we have put before the Parliament are mechanisms to take more action. We need to do everything we can now to apply pressure to this duopoly that is gouging Victorian consumers to the point that people cannot afford food. We have put a perfectly legitimate pathway before this Parliament in granting the Essential Services Commission the power to monitor and report, hoping that it will add a layer of scrutiny and accountability that will hopefully change the behaviour of the duopoly. That is what we want to see ultimately, by doing everything that we can to ensure that we start bringing those food prices down to ensure that more people can afford the essentials.

Harriet SHING: What gap will the ESC’s function fill that is currently not satisfied by the jurisdiction of the ACCC within its legislative framework?

Samantha RATNAM: Well, I think it is going to fill a very large gap, because despite those functions potentially existing, they are not having the power of applying scrutiny and pressure on what is potentially price gouging – serious price gouging – to the point that farmers and suppliers are saying they are not seeing the profit share that these big supermarkets are reporting. They are making huge, record-breaking profits. People are not able to afford food. The suppliers are saying, ‘We’re not seeing those profits.’ As much as you might say theoretically the function exists somewhere, it is not working. What we are saying is that it is not working; let us do something. And rather than saying, ‘Look, sorry – other jurisdiction; we can’t do anything,’ how about we pluck up the courage to do something. If we can do something, let us take these opportunities before us. We are asking for a monitoring and reporting function. It is a modest ask as a first step, and we should all now be asking what more we can do. This should be top of mind for every parliamentary week we have until people stop struggling to put food on their table.

Harriet SHING: Could I just get very, very brief answers to these questions to help me to understand the line of questioning that we are currently engaged in. Is it correct that the amendment that you are proposing is about price monitoring? That seems to be what you have talked to? Yes? I will take that as a yes, thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We need to get it on record.

Harriet SHING: Do you want to just say yes on the record, Dr Ratnam?

Samantha RATNAM: Yes, as I stated in my second-reading speech and in my proposal to the amendment, by inserting a monitoring and reporting function in regard to the grocery industry.

Harriet SHING: Is it also the case that this amendment as proposed is about a capacity to inquire into prices currently charged at supermarkets, however variously defined?

Samantha RATNAM: I will get back to you on that. My understanding is a monitoring and reporting function with some inquiry function, but I will get back to you.

Harriet SHING: Is this also an amendment which seeks to safeguard against what is commonly referred to as cartel conduct in the way in which the duopoly, as you have described it, seeks to undertake its business?

Samantha RATNAM: I am happy to come back to you on that one.

Harriet SHING: Is this also an amendment which seeks to understand the way in which pricing is created, differentiated and implemented across a retail context in a supermarket environment, howsoever defined?

Samantha RATNAM: I am struggling to understand the tenor of your questions, because I have clearly outlined that what this amendment is seeking to do is to insert a monitoring and reporting function. I understand that you are looking at the ACCC functions, and they do have some functions, but I understand that, as I said, they do not have the power to investigate price gouging. So I am struggling to understand the relevance of your questions to what I have put before the chamber.

Harriet SHING: Again, it is not a question as to whether you think this is relevant or not. I am asking questions about your amendment. Is it also the case that you are seeking to have the ESC vested with powers to undertake price monitoring based on state legislation following declaration of supermarket activity as an essential service?

Samantha RATNAM: Could you repeat that?

Harriet SHING: Is it the case that the amendment that you are proposing would have the effect of being able to empower the ESC to undertake price monitoring functions in relation to the activities of a supermarket, howsoever defined? Yes? Okay, Dr Ratnam, you have taken two questions –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister. We need Dr Ratnam to have the call so we get that answer on record.

Samantha RATNAM: I am struggling to understand the questions and the tenor of the questions, because they are overlapping a number of what I understand are functions of the ACCC. I am not sure that they are that relevant to my amendment. I believe the minister is trying to take us off into some other territory, which is, I do not think, useful for this debate. But from what I understand of what you said and what I have said previously, we are asking for the Essential Services Commission to have a monitoring and performing function as a first step in order to look at potential price gouging.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, I would be keen to understand how, in light of all of those functions which I have just taken you through and the powers that are vested in the ACCC by way of federal legislation to do all of those things, a state-based declaration of supermarket activity, howsoever defined, would work. We have not yet been able to understand what your definitions are trying to achieve here, apart from a constant reference to a duopoly, which makes me think, ‘Where’s Aldi in all of this? Where are the IGAs in this? Where is Costco in all of this?’ I know that I have certainly bought bananas from all of those places and not just in the centre aisles. I would be keen to understand, Dr Ratnam, the advice that you have received on the operation of Commonwealth legislation to oust any state legislation that might otherwise seek to cover the field and the extent to which you say that state-based legislation would have any role to play in light of the operation of the Commonwealth constitution.

Samantha RATNAM: From what I understand your line of questioning is pursuing, it seems you are trying to make this kind of case: ‘The powers are somewhere else. What’s the point of the Essential Services Commission in Victoria taking on any extra powers?’ To that, as I have said repeatedly throughout this debate, what we have seen is despite potentially and theoretically some overlapping functions and repeated inquiries, including an ACCC inquiry in 2008, things are getting worse and it is not working. What we are asking the chamber to consider is: can we think about new mechanisms to be able to scrutinise, monitor and report on the activities of our supermarket giants in a very concentrated market, one of the most concentrated markets for supermarkets anywhere in the world, as has been widely reported? We are asking this Parliament to pay attention to what is happening in the community and to take action.

If you think that you have got some other better plan, please furnish us with that plan. We would love to see your plan. But if what you are arguing is, ‘Somebody else has the power; send it off there,’ well, we have tried that, and it has not worked. Our argument is: let us try something new. We have these powers. Victoria has done it before, as we canvassed yesterday in an expansive debate about the history of this kind of regulation and monitoring and reporting. I understand that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party do not know what to do. It is quite clear you do not now know what to do. All you have got are obfuscating questions: ‘Let’s distract over here. Somebody else has the power. Somebody else will do it.’ But can I tell you that is not going to wash.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, can we stick to answering the question, not political debate, please.

Samantha RATNAM: That is not going to wash with the thousands of Victorians who are struggling right now. We ask you to do something. Do anything, but do not do nothing, because what you are arguing for today is to do nothing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think we are back to a second-reading speech. We are just asking for answers to the question.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, what is the Greens position on regulatory involvement from other sub-sovereign jurisdictions, in particular New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, the ACT, Tasmania and Western Australia?

Samantha RATNAM: What is the first part of your question?

Harriet SHING: What is the Greens position on any form of regulation of an activity equivalent to a retail environment for a supermarket, however you might want to define it, in other sub-sovereign jurisdictions?

Samantha RATNAM: You mean in other states. Well, what we are putting before you is to ask the ESC to have the power to monitor and report on supermarket prices and potential price gouging. We understand the ACCC has some function; they have had that function for a number of years. They are conducting an inquiry. But our view is that those actions and those powers are not strong enough for what we are seeing, which is an increasing concentration of two major supermarket giants who are squeezing the necks of Victorians right now, and we need to do something else. So let us take this action and let us take this option.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, I am asking for an answer to the question about what the Greens position is on the role of sub-sovereign jurisdictions to regulate supermarket pricing, to monitor and to inquire into that activity. Are you saying the ESC should cover the whole of Australia?

Samantha RATNAM: I reject the premise of that question. It seems to be intentionally tangential to what we were talking about before. As I have been explaining repeatedly in this chamber this afternoon, what we are asking is for the Essential Services Commission to have the power to monitor and report on supermarket prices and potential price gouging. It is implied in what we are putting forward that we want the ESC to have more powers than they currently do because things are getting to a crisis point and nobody is doing anything – and this duopoly in here is not doing anything either.

Harriet SHING: You have referred constantly, Dr Ratnam, to a duopoly. In light of your inability to define ‘supermarket’, is it reasonable for this chamber to conclude that when you refer to the ESC’s functions in price monitoring and an understanding of impact as it might relate to price gouging, you are referring only to Coles and to Woolworths, including the trading names under which they might operate?

Samantha RATNAM: As part of the public debate, which I am glad is getting more attention – and it is not going anywhere; as much as you all want it to go nowhere and everyone to be quiet, it is not going to go anywhere, because people are going to continue to suffer until one of you all does something – as we have seen in the public commentary, in good investigative journalism and from expert advisory groups that will advise government, we have in Australia four significant supermarket players. Now, there are lots of other retailers and there are lots of other suppliers or retailers of grocery-related goods, but we do know that we have an essentially very concentrated market when you look at international comparisons. You have to look at the UK and you have to look at other places in Europe and even North America. North America actually has a plethora – a much greater competitive market than Australia. One of the things that a lot of these expert bodies, including the ACCC, and former chairpersons have been saying as part of this discussion that we are having nationally is it is important to look at why this market is so concentrated and what happens when the market becomes so concentrated.

We have got now farmers telling us they are packing up because of the supermarket giants – and there are a number of supermarkets, but do you want to talk about the biggest giants? Of course; we are talking about Coles and Woolworths. Everyone knows that in this chamber. You do not have to ask me to spell it out. I know why you are asking me to spell it out – to distract, defuse, obfuscate – but let us talk about the big giants here. You might see shadows of them in the way you guys organise the Labor and the Liberal parties. Anyway, that is an aside.

When you have such a concentrated market you have incredible purchase power. What you can do is start to set the prices. You can start to buy up land, to deny people competition. You can start pushing our agricultural producers and our farmers to the brink – to the point where cherry farmers have to bulldoze their crops because they cannot stay viable anymore because Coles will not pay them enough for their cherries, despite agreements they have had for years before. That is the type of behaviour we are talking about. We are talking about the consumers, we are talking about the farming communities, we are talking about our agricultural suppliers – we are talking about our food bowls in Victoria that are looking to us to support them. We are going to have conditions in this country that are going to become unbearable when you think about climate change. You add inequality on top of that, and government inaction, and what are they staring down at?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I ask you to keep your statements to answering the questions. We are now entering into, every time you get to your feet, another second-reading debate contribution. The committee stage is for questions and answers, not for debate. Minister Shing.

Harriet SHING: I take your confirmation that in reference to a duopoly as supporting your amendment, you are referring to Coles and Woolworths. Is it therefore the case that it would be possible under the terms of your amendment for a retail operation which sells at retail prices groceries and other sundry items that might be covered under a retail trading award, for example, to seek to argue, by reference to your material in this debate, that unless they were Coles or Woolworths or an operation trading under one of those names, they would not be covered by any functions of monitoring, inquiry, investigation or enforcement by the ESC?

Samantha RATNAM: I will repeat once again the intention of my amendment, which is to ensure the Essential Services Commission has the power to monitor and report on supermarket prices and understand, monitor and report on, potentially, price-gouging practices.

Harriet SHING: I will take from your answer, Dr Ratnam, that you have not been able to confirm that a retail operation which provides groceries and sundry items in an operation that may or may not form part of the definition of a supermarket – for example, under the retail trading award or other industrial instrument – is able in all cases to be covered by the functions of the ESC, as proposed by your amendment. What I would like to understand, given the substance of your amendment, Dr Ratnam, is the extent to which any report might have any work to do beyond being a document that sets out the way in which prices are set, determined, regulated and maybe amended from time to time. If this is simply an investigation and inquiry function and there is no mechanism to do anything else with it, what work does it have to do in achieving the ends that you say have driven the objectives of this particular amendment in the first place?

Samantha RATNAM: It will be a decision of the Essential Services Commission as to who they will monitor.

Harriet SHING: So essentially you are saying you want to give the Essential Services Commission the power to monitor and inquire into the operations of supermarkets as they might be variously defined for various purposes, including to understand any potential price gouging that might occur, and yet there will be no consequences to flow from any intransigence by operators in that retail setting. If the answer to that is yes, then, Dr Ratnam, what work does the ESC have to do when the ACCC has enforcement powers that are not otherwise proposed by this amendment?

Samantha RATNAM: Pertaining to this question and I think in some part to the questions you asked previously, what you are talking about here are hypothetical scenarios. Actually, when you think about it and look at what the Essential Services Commission does right now, for example, with the energy sector, as I am sure you well know, it has the function and has the power to make those decisions and do some of that definitional work. Similar to what we do with the energy sector, not all of it is prescribed in legislation or regulation. We do allow the ESC the power to be able to do some of that detailed definitional work, as it would with what we are proposing with our amendment.

I understand that you already know that. I understand what you are trying to do through this debate process, but we have a very, very strong precedent. We have an Essential Services Commission that is working quite well and which we have charged with regulating and monitoring – similar to what we are proposing here today for another essential item – other essentials that governments in the past have considered important for people to be able to access equitably. Our argument here is food is something people should be able to access equitably, so why wouldn’t we give the commission that we have charged with the responsibility for creating some of that equity, for creating some of that oversight, for creating some of that accountability and hopefully for creating some of that positive pressure through that transparency, that power in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis unlike we have seen for a very, very long time bearing down on so many people right now? Why wouldn’t the government support what is a very modest change which has precedent? You have done it before; you do this for another really important sector, the energy sector, and you are not crowing about potential overlaps that might occur there. Those overlaps occur too with our federal regulators – we all know that. And you know what – they work it out. The state and federal governments are able to talk to each other and our commissions across borders are able to talk to each other, and there are some really smart people who can work this out in the best interests of citizens.

The Essential Services Commission has proved to us that it has the capability to be able to investigate and approach potential overlaps to get the best outcomes for consumers, because that is what it is charged with doing. So if you are suddenly going to feign that we have never done this before – ‘How could you ask somebody who is not us to define these things?’ – it is deliberately obtuse.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Dr Ratnam, you are debating the answer.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, you have referred on numerous occasions to the energy sector. Can you tell me what role the ESC has in regulating the energy sector in Victoria?

Samantha RATNAM: I understand that they are similar to what we are proposing, and I think they have increased powers. But what we are asking for in this amendment is the modest power of monitoring and reporting as a starting point. We understand it is a new function we are asking the ESC to take responsibility for. We are asking this Parliament to consider a modest reform to take some action in response to people wanting some action to help them with the cost of living, and if you do not want to support this, just say, ‘Sorry, we’re washing our hands.’ You do not have to make up questions to try and get us off track.

A member: It’s your amendment.

Samantha RATNAM: Yes, I understand that. I have answered the questions. What we are asking for is a modest change, and in terms of the retail sector I understand that they actually have broader powers. We are asking for a modest change. We are asking for those modest powers as a starting point, which should be a lower barrier to support. We hope you will consider that.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, what does the Essential Services Commission do in relation to the energy sector here in Victoria?

Samantha RATNAM: They monitor and report on the retail energy sector.

Harriet SHING: Yes, monitor and report. Dr Ratnam, one of the things that I find more than a little bit irritating is the fact that you have cavilled with questioning about the definition of a supermarket, which you cannot provide us; you have taken issue with questions about the role of the ESC; and now you are trying to assert that the ESC monitors and reports on energy in Victoria as some form of finite summary of its role within this sector. When we talk about the role of the ESC –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, Deputy President, I believe the minister is paraphrasing me and minimising my response, when I clearly said I understand it has similar functions to what we are proposing and more. It is in Hansard, and if the minister wants to minimise my contribution, I ask her to refrain from that, because that is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just as I have asked Dr Ratnam to stop debating in her answers and to just give answers rather than stray into debate, I would ask that those asking questions, regardless of who they are, ask a question but do not paraphrase an answer. In committee the answers that are given are important in considering the intent of the legislation and the law going forward, so we do not want to get into paraphrasing what other people have said in answers.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, when you talk about the ESC having greater functions than just to monitor and to report, I would assume that you are including the setting of the Victorian default offer in the energy sector in this additional raft of responsibilities and powers held by the ESC. Are you proposing that the ESC should have some capacity in its work – again going back to the rationale to combat increases in prices for everyday goods provided in the course of the running of a business named a supermarket, however you want to define that – to issue a default offer for the purpose of pricing goods provided in a retail setting known as a supermarket?

Samantha RATNAM: Minister, your question is very similar to the questions you have asked before, which I have answered before, but I will do it once again. We are asking for the ESC to have the function to be able to monitor and report on supermarket prices. As I mentioned before, the ESC will be able to make the decision about who they will monitor as they do with other sectors. If you want to quibble, if you think that I have not defined a supermarket, then you want to think about the ESC having the function to decide who they monitor and doing that definitional work about the threshold of operator for which the monitoring and reporting applies. We understand that happens in other sectors, and I understand that you too know well that that is what occurs. What we are asking, which we hope will be easy to support across this chamber, is for the ESC to have the function to monitor and report as a beginning step.

Harriet SHING: What does ‘in relation to the operation of supermarkets’ mean?

Samantha RATNAM: I did not hear the question.

Harriet SHING: New clause 23A, ‘Interpretation and application of Act’ – what does ‘in relation to the operation of supermarkets’ mean?

Samantha RATNAM: I think it means in relation to the operation of supermarkets.

Harriet SHING: Is it envisaged that the intention behind this part of your amendment would cover direct and indirect functions of a retail operation in the provision of essential services under the banner of being a supermarket?

Samantha RATNAM: The amendment we have before the chamber today would ask the Essential Services Commission to have the power to monitor and report on prices, potentially covering price gouging.

Harriet SHING: So, Dr Ratnam, it would cover direct and indirect activities in relation to the operation of a supermarket.

Samantha RATNAM: I feel I have answered that question previously.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, there is an entire body of law which refers to ‘in or in relation to’. It is a canon of commercial, contract and industrial relations law. So when you are talking about the primary purpose of the operation of a supermarket, we can go beyond the provision of those goods. Is an essential service the capacity to go in and pick up a beachball as opposed to a bunch of bananas? Is the capacity of a supermarket a direct consequence of the provision of goods at a point of sale as distinct from the price paid for petrol by a truck from a distribution centre? It is somewhat extraordinary that you have not come to this debate with any fully formed idea of the scope and the reach of what you are proposing to assist this chamber to understand what its effect would be. It is somewhat bewildering that you have come to this debate without a definition of ‘supermarket’ –

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order –

Harriet SHING: I am allowed to make a comment. That is what I am doing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You do not have to ask questions. You can make a comment in committee, yes.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, not only have you sought to say that because the ACCC’s powers have not achieved the ends that you desire, we should have a duplicating system in Victoria – potentially in other states, but that is not clear – you also do not have any fully formed idea about what ‘direct or indirect activities’ for the primary purpose or any ancillary purpose of operating a supermarket means. In addition to that, you have not been able to demonstrate any value in the work of the ESC going above and beyond the statutory remit and the framework of the ACCC. I am yet to understand – and I have listened very carefully to the comments you have made here this afternoon – the extent to which the ESC’s work might otherwise add value to the consumer law as it applies at both state and federal levels. I am yet to understand what sorts of mechanisms there would be proposed by your amendment to give impact by way of enforcement where the ACCC has those capacities around cartel and other work, particularly penalties as they might relate to gouging. I am also yet to understand why it is that you have not given consideration to a role for the ESC that might involve a greater level of intervention such as that proposed by the Victorian default offer.

Dr Ratnam, the pun is not lost on me that there are a set of retail opportunities that you find yourselves being able to access in the course of this debate, but when we come back to the actual benefit to be conferred by this amendment, the answers given to questions today do not provide any measure of comfort that the amendment as you have drafted it will achieve the objectives that you state underpin the rationale for announcing it before the back doors to the media pack yesterday. Dr Ratnam, I would say that despite the intentions of your amendment being about combating prices, being about providing a measure of transparency and being about providing a measure of relief to people who are grappling with the cost of living, for you to seek to take ownership of these pressures in ignorance of a statutory framework at a federal level that is well established, albeit imperfect, would be to seek then to take ownership of a solution that is not delivered by this amendment.

They are my questions around this work, and I would invite you, Dr Ratnam, in any further comments you wish to make about this amendment perhaps to address some of the issues that lead to serious misgivings about the effect of this amendment, despite the fact that your intentions may initially at least have been good.

Samantha RATNAM: Thank you, Minister, for those statements and, I believe, questions. I am happy to respond to them. I am really sorry that you feel so – what was it – irritated by and disappointed in the proposal that has been put forward before this chamber today. I am sorry that we have not been able to satisfy the questions that you have provided. I have responded to them at length repeatedly, and I am sorry that for whatever reason my explanations and rationalisations have not been understood or, perhaps more pertinently, are being refused to be accepted. Perhaps the government refuses to accept our rationalisations. We can do our best to offer you the work that has gone behind a considered amendment before the chamber today, but if you do not want to accept it and if you do not want to act, well, nothing I say is going to convince you. That is a decision for the Labor Party now. Are you going to act on this cost-of-living crisis?

Over the last two days we have given this chamber a number of mechanisms to act. If you are going to say to us today, ‘But why haven’t you given them investigative powers?’ – well, we tried to do that yesterday and you hollered down at us. ‘You can’t give them those powers,’ you said. ‘The whole system would collapse. We’d have one tomato available, and society would collapse as we know it.’ That is what we heard yesterday, so we have come back again. We said, ‘Okay, if you didn’t like that mechanism, we’ve got another one for you. Please give this deep consideration.’

We have told you repeatedly: this is a modest beginning. This is a modest step. We would like it to go further. If the government wants to have a conversation with us about going further on tackling the cost of living and bringing food prices down, we are ready for that conversation. I am available right after this debate. Let us have that conversation. If you want to further amend this amendment to strengthen it, we would welcome that with open arms on behalf of the thousands of Victorians doing it tough right now. I find it very hard to believe that the real reason the government cannot support this is that it does not go far enough, because yesterday we had something that went further and they rejected it. We have something today that is more modest, and of course we cannot satisfy your threshold because perhaps there is no threshold. Perhaps you do not want to take any action.

You talked about the ACCC – well, we had a commission report in 2008, and what of those recommendations have been implemented to the effect of bringing food prices down? None, which is why we have this cost-of-living crisis before us. Yes, we have some overlapping responsibilities, but they are not working. Something is going wrong, and when things go wrong and when gaps emerge, isn’t it incumbent on all of us to do something about it? Who else in our society has the privilege of being in a place that decides laws other than us, here today to take action?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are now into debate again, Dr Ratnam.

Samantha RATNAM: Certainly. I will go back to a couple of further questions that were brought through this debate. Once again, I have said it before, and the minister wants to make it look like there is a gotcha – ‘I gotcha! You didn’t know the answer!’ Well, I have provided the answer. You have chosen not to accept or listen to it, but that is not our problem. I think a lot of people would understand what we are saying out there right now. We have talked to you about the work we have done. The Essential Services Commission do have decision-making powers about who they will monitor. We give them those powers with other industries. It could similarly apply to this industry. You have done it before. And if you want to talk about –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, we are into debate. The minister does have another question for you.

Samantha RATNAM: But she asked the question about directly or indirectly, regarding the operation. If it is irrelevant to its operation, then, yes, the ESC will be able to look into it. I understand that the minister already knows the answer to these questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Dr Ratnam, I am going to ask you to conclude, because we are into debate.

Samantha RATNAM: Yes, but I am responding to the questions she raised with me. She talked about more intervention. She talked about not answering the questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, can you conclude your answer, please?

Samantha RATNAM: I have answered them. I am sorry the Labor government refuses to take action today, but you can go and answer to your constituents about why, when you had a modest option before you to take some action to relieve the cost-of-living pressures that are bearing down on Victorians, you chose no.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, you have taken three questions on notice. Do we have answers for them yet? If you could read those into the record, that would be very helpful.

Samantha RATNAM: One, you seem to think that people do not know what a supermarket is, but for the record, the ACCC does have a definition of ‘supermarket’. We understand that when you confer extra powers onto bodies like the Essential Services Commission, they will potentially redraft some of this definitional work, but the ACCC is probably a really good place to start:

… a business under which a person sells to consumers bread, breakfast cereal, butter, eggs, flour, fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh milk, meat, rice, sugar and other packaged food or most of those groceries.

Harriet SHING: Just on that, Dr Ratnam, you have used the ACCC’s definition for something that you say the ESC should be able to do, notwithstanding that the ACCC can already do it. To be really clear, you have literally relied upon a federal definition that applies in saying that there should be a state definition of a comparable term in order to undertake functions that are less far-reaching than those the ACCC has. That is quite literally what you have just said.

Samantha RATNAM: Yes, it is not without precedent that similar definitions might be used for different bodies that have different functions. What I have said repeatedly throughout this debate is that we understand the ACCC has a number of functions. It is the reason it is conducting an inquiry at the moment. We welcome that inquiry. We have welcomed the inquiries that have happened over the last decade. The issue is state governments are not acting on the recommendations and we are not seeing the kind of action that is needed to rein in some of this anti-competitive behaviour. What you do in that instance is like what we have done with energy. The story is being repeated. You can argue the same thing: ‘Oh, the ACCC has these functions for the energy sector.’ Well, why have you given the ESC functions for the energy sector in Victoria particularly? You understand that the different bodies that you have at your disposal, bodies like the Essential Services Commission, play a really important role. You would not be conferring them with power if you did not think they had a role.

The Victorian government knows the Essential Services Commission has a role. It gave rate capping the councils to the Essential Services Commission when it wanted to rate cap the councils. There is a debate for another day about how you are squeezing the life out of them, but let us come back to that later. You give the Essential Services Commission power when you want to take further action. You gave them the power for the energy sector, and you gave them the power for local councils. We are asking you to give them the power for food so that people can afford food. It is not without precedent. You cannot feign that this is some policy proposal from outer space; it is from your own books.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, this is debate.

David LIMBRICK: We have covered supermarkets a little bit, but I think people have ignored section 23C(2)(a), where it does not just talk about monitoring retail prices but also talks about supply chain prices. I asked a question earlier of Dr Ratnam about what will essentially have to be data feeds from the supermarket to the ESC if this is set up. Supermarkets do not necessarily have visibility of entire supply chains; they sometimes just deal with the wholesaler directly. So is this implying, if they are going to look into supply chains, that the ESC would be requesting data from manufacturers, wholesalers et cetera as well?

Samantha RATNAM: Potentially, yes. However, what we know about how these functions have been conferred to the ESC and other bodies previously is that they will look at the most appropriate mechanisms that strike that balance between transparency and the ability for them to monitor and report and the burden that a business might carry. We understand that bodies like the Essential Services Commission do this daily. They are constantly considering how to get that balance right in the best interests of consumers. I have every confidence they will be able to do it once again in this sector.

David LIMBRICK: One of the parts of this supply chain that Dr Ratnam herself expressed concern about was farmers. Will farmers need to set up data feeds to the ESC?

Samantha RATNAM: Connected to what I just mentioned in my previous response, I understand those mechanisms will be developed should we confer these powers on the ESC. In terms of getting that balance right between the administrative burden for the individual suppliers and businesses and the needs of a commission like the ESC, I have confidence they will be able to have those discussions with the suppliers, manufacturers and farmers and strike the balance between the right level of administration and information. But as we have highlighted previously throughout this debate, this is not a new function we have created out of thin air. This is based on very solid precedents at a number of levels of government in this country, including in Victoria. We have done this in recent history, and I hope the same questions were asked when similar legislation came before the Parliament. I believe it was prior to my time when some of those functions were conferred on the ESC. I hope the Parliament was as diligent then as it is being today. It feels like the diligence has a bit of extra oomph today, perhaps because you want to find an excuse not to vote for this. Well, if you want an excuse not to vote for this, just get up and tell the Victorian people you do not believe you need to take action in this space and be done with it. But do not feign detail and obfuscate process to try and confuse people out there. They see through that.

Jeff Bourman: On a point of order, Deputy President, we are going into debate again. I think if the member could just actually keep herself to the question, we would get this over with quicker.

Nick McGowan: On the point of order, Deputy President, the member’s response was quite clear and articulate. It was responding to the question asked, and it was simply pointing out that many of the questions that have been asked are frivolous in their nature.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam has finished her answer anyway.

David LIMBRICK: It sounds like – and correct me if I am paraphrasing, Dr Ratnam; feel free – whether or not farmers will need to set up data feeds to the ESC will be decided by the ESC.

Samantha RATNAM: Mr Limbrick, as I spoke to in my previous answers, some of the specifics of how these functions come into operation are best, at times, left to the people who have had the experience of using similar powers in other industries. The ESC has a lot of expertise. We give them really significant powers over monitoring and reporting and other types of compliance, and they have the expertise to consult with the relevant stakeholders and get those settings right and get those balances right. I do not think we should be scaremongering through this debate with this idea that suddenly we are going to add an administrative layer that is going to bring businesses down. Let us remember what we are talking about here, particularly in relation to really super-profitable supermarket giants. We have got four big companies in this country that operate in the supermarket space, who have not been required to monitor and report and keep a check and balance on their prices. We are seeing that through the supply chain, and we are seeing farmers at their wits’ end saying, ‘We’re not making those profits. We’re going out of business.’ We are bringing this amendment before the house on behalf of all of them and the consumers. And we have really significant, reputable bodies, like the Essential Services Commission, which we delegate these powers to daily in this state to be able to do some of that operational work. I have confidence that they will be able to get the balance right.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, which unions did you consult with in the preparation of this amendment?

Samantha RATNAM: We have ongoing discussions with unions. In terms of preparation of this amendment, I am not sure about the specific conversations. But we are in ongoing dialogue with the unions on a very regular basis, and we bring before them matters that we are bringing before this Parliament too.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, did you put the text of this amendment to any unions prior to introducing it today?

Samantha RATNAM: My question in response, to clarify, is: did the government put any of those WorkSafe laws to the unions before you brought them to the Parliament?

Harriet SHING: That would be a refusal or an inability to answer that question, based on what I just heard. So the answer is no? All right.

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, Deputy President, once again I find the minister is paraphrasing, which I do not think is appropriate for this debate, as I have mentioned. I have already answered the question. I wish you all would listen, because I keep repeating myself. However, we have a range of discussions with the unions on a very regular basis.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I am prepared to rule. Minister, I did ask that people do not paraphrase.

Harriet SHING: I apologise, Deputy President. So the answer is yes then, Dr Ratnam, you did put this text to unions prior to introducing it today?

Samantha RATNAM: We have regular and ongoing discussions with the unions. And if you think about the WorkSafe legislation, the anti-worker legislation the government has before the chamber, we are meeting with them very regularly at the moment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, it is not helping the committee stage when we keep going back into debate.

Samantha RATNAM: I have answered the question.

Harriet SHING: So the answer is not ‘no’ and not ‘yes’. Dr Ratnam, you referred in an answer to a question earlier about ‘in or in relation to the operation of supermarkets’. Does that include wages?

Samantha RATNAM: It is in relation to the prices of goods.

Harriet SHING: In relation to the prices of goods. Do you accept that there is a connection between the provision of labour and the delivery of an essential service?

Samantha RATNAM: Once again I remind the chamber that with the amendment before the chamber today we are asking the Parliament to agree to give the Essential Services Commission the power to monitor and report on supermarket prices, prices of goods, in order to understand if potential price gouging might be occurring. It is as clear and as simple as that.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, do you accept that the composition of prices incorporates a component for overheads associated with selling those goods?

Samantha RATNAM: I have answered this question now multiple times.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, to paraphrase you earlier – I am going to have to because you did not provide the chamber with your answer just now again –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no paraphrasing.

Harriet SHING: No, no. You have talked about the way in which prices are impacting upon end-user consumers. You have talked about concerns associated with gouging. You have talked about anti-competitive behaviour. To that end I am asking you, in the definition of ‘essential service’, whether you accept that wages form part of the considerations – wages for workers – in the delivery of that essential service of running a supermarket and providing goods in the terms that you have described.

Samantha RATNAM: Our amendment pertains to the prices of goods.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, I think you said you had not actually consulted with any supermarkets before drafting this amendment.

Samantha RATNAM: That was the last thing I answered before.

Harriet SHING: Yes, you did actually say that you have not engaged with any supermarkets. So you have not engaged with any supermarkets, you refuse to answer whether you have had any conversations with unions, you are not able to actually indicate –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, Deputy President, once again the minister is paraphrasing, talking about refusing to talk to unions. I have answered that question repeatedly about the nature of our relationship with the union movement, who right now need people other than the government to talk to, given what they are doing to screw them over.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I think the minister is referring to the fact that you have not given a clear answer on whether you directly engaged with the unions on this particular amendment.

Samantha RATNAM: I have answered that we are in regular conversation with the unions, and the minister is paraphrasing that as refusing to answer and refusing to confirm the paper in front of their faces. We are talking about two different things here. I have answered that question about the nature of our relationship, and I have answered that in the course of our ongoing discussions with the unions and our relationship we regularly bring up what we are bringing before the Parliament. That should be understood.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I think everybody in the house is fairly clear that you have regular conversations with the unions, but the direct question has not been answered – just that you have regular conversations.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, could you provide this house with the responses that you have received from unions, supermarkets, peak bodies and community organisations in relation to the amendment as you have prepared and tabled it today?

Samantha RATNAM: Anyone who has been listening genuinely to this debate this afternoon would understand the rationale – what has contributed to why we have proposed this amendment in this way, notwithstanding the other option we gave the Parliament yesterday. We have talked about why this is an informed amendment before this Parliament, a modest amendment. In terms of what you want me to be able to say, I do not have every single piece of paper. I find it quite surprising from a government who refuse to provide any information to any of us asking for information for information on your bills that you would ask for that level of information.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please refrain from debate.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Dr Ratnam, just to clarify this point, because I do not think it was answered with particular clarity, you propose to insert in clause 23C a new subsection 10F(2), which says:

Without limiting subsection (1) and section 10, the functions of the Commission under this Act –

which would be the Essential Services Commission Act –

in relation to the retail grocery industry involving the operation of supermarkets –

so the entire operation of the supermarkets is within scope of the powers of the Essential Services Commission –

include the following –

to monitor and report on prices in supermarkets, including but not limited to –

retail prices …

So the question which you have not answered yet is: will the Essential Services Commission be able to examine wages as one element of its report on prices in the operation of supermarkets?

Samantha RATNAM: We have been quite clear, as you have just referred to, Mr Batchelor, about the functions that we would like to confer on the ESC. We are talking here about prices, and it is quite clear what we mean. I understand the tactic that you are using to try and create another excuse for why you cannot support this, but we have been very clear about the focus of this amendment on prices. If I go back to answering more fully, because you were not satisfied with the answers to the previous questions, my question back to the government is: have you engaged with the supermarkets about their price-gouging behaviour before coming to this debate today?

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am not sure that answers my question, Dr Ratnam, because in your proposed section 10F(2)(a), in the things which include but are not limited to the report on prices, you include retail prices as one of the elements and supply chain prices. So on just the reading of the legislation as it will stand – and we need through this debate, should the amendment pass, to get clarity for interpretive purposes as to what the words in the legislation mean; we are legislators, we are trying to legislate here and we need clarity on what words mean – does the composition of prices include things like operational costs, things like wages? If not, what does it include?

Samantha RATNAM: As I responded previously to a similar line of questioning, the Essential Services Commission has the power to decide on the things that it monitors and reports on. And if you want to talk about wages, I am happy to talk about wages. What we are seeing in terms of price gouging and the unbearable cost of food is not unrelated to a lot of the wage theft that we are also seeing for that retail working sector. Quite regularly we have retail workers who work for the duopoly who are at the forefront of campaigns for better wages and conditions because the kind of behaviour that we are seeing, which those supermarket giants impose on the rest of us, is a type of behaviour often that they are imposing on their own workers. So for a party that purports to care about workers, I would have thought you would really care about this amendment, because they are linked. We are talking about the anti-competitive, monolithic behaviour of these billionaire corporations.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, we are back into debate. Please refrain from debate.

Ryan BATCHELOR: We, as a party who cares about workers and the wages they receive, want to know whether the new powers that you are proposing to give to the Essential Services Commission will include the ability of that commission to monitor and report on wages. You have said it will not. I do not think it is clear from the text.

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Have you not said it won’t? So it will.

Samantha RATNAM: Once again, you have asked the same question I just answered. Quite clearly I said the Essential Services Commission has the power to decide on what it monitors and reports on, as it does with other sectors. That is an answer. That is not a non-answer.

Ryan BATCHELOR: So it could. It is within the scope of the powers of the Essential Services Commission to, if it so chooses, report on wages in the retail sector. Sorry, Dr Ratnam, are you saying that the Essential Services Commission if it chooses to do so can do investigations and monitor and report on wages as a component of prices?

Samantha RATNAM: I have answered this question, and once again I find it quite hard to believe that you are feigning that you have no idea how the Essential Services Commission works. I think you all know how it works, and you know about the powers. You have conferred on it powers for it to be able to function, because if you prescribe everything in legislation and regulation, as you know – and you often come to us and say, ‘Sorry, this can’t be in the legislation’ – you are going to undermine and contain the ability of this organisation to be able to do its work. You often come and tell us, ‘Sorry, we can’t put that in writing. We can’t put that in regulation and legislation.’ Well, there is a balance here between giving the direction through legislation and regulation but also acknowledging the power that an existing body has. The Essential Services Commission has – as we have already articulated and as you have well known for many years – powers to be able to look into what they need to do to complete that function. Coming back to what we are talking about here, we are talking about monitoring and reporting on prices, given the nature of the price gouging that we are seeing and the need to scrutinise it and bring down those prices. If you want to talk about wages, I am happy to talk about wages. Wages are really important.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, let us not get into debate, please.

Samantha RATNAM: I am responding to the member asking me about how this will impact wages. Well, we do know wages are really critical, and in response –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I do not think that that was the question. The question was not about how it will impact wages but what the scope is for the ESC to investigate or consider that.

Samantha RATNAM: Thank you, Deputy President, for the clarification, and I believe I have responded to that. I think it is really important to understand that we understand all of these things are interlinked, and we are very worried about our retail workers not getting the wages and conditions they deserve. They are often at the forefront of being mistreated by these duopolies too.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are back into debate, thank you.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Dr Ratnam, you have mentioned on several occasions in relation to this matter now what the Essential Services Commission will consider to be within its scope on monitoring and reporting on prices but also in answer to some questions from Minister Shing, when questions were asked, about what constitutes a supermarket, which at the time you were unable to answer and provided a follow-up. You said the Essential Services Commission will be doing the definitional work. My question is: will, for example, a definition of a supermarket be included in that definitional work, and will that definition be provided for in delegated legislation or regulation or will it be in policy?

Samantha RATNAM: We would welcome a conversation with the government about the most appropriate place and definitional work that needs to happen to bring this to life. We would appreciate and welcome the opportunity to work with the resources at your disposal if you were also willing to engage with this kind of reform to get it right on behalf of millions of Victorians out there, and I hope that you will work with us to get it right.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Dr Ratnam, will it be included in regulation or in policy?

Samantha RATNAM: As I mentioned in my previous answer, we would welcome a conversation with the government about the most appropriate place for that definitional work to be. We understand you too have had experience in writing legislation and regulation, and we would welcome advice and a collaborative approach to get it right to make sure that this has the life in it and the power in it to bring down those prices.

Ryan BATCHELOR: You are asking us to vote on this today, so it is important that the chamber understands the scope of the proposed new laws that we make. Further to that, my question is in relation to the scope of the powers in your proposed section 10F(2)(a)(ii) in relation to supply chain prices. Given that many supply chains for supermarkets extend beyond the borders of the state of Victoria, what powers will the Essential Services Commission have with respect to practices that occur beyond the state’s borders, in other jurisdictions?

Samantha RATNAM: I understand that there might be some precedent with the other sectors that the Essential Services Commission also has powers over, and I think it is worth thinking about how that could work. As I mentioned previously in terms of Victoria beginning this work, I hope Victoria has the courage to take the lead, because somebody has to. People are going too slow, and nothing is happening. Somebody has to show courage, leadership and vision, and we have the opportunity to do that here. I would hope that if an amendment such as this was passed, we would all sit down with the federal government, we would sit down with the Essential Services Commission and we would think about how we make this work to its best ability. Hopefully what we would have is a national conversation that is sparked, and suddenly your counterpart in the federal government, Mr Albanese, would say, ‘Wow, what they’ve done in Victoria is something we can do too. Before you get on with that, let’s have a meeting of national cabinet and let’s talk about how we can do this across Australia.’ That is how change happens. You have not been shy to engage in that type of leadership before. We are appealing to you to once again find that leadership for what is a crisis that is really impacting so many people.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I agree it is worth thinking about how this should work, which I think is something you just said. It is not clear though from that answer whether the Victorian Essential Services Commission staff or agents will be empowered to undertake monitoring activities in other jurisdictions. Have you had any conversations with other jurisdictions about whether they would allow Victorian members of staff or agents of the Essential Services Commission into their jurisdictions to exercise powers under Victorian law?

Samantha RATNAM: We have not had those discussions as yet. However, we anticipate that would be a really good next step should this amendment pass, and it is not without precedent in this place that we would provide an overarching framework. Often you pass legislation that does not come into effect for say six or 12 months, sometimes beyond, because the government asks us, ‘Give us some time to work out the details.’ We have to get this process started to signal to an industry that is right now gouging people out of being able to put food on the table. We have to take immediate action, but we need to work now with the sector and with all the components that make up the supply chain and the distribution and the retail sector to get this right. I know that you know that. I know that you know how that works, and we are appealing once again for you to take this seriously. I know why you are asking these detailed questions. Maybe it is to fill up time till the messages come, because there are not many bills left, because there is not much legislation going through this place. I am not sure, but all these questions seem a bit –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I am going to ask you to sit down. That is really straying into debate.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I do find it somewhat concerning that there is an attempt by Dr Ratnam to suggest that we should not be asking questions of amendments that she is proposing. I do not think it is in keeping with the spirit of this chamber to be suggesting that we should not debate matters before us. Dr Ratnam, when would these provisions commence?

Samantha RATNAM: Responding to the comment before, I apologise if I seemed frivolous. However, it has been a couple of hours of debate and there have been attempts to take this debate away from the heart of what is being proposed, which is quite a simple amendment. I understand the questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, we are back into debate. Please just answer the question.

Samantha RATNAM: I am trying to answer the question fulsomely. In terms of commencement, look, it could occur with the overall bill commencement. However, I think with some of these provisions like we have canvassed today, while there is absolute precedent and we have an Essential Services Commission who know how to do this work, we are of a mind to get this right, and we would welcome a conversation about the best timing to give life to it.

That being said, we are getting to crisis point. This has been going on for years, and we are hitting now a crescendo in the public conversation. We had the CEO of one of those giants resign after that public pressure, and I find it really surprising that we do not have the type of urgency in this chamber to deal with what is a matter of urgency for so many people. So let us get this done as soon as possible but let us also get it right.

This is a modest first step, which is why we have proposed what is quite a modest amendment. We could have gone further; if the government wants us to go further, we are very happy to do that work. We are happy to sit down with you right after this debate. But let us get it right. We are appealing to you caring and thinking about what is going on here. We can use all the theatrics and tactics of Parliament, but we are talking about food on the table here.

Ryan BATCHELOR: A last one from me, Dr Ratnam: have you spoken to the ACCC about this proposal, and if so, when and with whom?

Samantha RATNAM: I will confer with my parliamentary colleague Mr Sam Hibbins, who is unwell at the moment, and get back to you, because he has been undertaking very, very detailed and serious consultations with a number of people. It is a very informed –

Members interjecting.

Samantha RATNAM: And have you talked to the supermarkets about their price gouging? Probably not. I can tell you we have been engaging with more people than you have been engaging with when it comes to the cost of living affecting Victorians.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, that is debate.

Samantha RATNAM: I am happy to take that on notice and provide you with the details, Mr Batchelor.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I know I said I did not have any questions, but I have some questions. Just in relation to the definition of ‘supermarket’, FoodWorks in Roxburgh Park in your and my electorate is a great family-owned grocer. It describes itself as a supermarket. Would they be captured under this amendment, and would they have to hand over data to the ESC?

Samantha RATNAM: As has been referenced before in this debate, the Essential Services Commission have the power to decide who they monitor and report on once we confer on them the power, as they do with the retail energy sector and other sectors where they also have these similar powers. They decide on those thresholds. That would be a discussion and a decision, I am sure, with government, should they take up this amendment, about those thresholds. But what we do know is that we are talking about the top end of the big supermarket retailers, which is why we cite those four. That is the intention of this amendment.

For the record in the committee stage, because the record does then have relevance for the interpretation of legislation, I think it is worth reiterating what the intention is of this amendment. We are talking about the big supermarket retailers, of which four large retailers have been cited that dominate the Australian market. We are asking the Essential Services Commission to monitor and report on potential price gouging, report on prices, so we can start bringing those prices down. But I have confidence, and look, they will be part of conversations, should this amendment succeed, about the appropriate threshold for that type of reporting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: My understanding of the amendment is it does not seem to allow for conversations in terms of the broad stroke of it. Are you saying, or at least my reading of it is, that FoodWorks in Roxburgh Park will be captured by this amendment? How does this amendment make way for consultations and government decision-making after it is passed?

Samantha RATNAM: As I mentioned before, my understanding is that because the Essential Services Commission already have the power vested in them to decide those thresholds and decide who they monitor and report on, a similar application of criteria would apply. I cannot speak for them, but I understand and I would anticipate that they do consult. They do not operate in a vacuum. They would care very much about who they are monitoring and regulating and reporting on, as they do with other sectors. There are issues with everybody, but in terms of major complaints about how a body goes about considering those thresholds, my understanding is that when similar legislation is before us and we are deciding those thresholds, sometimes there are moments when we will prescribe them quite tightly in regulation and in definition in the chamber. But often we will have government asking us to allow them to put it in regulation because they have to do more consultation, and you would hope the government would do more consultation on this front too. We would actually hope that they would be doing that consultation right now given the level of the crisis. I understand that that is already implied in the way the ESC works.

We have got to be really careful about picking the one example and then creating fear around that, when we actually have an established operation. It is not like we have got a bill before us to establish an essential services commission. Our bill does not establish a new essential services commission. We are talking about an established body that government has a lot of trust in and confers a lot of power and responsibility on. What we are talking about is a modest change to confer new powers on them. So I would urge everyone and appeal to your pre-existing understanding and confidence in those statutory bodies and other bodies that we rely on every day when we make legislation. We have this before us every time we make legislation. We are then thinking about how that body is going to implement it. We all do our research – look, I hope you all did your research work – about how all this works. But our understanding is that that power is already conferred, and they will be able to manage that balance.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You spoke about the power that they already confer and that they do have discussions. Are you aware that the ESC has had discussions with government in terms of the powers you have spoken about, and have you consulted with the ESC to confirm this view?

Samantha RATNAM: That is another one I will take on notice, and I am happy to provide you with the details. As I mentioned, my colleague Mr Sam Hibbins has been doing a lot of consultative and policy work in this area with his team. He is not in the Parliament today because he is unwell, but I will certainly confer with him. I am happy to furnish you with the conversations that we have had in developing this amendment, which has been very deeply considered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am not sure FoodWorks in Roxburgh Park would be pleased with the red tape that the amendment will, if passed, add for them almost instantly. In regard to the reporting, would there be an ongoing application and balance process for something that looks like price gouging to consider the impact of things like energy prices and petrol prices on the cost of food?

Samantha RATNAM: My understanding is that if you look at how the ESC operates in other sectors, it is quite complicated work when it determines the appropriateness of prices, as does the ACCC. I think they will be looking at all those input costs. But what we are talking about here is looking at the regularity of the ultimate price, because what we are hearing is that we have got producers, we have got farmers who are saying, ‘This is what we’re being paid at the gate.’ It is being sold at a certain price. We have got these megaprofits then reported by these big supermarket companies, and the suppliers are saying, ‘We’re not seeing the benefit or the share of that profit.’ When you think about what an appropriate price increase is – without any signal from anyone, because right now the supermarkets are not getting a signal from anyone about what is appropriate. If one day we have to pay $20 for a 1-litre bottle of milk, do you think we would go, ‘That’s appropriate’? Right now what is to stop that apart from consumer behaviour? But what if we have such a concentration of retailers that there is no healthy competition to bring those prices down?

Because of this in the energy sector the government made a decision to create a check and balance. That is what we are asking for here. It is another essential service that impacts the everyday quality of our lives, whether we can be well and whether we can be healthy, and we are thinking about the signal it sends to a very powerful industry. When you couple that with a concentration unlike what you see in other countries in Australia, profit margins higher than what we see in relation to the international standard – people saying they cannot afford food anymore, people saying they cannot afford their rent anymore and the farmers saying, ‘We’re not making any more money, we’re going to bulldoze our cherry crop’ – surely all of us go, ‘Something is going wrong, and potentially there’s some price gouging.’ That is the intention of this amendment: to look at the regularity of the prices being set. Surely they will look at the inputs, surely they will look at the externalities and other factors driving those prices. We happen to have an inflationary environment in the world over the last couple of years especially. Surely those will be considered. A lot of these people around bodies like the ACCC and the ESC are trained and equipped to be able to consider those very complex questions. But it is important to remember we are talking here about regularity of prices, because right now they are not regular and they are too high.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will not be much longer, I hope. You have spoken before and in your answers about how often with these types of bills and amendments the government will kindly, for us all, write in clauses and times the actual bill takes effect and work out what regulations can be introduced ongoing from the legislation. Why in the drafting of this amendment is there no such thing? Why wasn’t that included? As you have raised that that would be a good thing to do so that we could have conversations about that, why wouldn’t you just withdraw it and try to redraft something that does carry the ability to do that?

Samantha RATNAM: As I understand the question – please let me know if I have got the wrong end of this question – you are talking about commencement and why we did not include the detail of the commencement provisions given that I did allude to the fact that what we would anticipate is some consultation and some further work, as happens with all legislation. For the purposes of this bill before us, because we are amending a bill that has come before us – an omnibus bill – it is implied that the commencement is in line with the commencement of the rest of the bill. We would like it to happen as soon as possible. In some ways that is a constraint that has been imposed upon us because we have to amend this bill. This is the way that we were able to bring this forward for debate today. In an ideal world, yes, perhaps we would have written a slightly different time line, but I think that is something for the chamber to consider. For example, if the chamber was of a mind to support this and say, ‘Look, we need a bit more time here,’ we could delay the commencement date. What we are trying to understand is: will the chamber consider this genuinely? If we are going to consider it genuinely, if there is support in the chamber, then let us talk about the commencement date to give life to those extra provisions. We really welcome and are open to those conversations if the chamber is going to support this today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What impact do you believe this amendment will have on the resourcing of the ESC? Do you have an estimate of the budgetary impact of this proposal? If you expect it to be possibly budget neutral, what other monitoring and compliance activities do you anticipate the ESC reducing to perform this additional function?

Samantha RATNAM: Yes, it is I think quite appropriate to consider what resource implications this could have on the Essential Services Commission and rightly anticipate that it would require more resources. We would not like the ESC to have to diminish its other work to be able to do this work, but these are issues that are presented to us on a daily basis when we do need to have a new power and somebody has to do more work and we need to be able to resource that adequately. We would be urging the government to ensure the ESC was adequately resourced.

On multiple occasions throughout the year when we have bills before this place which give a new power to this group or ask them to do something else over here – we create a new function, we create a new statutory body; we have done that in this Parliament before – with that comes a conversation, because it is the government who have the levers of the budget and are able to adequately resource it. So what we are appealing for and saying, especially to the government today, is talk to us about this very modest change that could have a material impact in sending a really important signal to these companies that look to be acting really inappropriately, with the kind of margins that we are seeing and the cost-of-living pressures that people are experiencing. We would assert that it would be a modest injection of resources for the cost-of-living relief that could meet Victorians as a result.

If you think about what this does for Victorians should we have an effective mechanism to monitor and report – hopefully investigate and regulate at some point too if the government is willing to go further – we will have the cost of living come down for so many thousands of Victorians. We will then have Victorians relying less on other services that the government funds. Think about how much pressure the food banks would be relieved of if people were able to afford their own food. So I think we have to think about this globally. Yes, there might be more resources needed for the ESC; it would be modest in comparison to the overall savings the government would make when it looks after its citizens.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I would state that it is not quite a modest proposal if you do not know how much it actually costs. I am going to conclude my questions there, but I want to thank the chamber for this debate and particularly thank Dr Ratnam – a heroic effort by you in several hours of questioning.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Ratnam’s amendment 1, which tests all of her remaining amendments – and I think we have well and truly tested them all – be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

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

Noes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, 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, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 108 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (16:11): I move:

That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (16:11): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.