My question is to the Prime Minister. What actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to make sure that Australians are getting better prices at the supermarket, and what approaches has the government rejected because they would lead to higher prices?

I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. We know that too many families are feeling the pinch at the supermarket checkout. We want to look out for farmers, but we also want to look after customers, and that's why we are making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, something that never happened from those opposite.

I was pretty clear in my remarks about 30 seconds before. Everyone is going to get the memo now: everyone is now on a general warning, and I'm looking at the member for Barker as well.

We're making mandatory what they had as voluntary, and that will mean that businesses will face fines of up to $10 million if they break the code, the heaviest fines of any industry code. We have partnered with CHOICE to give households better information about prices. We banned unfair contract terms and directed the ACCC to conduct an inquiry. All of these actions are designed to bring prices down.

One thing that all of the experts agree on to push up prices would be divestiture, a policy that's supported by the Greens and the Nationals before, and now it's supported by the Liberals as well. Two days after the big announcement, we're yet to get a question from those opposite, so we've got to organise our own questions about their policies! But I am glad that we were obliged by the member for Hasluck. This isn't so much a policy as an unexpected item in the baggage area! That's what this is. As an independent review states—

The point of order is relevance. Mr Speaker, you always allow compare and contrast in an answer, but every single answer the government's given today—

Resume your seat. Yes, the member for Page has raised a point of order. The question cannot simply be about the opposition's policy. The question was about the actions the government is taking, what the government has done to ensure the outcome that the Prime Minister was asked about and what the government has rejected. We're about halfway through the answer. The Prime Minister is obviously outlining what the government is rejecting, but he can't have his whole answer about that, and he hasn't done that so far, so he's being directly relevant. He has the call.

Don't worry, Hoges, I'll bring it home! The fact is that the independent review we undertook said the result could easily be greater market concentration, less competition—

The member for Wannon on a point of order.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has to refer to members by their proper titles.

Okay. The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

I sure will! If I knew what his portfolio was that I'd say it, Mr Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition started the year telling people to boycott Woolies. Remember that? Now he wants to nationalise it!

Government members interjecting—

Order! The member for Page—and this had better be a decent point of order, with—

My point of order is on hubris, Mr Speaker, because it—

No! Resume your seat. And you may leave the chamber under 94(a) as well.

The member for Page then left the chamber.

It has been quite a journey for the Liberal Party. Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party. Now they want to adopt the Communist Party model! They want publicly owned energy through nuclear energy, and now they want, one would assume, publicly owned supermarkets. Because if Coles has to sell, guess who will buy it? Maybe Woolworths—just maybe! Nuclear reactors that drive up power prices and a supermarket shemozzle that will drive up grocery prices. These are the big ideas that they have, those opposite, but Australians will be left with the bill.