Of course, there are many factors contributing to the rising cost of food, including COVID; climate events, including floods and bushfires; and international conflicts. Events such as these often fall outside of our immediate control, but an area where the government can make a positive and immediate difference in reducing the cost of living is by reining in the supermarket duopoly that has dominated the food retail market for way too long. The undeniable fact is that, whereas other countries have multiple major retail food outlets increasing competition and therefore lowering prices, in Australia Coles and Woolworths dominate the Australian market. Indeed, the two major supermarkets control at least 65 per cent of Australia's grocery market, which, as reported in the recent, damning episode of Four Corners, means that, on average, for every $10 Australians pay for groceries, more than $6.50 is spent at Coles and Woolworths.
It's no wonder, then, that the big two have reported record profits in recent years—for instance, $1.1 billion and $1.62 billion for Coles and Woolworths respectively in 2022-23. Moreover, Woolworths's latest report shows that its pretax profit last financial year rose from 5.3 to six per cent, worth an additional $318 million, at the same time that the cost of doing business was flat. So, while people are paying more and struggling desperately to put food on the table for their families and while producers and farmers are grappling to keep their doors open and earn a liveable income, Coles and Woolworths are raking in the big bucks, and that is simply unconscionable.
But it hasn't happened in a vacuum. Coles and Woolworths actually haven't been doing anything beyond what successive Australian governments have allowed them to do. In other words, ineffective regulations and enforcement mechanisms have got us to where we are now. For example, as former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims noted during the Four Corners episode, the grocery code of conduct is a disgrace. It's a code with no penalties. It's like having a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour but no penalty for someone who does 80. Moreover, our inadequate consumer laws do little to stop the duopoly engaging in practices such as unfair pricing, misleading conduct regarding 'specials' and undercutting producers and suppliers, with minimal consequences.
What makes it worse is that the ACCC isn't equipped with the power to respond. Indeed, as noted by former ACCC commissioner Allan Fels, the ACCC's powers to investigate overcharging by the major supermarket chains are limited unless requested by the government. Hence, it was welcome when the government announced last month that it would direct the commission to conduct an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector, including their pricing practices and the relationship between wholesale, farm-gate and retail pricing. This inquiry goes hand in hand with five separate inquiries into the sector. No wonder Woolworths announced just this morning a price drop on 400 items. That's after we appeared as pigs.
Also welcome—in fact, especially welcome—is the member for Kennedy's bill to reduce the market share of any supermarket to no more than 20 people cent via enforced and progressive divestiture over five years. I guess that might sound dramatic and unrealistic to some people, but I'm very happy to second the bill, our second go at it, because the reality is that it's way beyond time to stop fussing about and instead take a sledgehammer to the nut.
]]>It's no wonder the average age of death for homeless people in Australia is 44 years of age. I'll say that again, because that's just a staggering figure. The average age of death for homeless Australians is 44 years of age. That's half or less, Deputy Speaker, than what you and I might hope to achieve. It's no wonder there's something like 4,700 people on Tasmania's social housing waiting list, with an average wait time of more than two years for priority 1 applicants. These are staggering figures. This is in a population of about half-a-million people.
It's not just the homeless who are doing it terribly tough these days, of course. Rents right around Australia, especially in Greater Hobart, are high, are getting higher and are unaffordable. In fact, Hobart remains the equal-least-affordable capital city—a title it has held since 2018. To put that in perspective, we have some of the lowest average wages but some of the highest average rents, the result being that we are consistently one of the most unaffordable capital cities in the Commonwealth—and that's for renters. The situation is so bad, I've actually met people holding down a good job while living in their car, because they can't afford the rents that are being demanded. That is completely unacceptable.
Don't get me started about people who have thumping big mortgages and are suffering mortgage stress. In fact, it is judged that over half of the mortgage holders in my electorate of Clark are at risk of mortgage stress; 51.9 per cent in the electorate of Clark are judged to be at risk of mortgage stress. That's half the mortgage holders in my patch. Many of them are going without essentials. They're not going to the doctor. They're not getting their scripts filled. They're not having three good meals a day. They're not providing the opportunities for their children that we might take for granted as highly-paid and, I'm sure, accommodated people in this House.
It raises the question: how on earth could Australia find itself in this position? We are the 12th-biggest economy in the world. We are fabulously wealthy. It's not the shortage of money. In fact, when you look at mean wealth per adult, we are fourth in the world behind only Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. When you look at median wealth per adult, we're second in the world. Australians are the second-richest people on the planet when measured by median wealth per adult. And it's not like the government doesn't have enough money. In this financial year, the federal government will spend a forecast $684.1 billion—in other words, more than $684 thousand million. So it's not for lack of money. There's plenty of money in this country; we are a very rich and fortunate people. What's missing, for a start, is a lack of vision.
I do commend the government for the reforms that it is rolling out, including today's bill. I think today's bill is welcome, even though it has shortcomings. But, really, we're just putting bandaids over things and tinkering around the edges. We need more vision. We need more bravery. We need more political will, and we need less political division to see that vision realised.
Sadly, we do need to have a debate, for example, about negative gearing. But, as soon as there's a whiff of a mention of negative gearing, it doesn't become an opportunity in this place for an intelligent debate of ideas; it becomes a political opportunity to score points. I'll have a go at the opposition here. They're the worst offenders here. A debate about negative gearing would be a very worthwhile debate to have—for people to come in here in good faith to debate their point of view, and may the best and strongest point of view win the day and result in policy change. Instead, it's just an opportunity to score points and to drag down whoever's in government. I lament that fact. The country is the poorer for it.
There are so many things that we could be doing if we had that vision, if we had the political strength and if we had a less confrontational parliamentary system. For example, we should be increasing investment in homelessness and crisis accommodation and support services, including in workforce capacity and development. We can afford it; we're the 12th biggest economy in the world. This year, the government is spending two-thirds of a trillion dollars. We can afford it. We can afford to increase investment in homelessness and crisis accommodation and support services.
We also need to coordinate improved national rental standards which offer renters genuine protections and security of tenure. You can't bring up a family when it's month by month, six months by six months or even 12 months by 12 months. Why can't we look at other countries that have succeeded in this space? For example, look at some of the European countries, where people can have lifetime tenancy, with 20-year leases and 15-year leases. That's the sort of security that families need, and not just families—that everyone needs. Let's say you're an individual on the disability support pension, a client of the NDIS, and you're sitting in a private rental. You can't be worrying about where you'll be next month or in six months or in 12 months. For your health, for your recovery, for your peace of mind and for your mental health, you need to know that you've got a secure roof over your head and it's not something you have to be worried about.
We need to increase income support payments and, in particular, Commonwealth rent assistance. I note that this changes from time to time, but, again, I feel that we're tinkering around the edges. The sort of increase to CRA that is needed is a big increase. Now, my critics might say that that will just encourage landlords to jack up the rents. Of course, it would be a driver, in some areas, for increased rents, but then we loop back to my previous point about improved national rental standards and genuine protections. I know that the ACT has limits on how much rent can increase.
I'll have a go at the government now. The government keeps saying, 'Yes, but this is a matter for the state and territory governments.' Well, be strong; be a government that leads. Get all the premiers and chief ministers into a room and say, 'Right, let's put aside our differences and let's work together to improve the safeguards for renters.' That would, among other things, help to keep a lid on rent increases as a result of Commonwealth rent assistance.
We need meaningful resourcing and decision-making power for the Indigenous community housing organisations. We need targeted incentives to local and state governments to deliver well-planned medium- and high-density social and affordable housing close to where people live, not way out on some greenfield site with poor services and poor public transport. I've left the best one till last, and that is implementing serious progressive tax reform to address systemic housing inequalities which are currently baked in and favour wealthy investors and developers over average Australians.
I know the government got badly burnt at the 2019 election. I get that. I can see why they're gun shy. But let's show some strength. And I can see why the opposition see this as a political opportunity to bang the government on the head if they even mention changes to negative gearing or capital gains tax discounts, for example. But can't we just, for one policy area—we do it on national security most of the time. Why don't we do the same thing on homelessness and say, 'Right, let's bang our heads together and have a think about this.'
Getting rid of negative gearing completely and immediately would of course be highly problematic for people who have made investment decisions in good faith, particularly as they're approaching retirement. But, heavens, can't we come in with reform that perhaps grandfathers investors up until now or perhaps puts caps on it? We can acknowledge that there are a lot of mum-and-dad investors who might have one investment property or two investment properties or whatever, but why can't we cap it and say you can't get negative gearing on 20 houses or 30 houses—in fact, the sorts of numbers of houses that some members in this place and in the Senate have, I would point out. There are ways to design these. But it's got to be something we work together on; otherwise, we're going to be back here next year and the year after.
We're fine. We're fat, dumb and lucky. I reckon everyone in this place has got a roof over their head. Many people in this place own a number of properties. I'm lucky, I'll admit it. My wife and I own a holiday shack down at the bottom of Tasmania. We're the lucky ones. But how about we start governing in the best interests of everyone else, the majority?
During the stage 3 tax cuts debate, I remember seeing a figure. Only about four per cent of Australians earn over $180,000—or taxpayers, I should say. I think that was the figure. Only about two per cent of Tasmanians earn over $180,000. In other words, compared to 98 per cent of Tasmanians, we're rich. We have a moral obligation to work together and not just argue over everything. Even this Help to Buy shared-equity scheme—okay, it's not perfect. Okay, it's only 40,000 properties. Okay, it's on a first come, first served approach. It's far from perfect. But, I tell you what, it's better than nothing.
Why do we have to fight over everything? Why is every idea from this side opposed by that side? Why is every good idea on this side opposed by that side? The losers are our communities that we are sent here to represent, and, when we do argue over everything and we fail to work in a collegiate way, we let our communities down. It's as simple as that.
I'll be supporting the bill. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. If we don't get this bill through the parliament, those 40,000 homes which hopefully will be bought or built will not happen. I take the point from the member for Forrest. Yes, there are lots of questions. Yes, people need to go into this scheme with their eyes wide open. But that doesn't mean we stop it. Maybe we need to amend something; we need to fix it—put in some safeguards. I don't know. But it's no reason to stop it.
]]>While the conflict is far from our shores and our impact is small, the least Australia can do is to act morally and in accordance with international law, and this must include respect for both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, because there's no doubt Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and will unleash even more horrors in Rafah. No wonder the ICJ has ruled it plausible that Israel is committing genocide, which surely places an obligation on Israel and the international community to prevent further abuses and to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.
All of this makes the Australian government's decision to pause humanitarian funding to UNRWA a shameful subversion of the ICJ and, to be frank, makes Australia complicit in the collective punishment of Palestinians. Consequently, I again call on the government to restore this funding, properly assist evacuees to Australia and contribute towards a lasting peace through support for a permanent ceasefire and a two-state solution.
]]>Alarmingly, the previous coalition government was aware of these allegations but buried them, and I'm concerned that the current government's response is also underwhelming. However, we can take some comfort from the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's consideration of the matter currently as it relates to consulting firm EY, and I applaud committee member Senator David Pocock for pursuing the matter just last week. To assist the House, I seek leave to table relevant material which has already been shared with senators and EY.
Leave granted.
Thank you.
]]>Cruelty to animals is one of the most significant vices of a low and ignoble people. Wherever one notices them, they constitute a sign of ignorance and brutality which cannot be painted over even by all the evidence of wealth and luxury.
In other words, it is inexcusable that anyone would come in here and, in good conscience, try to defend an indefensible industry.
This industry will end one day, mark my words! It's the people in this place who have fought tooth and nail to stop the ban of the trade who have given false hope to the farmers and who have stood in the way of reform and implementing a proper, well-funded transition plan. They are the people letting the farmers of this country down, as well as the animals.
]]>That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) approximately 15,000 sheep and cattle onboard the MV Bahijah have endured inhumane conditions at sea for more than 30 days since being loaded in Fremantle for export to Jordan;
(b) the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has rejected an application to re-export the livestock for what would have been another month or more at sea;
(c) the Department is now waiting on the private exporter to decide how to proceed, resulting in uncertainty and the prolonged suffering of these animals; and
(d) the longer the animals remain on board the greater the risk of illness, disease and death; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) intervene immediately to ensure the welfare of the livestock on the MV Bahijah by bringing the animals onshore and into quarantine;
(b) suspend all live animal exports through the Red Sea until the current conflict in the region is over and the risk to crew and animals subsides; and
(c) finally commit to a timeline for the phase out of live sheep exports and legislate an end date immediately.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) approximately 15,000 sheep and cattle onboard the MV Bahijah have endured inhumane conditions at sea for more than 30 days since being loaded in Fremantle for export to Jordan;
(b) the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has rejected an application to re-export the livestock for what would have been another month or more at sea;
(c) the Department is now waiting on the private exporter to decide how to proceed, resulting in uncertainty and the prolonged suffering of these animals; and
(d) the longer the animals remain on board the greater the risk of illness, disease and death; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) intervene immediately to ensure the welfare of the livestock on the MV Bahijah by bringing the animals onshore and into quarantine;
(b) suspend all live animal exports through the Red Sea until the current conflict in the region is over and the risk to crew and animals subsides; and
(c) finally commit to a timeline for the phase out of live sheep exports and legislate an end date immediately.
There is an urgent need to address this crisis, and this parliament cannot wait one moment longer to do just that. Here we have approximately 15,000 animals, mostly sheep, although it also includes about 2½ thousand head of cattle, who have already been afloat for some 30 days in the stifling heat of WA, and they've travelled across the equator and back to the stifling heat of WA. The conditions on this vessel are already well known to all of us, and it beggars belief that we even have to have a debate about doing something urgently about the conditions on this vessel.
We've seen all this before. We've seen the footage. Remember the footage from the Awassi Express with the sheep just literally drowning in their own filth? Well, spare a thought for the 15,000 animals, mostly sheep, on the vessel off WA right now. For a start, the vessel is stationary, so there's no movement of air across the decks. We can only speculate how stiflingly hot it is and how much panting is going on by those long-suffering animals to try and keep their body temperature down. Yes, there have been vets go out to the vessel, and, yes, the vets have said the deaths have been limited, but what about the 15,000 live animals and the terrible conditions in which they are right now?
Yes, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has denied permission for the vessel to set sail again via the Cape of Good Hope and up through the Mediterranean into Israel, where the sheep and cattle might be offloaded and taken on the road journey across and into Jordan, but, bizarrely, the department is still leaving the next steps up to the exporter. I don't care if that's somehow in the legislation and that's somehow the process to let the exporter make the decision about the next step. If that's what the legislation requires, the government should start acting like the government, come in here this afternoon and change the law, because what is needed right now is urgent, political intervention. If that requires changing any regulations or any laws of the land then it must be done. It demands urgent political intervention.
This isn't just about the conditions on the Bahijah; it's about the state of the live animal export industry more broadly. We know it is systemically cruel, and it's not just about a few high-profile episodes like the Awassi Express and now the Bahijah. You look back over the last 10 or 15 years, and it's been expose after expose, whistleblower after whistleblower. What about all those episodes many people have probably already forgotten about? What about the load of Australian sheep that were offloaded in Pakistan and then we saw the images of the live sheep literally being bulldozed, thrown into pits and buried alive? That's the face of this industry. That's the reality of it. It's not like the Bahijah, the Awassi Express or even those sheep being buried alive in Pakistan was a one-off case. The fact is the conditions on every one of these vessels are absolutely intolerable. This is something that is systemically cruel, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade and to process those animals within Australia.
There's an idea that we've got to keep labouring away with this cruelty on an industrial scale because it's such an important industry, adding so much value to our country and employing so many workers, but that's nonsense. It's complete and patent nonsense. The fact is that live sheep export constitutes about 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural output. I'll say that again: the live sheep export industry is one-tenth of one per cent of the value of Australia's agricultural production. It's that tiny. Even in WA, where people are so blind to the cruelty, blindly supporting an indefensible industry, the live sheep export trade is worth—wait for it—one per cent of WA's agricultural output. That's all: one per cent. To put that in perspective, Australia's agricultural output is about $80 billion a year, and the live sheep export trade is about $85 million a year. To the degree that it employs workers, of course I have sympathy for those workers, but no job can justify cruelty on an industrial scale. I'll say that again: no job can justify cruelty on an industrial scale. Mark my words: there'd be a darn sight more workers employed if we processed those animals within Australia and then we exported a premium, value-added product—frozen and chilled meat. It's not like overseas markets won't buy the product when it's been processed. In fact, annually, we export about $4.5 billion of processed lamb and mutton and $85 million of live sheep. Much of that processed lamb and mutton goes to the Middle East, to the exact same markets where we're sending shiploads of long-suffering animals.
The government must stop talking about winding up the live sheep export trade, especially to the Middle East. I give the government credit: at least they're talking about it. This mob over here won't even have a conversation about it. But it's no good talking about it if that's all you do. Let's stop the discussion. Let's have a time line. Let's legislate the time line. Let's give certainty to the export industry or to those people currently involved in the export industry, and to the farmers, so they can start planning and implementing the change necessary for life after live exports.
Opposition members interjecting—
For the people over here who have interjected constantly for the last 8½ minutes, I'll quote a fella called Alexander von Humboldt.
Opposition members interjecting—
I'm saying this to all of you who have been interjecting for the last nine minutes.
]]>