I hear the interjection about health and education. Where there is market failure, I agree. But the supermarkets that are out there have too many outlets. They have these sorts of things. You have people like IGA and you have the Metcashes of the world out there, trying to have a go. But the answer is more competition and less government control so they can have a crack—getting these things there. The answer to getting supermarkets in more competition is simply that: restrict the outflow and restrict the market size.

That's why I go back to having supported Senator McKim's very good motion for an inquiry on divestiture from supermarkets. It was unpopular for votes over on that side, but it had to be done. But this is a cut-and-paste socialist playbook. It is nothing more than that. It is nothing less than that. People in this country do best when they are not bound by unfair rules and unfair guidelines, and the economy does better when it can be all it can be. In the supermarket space, there are some adverse things, but government cannot do it cheaper than the big guys. When a corporation that actually specialises in grocery diversification in Europe comes here and says, 'We can't compete,' that is a problem. These people think a government body—when we see how long it takes this government, or any government, to do anything—can go out and compete in a free market. That is wrong.

The motive is good: more power, more buying and a lower cost of living for people. I get where they're coming from. They're coming from a good place of giving people more groceries for their buck, but that is in the hands of the government. It is in the hands of inflation. It is in the hands of government spending. It is in the hands of all these things we've raised. If people want to be able to afford more, we have to become a wealthier nation, and we don't become a wealthier nation through socialism; we do it through embracing markets, employing people and lifting everyone up. We don't cut different slices of the pie; we build a bigger pie so everyone eats more. Unfortunately, some rich people will get richer. I accept that. But everyone will be better off, and we will build an efficient safety net. That is where we're going. That's what we should do.

They go out there and talk about Mamdani supermarkets. People might love them. They aren't making money. They aren't doing the right thing yet. You always pay, whether it's through taxes or whether it's through subsidies, just because you go in there. There were many ways we looked at people helping out. People were dumpster diving when we went to Tasmania and toured. We can do food banks. We can do all sorts of things to help those people doing it tough, probably at a cost less than what we would lose by operating supermarkets. The objectives of this are good. The process is wrong. Let's help people who need it, not flush millions of taxpayers' money on supermarkets.