Tom Connell:
‘Shrinkflation’. You’re aware of this term, where a price or a product is the same price but suddenly smaller in size. Chocolate chips, rice, whatever it might be. The government says it’s going to crack down on it. Joining me is Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities, Treasury – other things. Andrew Leigh, thank you for your time.
Andrew Leigh:
Thank you Tom.
Connell:
You’re allowed to do this. I mean, it’s kind of another form of increasing a price per unit. You’re not going to make it illegal, but what will happen? You’ll have to label a product for a couple of months. We’re now smaller. How would this work for a consumer?
Leigh:
Yeah, you’re spot on Tom. That’s one of the things we’re considering, because people have come to us frustrated that they see biscuits being taken out of packets and they see cereal sizes shrinking. We’ve seen shrinkflation hit toilet paper and the concentration of detergents. And one of the things we’re consulting on right now is whether to expand the Unit Pricing Code to cover more retailers, and how to treat instances in which products shrink and the price stays the same. We think it may be important for customers to be notified in that instance, so they might choose to shop around and buy a different product. So, that consultation’s open for 9 more days on the Treasury website. People can have their say.
Connell:
Unit Pricing Code, and I can feel people thinking this is pointy, but it’s great because if there’s the same product and 4 different sizes, you can instantly see what the cheapest is. One will say it’s 52 cents per litre and the next one’s 70 cents per litre. The only downside to expanding that is it’s not – I guess it’s a bit of red tape for a small shop going up against Coles or Woolies. They’ll go, ‘oh, this is hard for us, and makes things more difficult’. How do you balance the consumer and the business there?
Leigh:
That is one of the things the consultation is delving into Tom, as well as whether the big retailers should be required to provide better information. Sometimes you have instances in which something is per litre and something else is per hundred millilitres. And then you find yourself doing maths in the supermarket aisle, which no one signed up for. In other instances, we’ve seen complaints over the size of the labelling and whether we can do a better job on that. It’s all about giving customers more options and ensuring that we get more competition in a grocery sector which is as you know Tom, really concentrated.
Connell:
Maybe the chocolate bar going from 50 grams to 40 grams is a good thing? With our expanding waistlines. Have you thought about that? This is just the great Australian enforced diet?
Leigh:
I don’t think there’s much evidence that shrinkflation on the shelves leads to shrinkflation on the waistline!
Connell:
People just buy 2?
Leigh:
People end up just paying more. Australians are sick of paying through the nose. They feel that they’re not getting a fair deal from the supermarkets. We’re on the side of shoppers, we’ve been on the side of farmers in revamping the Food and Grocery Code. We’re doing a lot on supermarkets right now.
Connell:
AI. Now you’ve waded into this. Don’t fear it, essentially. Regulate it properly. Unions are demanding of AI, a veto right if a company wants to expand the use of it. Is that too high a bar to give the power over to workers? Because by that measurement, any small group concerned that their job will go even if the net effect is a bonus, they’ll just veto it?
Leigh:
Well, Tom, I think that’s mischaracterising what the unions are after. I was part of a forum here in Parliament House last week which was very sophisticated, talking about some of the upsides you might get from logistics scheduling, from safety AI tools in construction. Unions just want to have a voice, which is the way in which workers have managed to get their fair share of the gains from the Industrial Revolution and the computer revolution.
Connell:
So, a union that wanted a full veto then would not be a good idea?
Leigh:
Oh, it’ll depend on the particular context. But the conversations being had is rich and detailed. People are keen to get the drudge work out, keen also to see how we can ensure that artificial intelligence makes jobs better.
Connell:
So, what? It might be appropriate for a union to have a veto on AI? What are you saying there exactly?
Leigh:
It’ll depend on the particular cases. But I know unions are keen to see ways of improving the outcomes for customers and patients. So, you look at aged care – AI better being able to detect falls is going to be useful in terms of care workers looking after residents. So, there’s lots of ways in which this can lead to more middle‑class, middle‑skilled jobs as David Autor the US economist has put it. I also think we need to bear in mind that we may be heading towards a world in which the challenge is too few workers, with ageing populations and labour shortages. And in that context, artificial intelligence really is important to boosting productivity.
Connell:
Alright. Well, it’ll be good for the worker at least – in terms of salaries in that particular circumstance.
Leigh:
Absolutely.
Connell:
Jacinta Price. Do we sort of be cautious about over amplifying comments? She didn’t actually initially mention Indian migrants – it was put to her in an interview and then she expanded on overall concerns and accusations about the Labor Party. What do you make of this?
Leigh:
I think she should just do the decent thing and apologise as Julian Leeser has done on her behalf. I was speaking to Shanti Reddy, an Indian community leader in Canberra who said to me that he has heard accounts of people being abused in shopping centres which Shanti links towards Senator Price’s comments. And Shanti said the anti‑immigration rallies didn’t help, but this was the singling out of a particular migrant community. One that’s made an extraordinary positive contribution to Australia. So, apologise and move on. Do the decent thing.
Connell:
I mean, the perception there is people are emboldened by her criticism. Do you think some might have been emboldened by hearing Anthony Albanese say of these rallies, there were good people at these rallies?
Leigh:
Anthony Albanese has been a strong proponent of multiculturalism throughout his career. I mean, I’ve known the Prime Minister for decades. He’s always been somebody who’s spoken up for the benefits of diversity…
Connell:
That line though, that could be seized upon couldn’t it? It did raise some eyebrows, the way he characterised that. And I’m not saying there weren’t good people at rallies, and you can have a discussion about migration and its effects on the country without being racist. But that particular line, are you comfortable with it?
Leigh:
Look, I think the Prime Minister has always sought, Tom, to meet people where they’re at and to have conversations and not try and demonise people. It’s one of the things that’s characterised his government. It’s one of the reasons why we’ve got the largest number of seats in the House of Representatives of any government ever. That he sought not to write people off, but to engage with them and to talk about the fact that migrants aren’t just mouths to feed, but muscles to build and minds to inspire.
Connell:
Andrew Leigh, thanks for your time.
Leigh:
Thank you.