MICHAEL ROWLAND:
Let’s go straight to the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Treasurer, a very good morning to you.
JIM CHALMERS:
Good morning, Michael.
ROWLAND:
So we now have fines of up to $10 million for supermarkets that misbehave. It’s one thing to have fines on the statute books, but is the government willing to act on that, and fine supermarkets and fine them heavily.
CHALMERS:
Of course we are, Michael. This is all about a fair go for farmers and families. It’s about ensuring that the big supermarket chains do the right thing by their suppliers and by their customers, and so these important changes today are all about making the Food and Grocery Code mandatory, having these much bigger penalties, and also providing more and better avenues for people to make complaints and resolve disputes.
It’s a really important piece of work done by Craig Emerson. We are adopting and implementing all of the recommendations of the review that he’s done, and that’s because we believe by implementing the recommendations of this review, by substantially toughening up the Food and Grocery Code, we can get that fair go that farmers and families deserve.
ROWLAND:
What extra avenues will suppliers now have if they feel they have been mistreated to make a formal complaint?
CHALMERS:
Well, there’s a couple of important changes in that regard, Michael. First of all, a role for the ACCC for people to make complaints, and in some cases anonymously, if they need to. But also much more substantial resolution powers, the ability for mediation and arbitration.
From time to time, whether it’s farmers or other suppliers in their relationship with the big supermarket chains, they feel like they’re getting a raw deal. And so this is about resolving those disputes, providing those avenues to make those issues known so that we can get to the bottom of them.
And when we do that, we can make our supply chains fairer, more competitive, and as I said, that’s good for farmers and families.
ROWLAND:
How quickly will the government move to legislate the fines?
CHALMERS:
We’ll legislate it as soon as we can. We’ve to recognise this is a reforming government, and we’ve got a lot of legislation before the Parliament. We do need to change the Competition Act to implement these changes to the Food and Grocery Code; we’ll do that when we can.
Obviously we will need the support of the Parliament in order to do that. But as soon as we can, we want to bed down these changes so that we can ensure that the supermarkets are doing the right thing by their growers and their suppliers and by their customers.
ROWLAND:
Just before we move on from the broad issue of food supply, one of our main stories this morning, is this second outbreak, Treasurer, of bird flu at a farm in the Sydney Hawkesbury region, close to 90,000 extra chickens culled, more than 300,000 chickens culled already. It seems to be getting more serious.
CHALMERS:
Oh, look, these biosecurity challenges can be serious. Obviously the Agriculture Minister, Murray Watt, and our government more broadly will work with the authorities and with the growers, in this case the farmers and producers, to make sure that we get on top of it.
We take biosecurity very, very seriously. From time to time there are issues like this, and we resolve them as quickly as we can.
ROWLAND:
We’ve had anecdotal reports from our viewers that there are egg shortages in supermarkets across the country as a result of this.
Does the government have any official word on that line?
CHALMERS:
I’m sure the Agriculture Minister is across that, and I’ll have the opportunity to speak with him about it this morning, and that’s what I intend to do.
ROWLAND:
Okay. Let’s move on to Australia’s future energy mix. A couple of interesting things came from what I thought was a great interview between my colleague David Speers and Ted O’Brien, the Coalition’s energy spokesman yesterday, one that there will be potentially a multitude of reactors on the plants the Coalition’s proposing, and also, we won’t know the mix nuclear energy will play in Australia’s energy mix until after the election if the Coalition wins.
What do you make of those 2 elements?
CHALMERS:
Well, they’re just making it up as they go along, Michael. You know, this is a very dangerous approach from Peter Dutton and the Liberals to a very serious issue.
His nuclear shambles is economic insanity for Australia, and every time they speak about this nuclear shambles, it raises more questions than it answers.
We already know that the economics of nuclear power for Australia is absolute madness. It takes longer, it costs more to build, it will push up energy prices for Australians, it will create extreme investor uncertainty and it will squander Australia’s unique combination of advantages when it comes to becoming a renewable energy superpower and nailing this net zero energy transformation in our economy.
So from beginning to end, this is a complete and utter nuclear shambles, it is economic insanity to go down the path that Peter Dutton is proposing. He can’t even provide the most basic details. So he’s gone for the most divisive option, he’s divided his party, he can’t provide key details, and he wants Australians to believe that somehow by building nuclear reactors in the second half of the 2030s will have an impact on power prices is the middle of the 2020s, and that’s why it’s all falling in a heap around him. He’s gone for the divisive option; he hasn’t provided the details and that’s why this has turned into a complete and utter nuclear shambles from Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien.
ROWLAND:
Jim Chalmers, appreciate your time this morning, thank you.
CHALMERS:
Thanks.