Is There a Clearer Distraction Possible?

Is There a Clearer Distraction Possible?

With the next federal election in Australia just 18 months away, blame-shifting has become a common tactic among politicians. However, one recent claim stands out as particularly absurd. The government and its allies in the Green/Left establishment have been accusing supermarkets of “price gouging” for over a year now, despite the fact that Coles and Woollies make a mere 2.5 cents for every dollar of stock they sell. Even if this claim were true, the proposed solution seems illogical. Rather than encouraging supermarkets to cut costs and reduce margins, the interim report suggests that retailers should pay their suppliers more while everything else remains the same. This approach does nothing to address the issue of high prices and only serves to distract from the real factors driving up the cost of living.

The review’s recommendations include making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory for all retailers with a turnover of $5 billion or more. It also suggests implementing maximum penalties for breaches of the code, with fines potentially exceeding $500 million. While these recommendations may sound significant, they fail to address the underlying problems in the retail sector. The truth is that all major retailers with a turnover of $5 billion or more already voluntarily abide by a code that offers similar provisions. Making the code mandatory would have little impact unless one of the parties decides to withdraw from it, which is unlikely at this point. Furthermore, the proposed fine of $500 million is excessive and unlikely to be justified in most cases. If there is an imbalance of power, it is usually the small suppliers who suffer, making such a penalty disproportionate.

In an attempt to shift the blame onto others, the government has framed the issue as a matter of concern for farmers and suppliers. By doing so, they are putting pressure on the Nationals, who represent agricultural constituents and are more likely to side with farmers. This tactic serves to create a divide between the Liberals and the Nationals, as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton seeks to accommodate his partners while still addressing the issue of competition in the retail sector. Dutton has suggested that the government should have “divestiture powers,” a proposal initially put forward by Nationals leader David Littleproud. While this idea could potentially address the issue of competition, the government has dismissed it as “populist.” This move not only undermines Dutton’s proposal but also alienates average Australians who may see themselves in the term “populist.”

Dutton’s argument could be strengthened by broadening the focus to include competition and flexibility in other sectors as well. Under Prime Minister Albanese’s leadership, various policies have contributed to rising building costs, higher wages without productivity increases, and increased penalties for small businesses and contractors. Additionally, energy price caps have led to high gas prices and a looming shortage. Furthermore, the government’s approach to reducing CO2 emissions through central planning has historically resulted in falling living standards. While the interim report may be filled with posturing, it lacks substance and fails to address the real issues affecting Australians.

As the federal election approaches, it is crucial to look beyond the distractions and delve into the actual policies and actions of the government. Blaming supermarkets for high prices may make for a catchy headline, but it does little to improve the lives of everyday Australians. It is time to focus on solutions that promote competition, flexibility, and productivity across all sectors, rather than placing the burden solely on retailers. The upcoming election will provide an opportunity for voters to assess the policies and promises of each party and determine which path will lead to a better future for all Australians.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.