Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Payman supported the bill, arguing that the supermarket duopoly stifles competition through practices like land banking. Payman criticised the government's delayed regulatory response, noting that the new regulations lacked parliamentary scrutiny and would not take effect until July. Payman emphasised that price gouging affects multiple sectors, including insurance and mortgages, and urged senators to support the bill to alleviate cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians.

Roberts agreed that Coles and Woolworths held excessive market power but opposed the bill's implementation. Roberts argued that market forces, such as the entry of Amazon and independent retailers, were already correcting price issues. Roberts claimed the bill was poorly worded and would create legal complexities that benefit corporations rather than consumers. Roberts also suggested that the government should enforce existing laws rather than introduce new regulations.

Whish-Wilson defended the bill as a necessary structural reform to tackle corporate greed and inflation. Whish-Wilson cited historical precedents where cross-party cooperation led to successful competition policy reforms, such as the introduction of an effects test. Whish-Wilson argued that the bill would empower the ACCC to investigate and prosecute corporations exploiting market power, benefiting battlers and small businesses. Whish-Wilson urged other parties to support the legislation to address the cost-of-living and housing crises.

Whitten opposed the bill, characterising it as socialist government control that would destroy supply and competition. Whitten argued that price caps reduce quality and choice, harming small businesses that cannot afford compliance costs. Whitten claimed that government regulation and taxation were the real drivers of high prices and inflation. Whitten stated that One Nation preferred reducing taxes and red tape to lower costs for Australians.

Canavan opposed the bill, arguing that it amounted to government price-setting, which historically leads to shortages and economic failure. Canavan claimed the bill lacked a clear mechanism for determining competitive prices, requiring bureaucrats to assess what prices would be in a hypothetical competitive market. Canavan warned that such interventions would harm suppliers, including farmers, by setting prices below production costs. Canavan supported divestiture powers but rejected the bill as naive and simplistic.