- In short: The government has confirmed it will impose a mandatory behaviour code on supermarkets, focusing on how they treat their suppliers.
- As recommended by Dr Craig Emerson, fines of up to $10 million would apply to supermarkets who breach their obligations to act in good faith.
- What’s next? The government has asked the ACCC to look into customer prices, but the final report is months away.
Oh no! A code of conduct! Please stop flogging me with that wet lettuce leaf…
Supermarkets that fail to meet these requirements would open themselves to fines worth three times any benefit they derived from their misconduct.
Alternatively, the fine could be up to $10 million, or 10 per cent of the supermarket’s annual turnover if the benefit can’t be determined.
Those fines would need to be approved by a court, but consumer watchdog the ACCC could also issue up-front infringement notices worth up to $187,800 if they believe there has been a breach.
Are you not entertained?
And zero consequences for their egregious past behaviour…
The consequences will that their record profits since COVID-19 will dry up and they will need to figure out other ways of cutting expenses.
They will crash like they did in the 1980s and rationalise their business model by selling off their smaller branches. IGA will suddenly have a lot more members, Foodworks will be much bigger and Tuckerbag may even make a comeback.
The problem is that they have overcapitalised. Near us, we have two very large Woolworths within walking distance from each other. Two suburbs over, it is the same with two very large Coles’s.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The federal government has confirmed it will impose new obligations on large supermarket chains to treat their suppliers fairly, enforced by hefty fines.
In a move that has been anticipated for several months, the voluntary ‘code of conduct’ the supermarkets wrote themselves a decade ago will now become mandatory with tougher prohibitions against making unreasonable demands or threats to suppliers.
The court-imposed fines are considered the last resort, and Dr Emerson also recommended a new process for suppliers who feel they have been wronged to seek compensation.
In a statement on Sunday night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and ministerial colleagues said the government would adopt Dr Emerson’s recommendations “in full.”
"The review found that the current voluntary code is failing to address the imbalance of bargaining power between supermarkets and their suppliers, including farmers.
The government has also commissioned quarterly price monitoring reports from consumer advocacy group Choice, the first of which was released last week.
The original article contains 559 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
when its good business practices to do the wrong thing and just absorb the cost of the fine the this means jack shit. Whats worse is the government arnt stupid, they KNOW this. Its all for show.
If you read the article, which part of the last-resort financial consequences do you deem insufficient to curb the “absorb the fines” business approach?