Wednesday, 29 November 2023

Committees

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Reference

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:55): I move:

That this house requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 14 ‍November 2024, on the impacts and drivers of, and solutions for, food security in Victoria, including but not limited to:

(1) the impact of food insecurity in Victoria on:

(a) physical and mental health;

(b) poverty and hardship; and

(2) options available to lower the cost of food and improve access to affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food.

Tamarra from Mildura told us:

The rising cost of living has made it hard to eat properly. I’ve got 3 children and it’s difficult to give them a proper diet, because healthy food is so expensive.

Jessica from Bulleen said:

Some days I can only afford one meal. I have had to skip psych sessions, physio and ovarian health appointments because I can barely afford rent and food.

And Judy from Brunswick said:

I have accessed food relief and have put my bills on a payment plan. I have a good job as a social worker, but I could not afford to pay my way. It is scary.

I am sure many of my colleagues in this chamber today have heard from constituents like these ones, who are struggling every day. If we really listen to these people, to their stories, we should be compelled to take action, because food security and access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food must be acknowledged as a fundamental human right. Food is a basic need, not a luxury. Our food system should be meeting that need.

The Greens are proposing this inquiry because we believe that the government can and should be doing more to ensure that all Victorians have access to nutritious, affordable food. We need to look at what steps can be taken to address the immediate needs of our community but also plan for a sustainable and resilient food system in the future. The World Bank defines food security as being:

… when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Food is one of our most basic needs. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs it sits at the bottom of the pyramid below security, employment and health, yet right now more and more Victorians are struggling to afford food. They are being forced to skip meals, to go without fresh food and to raid their savings just to pay for essentials. Food security is no longer a concern for the unlucky few. Recent data shows that 23 per cent of households are severely food insecure. That means they skip meals or go whole days without eating – 23 per cent of households. This year a cost-of-living report released by consumer group Finder found that 43 per cent of consumers are stressed about the price of their groceries and one in three have had to ask friends or family for financial support in the previous 12 months. The latest Foodbank Hunger Report also paints a grim picture of the realities of those who are severely food insecure, with many citing that it was even too difficult for them to access emergency food relief. This is supported by discussions I have had with food relief agencies, who are reporting the highest demand they have ever experienced and being unable to meet that demand.

This is not just a justice issue; it is a health issue. For so many people, out-of-control food prices and constant price hikes are taking a toll on their mental health. It is causing stress, anxiety and depression. People experiencing food insecurity also experience poor physical health, and this is worse the longer it lasts and the more severe the degree of food insecurity. It affects both the quantity and quality of food that people eat, and prices for fresh fruit, vegetables and legumes have risen faster than those for processed foods.

Kids who eat a poor diet are much more likely to exhibit challenging behaviours and struggle with their learning and development and experience iron deficiency and hospitalisations. They are much more prone to growing up to be adults with poor diets and with greater risks of cardiovascular disease, dental disease, depression and diabetes, just to name a few. Meanwhile, older people who experience food insecurity are more likely to experience muscle and bone density loss and frailty as well as poorer recovery after illness or injury. There is a complex interaction between food security, obesity and chronic illness, and the growing cost of healthy food is driving an increase in Victorian-era diseases like scurvy – scurvy!

While food insecurity is already affecting too many Victorians now, without a plan even more Victorians will be at risk in the future in the face of climate change and growing economic instability. Whole communities risk food insecurity when major shocks or climate disasters occur. Victoria hosts a significant portion of Australia’s food bowl, yet we are no stranger to the disruptive forces of shocks in our food chain. 2020 saw the COVID-19 pandemic hit us, and we saw just how vulnerable our supply chain really is. There were limits on supermarket milk, canned goods like lentils and beans, bread, pasta – staples. This placed a major strain on everyday consumers. Then just recently, in late 2022, high rainfall around harvest saw much of our summer crops decimated and a spike in food prices. Two days ago wheat and legume crops in western Victoria were decimated by torrential rainfall, and now we are facing a number of years of hot and dry conditions. Reduced rainfall significantly impacts wheat production, which of course is essential to many everyday items. Livestock struggle in extreme weather – milk yield from cattle reduces by up to 40 per cent in extreme heatwave conditions. The Climate Council estimates that there are less than five days of perishable food in the supply chain at any one time and that households typically hold about three to five days of food. With our food reserves this low, all of us are vulnerable to unforeseen shocks and stresses.

Just as we need to build resilience in our food system to reduce the impacts of shocks on affordability, it is important we also reflect on the role that market concentration in our supermarket sector plays in determining the affordability and availability of food. It is no secret that the two major supermarkets have posted profits of over $1 billion in the past financial year. During the COVID-19 pandemic, high profit margins were achieved by many supermarkets across the world but Australia’s duopoly soared above the rest, operating at almost double the profit of their international counterparts. Recent research from the Australia Institute reveals that 56 per cent of price increases above inflation were company profits. This is great news for shareholders, but it is occurring at the expense of everyday shoppers struggling to put food on the table and primary producers such as our dairy industry who have to fight the duopoly tooth and nail over fair prices for their milk. Given the lack of competition in the market, exacerbated in rural and regional areas where there is very little choice, there is limited scope for people to use consumer choice to drive down prices.

We have got a situation where many people do not have food security – people do not have physical or economic access to safe and nutritious food that meets their needs and allows them to live a healthy life. Without change, this situation is likely to worsen. Increasingly, governments in other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas are recognising this and the need to look at systemic responses to improve food security for their citizens. For example, in November of last year the New South Wales inquiry into food production and supply tabled its report. The inquiry recommended that a food systems plan be developed for New South Wales and include strategies to address food insecurity and promote equitable access to affordable nutritious food. Countries like Ireland are making headway as world leaders in sustainable food systems through their inspired Food Vision 2030 plan. New Zealand has appointed an inaugural groceries commissioner to help level the playing field in its grocery sector and hold the major players to account. And the US promotes the development of urban food forests across cities such as New York, Atlanta and San Francisco to give people more access to locally grown fresh food.

Victoria also needs to recognise the very real threat of food insecurity – both the immediate challenge facing people right now who cannot afford food and the longer term risks. An inquiry into food security in Victoria would offer an opportunity to learn about things like the food relief sector – the role they are currently playing and the role we want them to play in the future – the levers the state government has at its disposal to ensure nutritious food is affordable and accessible for everyone, the risk to the supply chain, measures to better prepare for future shocks and how we can build resilience.

When a huge and growing number of people in our community cannot afford food – almost a quarter of households, remember, are severely food insecure – something is very wrong. Victorians are crying out for governments to do something. We have a moral obligation to step up and fulfil our responsibility to look after our citizens’ most basic needs. An inquiry is an opportunity for us to identify what options the government has to address food insecurity, and I urge colleagues across the chamber to support the motion.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:04): I rise today to speak on Dr Mansfield’s motion. The matter which we are discussing today goes to a very important issue. In fact it goes to two very important issues, the first being food insecurity and the second being cost of living. Dr Mansfield quite eloquently went through some of the physical and mental health outcomes that both of these things can inflict on people, and I do wish to acknowledge first up that they are not just hypothetical concerns. They are a reality for many of the people whom I represent. Increased hardship and, for some, poverty are the realities of the rising cost of living.

As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee I am of course interested in making sure that the work that we do as a committee, with the time and resources that we have, is productive and is focused on the issues and terms of reference that will allow for us to make strong and effective recommendations that will allow for considered and positive reform that is also achievable. I also of course want to see tangible outcomes for my constituents in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, supporting those who need it most.

This government has a long record of providing substantial and important relief from cost-of-living pressures to people when they need it. We have delivered this year the fourth round of the $250 power saving bonus. I know many members in this place and many members across the aisle in this place were raising this initiative, which was very good to see, and we obviously hope to see further such initiatives in the future. We have also, particularly for regional Victorians, brought regional V/Line fares in line with metropolitan fares. No more city–country fare discrimination – we now have equal fares across regional Victoria, equal to metropolitan Melbourne. We have expanded free TAFE to more courses than ever before. We have provided free pads and tampons in public places – a very, very important initiative for women’s health and for all women in Victoria. We have delivered free registration for apprentices. We have funded the Victorian veterans card, continued the baby bundle program and expanded the Smile Squad free dental care to independent schools. And that is just in this year’s budget.

Beyond that we have also provided kinder kits, delivered three earlier initial rounds of the power saving bonus, implemented the Solar Homes program, delivered free Ls and Ps, and set rate caps for Victorian councils. VCAL reforms have cut out-of-pocket expenses for students, expected to save each family with a child going through VCAL $1000. We also extended the free TAFE initiative, initiated back in 2019. And since 2020 we have committed over $50 million to strengthen Victoria’s food relief system as well as $16 million in investments to strengthen food relief infrastructure.

I think it is important that we do apply our focus and our attention as a committee in the areas where we can make that real tangible difference, where the state has the responsibility and the powers to affect outcomes. With prices, specifically prices at supermarkets and other sorts of greengrocers, butchers and similar such stores, in that space the ACCC is the responsible body. The consumer watchdog has several powers, including the ability to prosecute companies for misleading claims about the reasons for price increases as well as unconscionable conduct in the case of extreme gouging.

I do find it a little curious that the Greens are here saying that this is something of a federal matter which the state should be stepping in on when not so long ago we were hearing the Greens celebrating the fact that the federal High Court overturned the state’s electric vehicle tax. So on the one hand they are saying it is the state’s responsibility to do things and on the other hand saying, ‘No, no, no, no, no, take that away from that pesky state. We don’t want an EV tax; we want that to be done federally.’ I personally think if the states are the ones building and maintaining the roads we should probably be the ones to manage the tax for the roads, but that is a debate that we will no doubt have again another time soon in this chamber, when we return next year. I do find that a little bit strange, but we are here to discuss grocery prices and the like today.

When we heard from the Greens about price caps on groceries, they touted this brainstormed idea as the single solution to the cost of living caused by the inflation on our essential groceries. The original terms of reference proposed for this motion are explicitly written to enable, frankly, the Greens to campaign for this policy. I know it. They really do know it as well, as we all do. Of course there was a time when I might have said that they might have been open to logic, but having been through the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s recent inquiry into the rental and housing affordability crisis in Victoria, we saw the Greens see the expert evidence about the public housing commission towers that are being demolished and rebuilt with a net increase in total and social housing, bringing these houses up to modern, First World conditions. Frankly, I am aghast looking at the evidence of this current situation, where 10 to 20 offers have to be made per unit because these flats are just so unlivable – they are not accessible, they overheat in summer, they are too cold in winter – and they have major disturbing issues with sewerage in some of these towers as well. They are frankly becoming, if they are not already, uninhabitable, and to look at that and say, ‘No, no, no, it’s fine, keep the towers’ – as I said, I used to think the Greens have been quite logical, but I am not so sure I do anymore.

Let us look at price caps. Two countries in Europe have undertaken a policy of price capping for food products: Hungary and Croatia. As of December 2022, 56 per cent of surveyed Hungarians stated that they regularly encountered shortages of food products falling under price cap regulations. Only 21 per cent of the respondents stated that they were always able to purchase the product they wished. The price caps on certain basic foodstuffs, including milk, sugar, flour, vegetable oil and eggs, were introduced in February of 2022. Despite this measure, food inflation remained at an annual rate of 44.8 ‍per cent by December last year. Hungary has now removed its price caps and shifted to other measures to mitigate cost-of-living pressures and grocery bills. There is a clear risk that price caps on specific goods will result in compensatory price increases in other goods and cuts to staffing and staff remuneration in order to maintain revenue levels.

I spoke earlier today in another contribution about France, and I will briefly mention as well that the French government earlier reached an agreement with some supermarkets that voluntarily offer an anti-inflation shopping basket. This is not a price cap but a measure that avoids the more damaging implications of straight-up price caps, and at the end of last year too Spain lowered its VAT – our GST ‍– on some basic foodstuffs for deployed measures to fight inflation, including a cheque for €200 for vulnerable families. Again, if we were to look at a comparable example here in changes to our GST, that would of course be a federal government or, at the very least, national cabinet decision. On that note, we did see a call recently from the OECD for countries like Australia to increase their GST up to 20 per cent and to remove the exemption on fresh food products, which is frankly outrageous. We are dealing with cost-of-living issues here, and I will proudly speak up and say that is a completely unacceptable proposition to be putting forward. Victorians right now do not deserve an increase in the GST. They especially do not deserve to have to pay GST on fresh food prices. We could have many, many arguments and debates about the GST as a policy, but one of the good things about that policy that we currently have is that fresh food is exempted, as it absolutely should be. I am sure there is not much political appetite across the spectrum, neither here nor in Canberra, for that silly proposal, but it is worth mentioning, if we are to talk about GST, that the OECD has significantly gone off the mark there.

There is much, much more I could talk about with some of these measures, which are similar to ones which have been put forward by the Greens, but I do with the limited time I have left also wish to acknowledge some of the amazing organisations that are working on the ground day in, day out to support people who are facing food insecurity. They include Foodbank Australia in Dandenong South, Emergency Relief in Springvale and Dandenong, the Salvation Army in Dandenong South, Keysborough Learning Centre in Keysborough, the Community Support Frankston service in Frankston, Make a Difference in Dingley Village and Pantry 5000 in Carrum. These and others in my region – and there will be countless examples from right across this state – do amazing work day in, day out, and there are all sorts of other organisations too that are working in non-food-related spaces that are equally important, but I think it is especially warranted to give them a shout-out today as we discuss this motion which is before us in relation to food prices.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:15): I rise to speak on motion 242 in the name of Dr Mansfield calling for an inquiry by the Legal and Social Issues Committee into the impact of food insecurity in Victoria and its effect on physical and mental health, poverty and hardship and options to lower the cost of food and improve access to affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food. We have attempted to work with the Greens in good faith regarding an inquiry. We will not be supporting this particular inquiry. We would have preferred a broader inquiry on the cost of living, one that looks at the cost of energy, which as we all know has a massive impact on the cost of food, and one that looks at state government taxes and charges, which also have a flow-on effect on the cost of food. We all know where this has come from, the populist policy campaign that the idea for this inquiry comes from, and that is the policy they have been talking about for a long time, which is one of price controls. I want to make it clear that the Liberals and the Nationals oppose price controls.

I have spoken in this chamber quite a bit about the Greens’ very populist rent control campaign. The same economic theory of supply and demand actually also applies to food. Just yesterday actually we saw the Greens, in one of their contributions, reference that they were on the side of experts. We always hear this – almost every day – from the Greens. On price controls they are just outing themselves as a populist outfit hoodwinking the Victorian people into thinking that price controls would make a difference without any of the horrific consequences we know from evidence would come along with that. Given the Greens like to quote experts so much, I did a little bit of homework, actually. I thought I would do some research on experts as well, so I read with interest University of Canberra economics professor Phil Lewis, who said that supermarket price controls where never a good idea. He said:

It’s the sort of thing students learn in Economics 101. Price is determined by supply and demand. If you try to cap the price, it’s going to lead to a shortage. The price of other items will go up. It’ll be inflationary for most people.

He also said:

This is a strong hint as to why prices have risen so much. As well as growers facing higher input costs – in line with pressures pushing up food prices globally – these price hikes are being driven by lack of supply – with crops and stores wiped out by rain and floods …

across Australia. It is like the Greens do not actually know where the food itself comes from. This is a reality. It is like they do not actually want to pay farmers for the crops that they produce. Price controls I know would be devastating for Ms Bath’s constituents in Eastern Victoria as they would be for Mrs McArthur’s constituents in Western Victoria.

You see the same campaign with rent controls, and I know that Phil Lewis said they are the same as price controls:

Rent controls mean some are lucky enough to find an affordable apartment. Many others miss out – or engage in “deals” with landlords to get around the controls.

The most disadvantaged tend to lose out most since landlords can discriminate in favour of what they consider the “more desirable” tenants.

Stanford University economist Rebecca Diamond has written:

While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.

As with housing, so too with broccoli and cabbage. I know my colleague Mr Galea referenced this today, because yesterday we saw the Legal and Social Issues Committee release its report into rental affordability. I was glad to see some bipartisan agreement from colleagues in the chamber on the committee being opposed to rent controls. It was written there in the majority report. So I was very curious and very surprised to see the Greens Instagram accounts, which actually all said:

Victorian Rental Inquiry Finds:

IT’S TIME FOR A RENT FREEZE

That is what all their Instagrams said: that the Victorian rental inquiry finds it is time for a rent freeze. Now, I took a good read of the report. I read every page of that report, and I did not see in the majority report a mention endorsing a rent freeze or rent controls. Maybe some other colleagues can enlighten me on whether it did. I do not believe that it did, so for a party that talks about misinformation, we see some misinformation going on on their own social media channels.

But on to the price controls argument, I want to quote Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood, who says:

We are much better offering direct support to the most vulnerable, for example recent increases to JobSeeker, to help manage the cost of living pressures than this heavy-handed form of intervention.

Another expert, university professor Alan Fels, former chair of the ACCC, also does not support price controls on bread, milk and other items. He says:

I do think there is a case for having well-informed surveillance and exposure of overpricing in particular cases, similar to when the Howard–Costello government introduced such policies when the GST was introduced …

He obviously does not support price controls. We know it is a bad option. We have got so many serious cost-of-living issues at the moment that we really wanted an inquiry to look into. Electricity prices are the biggest one. The average electricity price increase in Victoria is 25 per cent in the last year. The lowest is 22 per cent, the highest is 27 per cent and the average annual bill is now $1755, up from $1403 a year ago. The average gas price increase in Victoria is about 25 per cent of the average annual bill; it has increased by about 25 per cent for domestic and small business customers.

We know there are inflationary pressures from the government’s Big Build as well. They are pushing up the cost of scarce labour and materials and having a wider impact on the construction sector. I know it is having a wider impact on the ability to build homes for people, and even the federal Labor Treasurer is actually urging state governments to better coordinate projects and has said that state governments must make tough decisions to prevent inflation rising.

Another cost-of-living pressure, which I know the Greens have actually spoken out against, is Labor’s health tax. Many local health services have been impacted. In fact I was speaking to a GP in Greenvale the other day who is very concerned about the GP tax and the ability to stay open because of the government’s changes to the State Revenue Office requirements and the backdating of payroll tax for GP clinics. This health tax is another contribution to the cost-of-living crisis that is going on at the moment and will basically mean the end of bulk-billing.

We have seen all sorts of issues. I wanted to particularly comment on my electorate. As we saw today, rates in arrears have increased massively in growth areas. In the City of Hume in my electorate the rapidly growing mortgage belt suburbs of Craigieburn, Kalkallo and Mickleham have had a huge rise in arrears. The council’s quarterly financial update published last week revealed rates in arrears had risen from $27.87 million at the end of June to $37.94 million by mid-October. Weekly household incomes in Hume in my electorate are below the Victorian national medians, which makes the cost-of-living issue even more serious for people in my electorate. When inflation is pushed up through the government’s reckless spending, particularly on infrastructure, the Reserve Bank must act to contain inflation by putting up interest rates, and that is particularly heartbreaking for people in my electorate in growth areas who are really struggling at the moment. Price controls will do nothing for them, and I had really hoped that we could go to a wider cost-of-living inquiry to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:25): I rise to speak on this motion, which is about looking into the cost of living basically – the cost of food and that sort of thing. Not one week ago we stood here and the same people that are now proposing this voted against an opportunity to have free food injected into the system for the people who are in most need. These people say they are for the environment and they say they are for the hungry, and yet the Greens voted against an opportunity to help the environment and help the hungry. I am kind of stunned, but not, that this has come. Of all the hypocritical, politicised, populist, sanctimonious things I have seen, this is one of the best, but I will support it because I actually support looking into issues for the hungry. But I am just absolutely stunned that not even a week later here we are.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:26): I rise to speak to this motion which Dr Mansfield has moved requiring the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report by 14 ‍November 2024 – drag it out for a whole year – on the impacts and drivers of and solutions for food security in Victoria, including but not limited to the impact of food insecurity in Victoria on physical and mental health, poverty and hardship, and options available to lower the cost of food and improve access to affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food. Well, we all know this is about price capping and attacking those that supply food.

We are fortunate in this country to have exceptional food, provided very largely by the best farmers in the world, a fabulous and varied climate and soil and ecosystem conditions of nearly every type imaginable. I would certainly not argue against how important that is. Food is the staff of life. As Dr Mansfield’s motion so rightly identifies, it contributes directly to our physical and mental health. What concerns me in this motion, however, is part (2), the search for government solutions to lower the cost of food. Always if there is a problem, let us have government intervene and provide the solution – well, actually they make the problem worse.

We saw in the last sitting week the Greens, as Mr Bourman has just said, refuse to support the commercial processing of wild-shot game meat and its donation to food charities and those in need. Talk about hypocrisy on steroids. They are the classics. Clearly that measure, which would have lowered the cost of some food at least, was sacrificed for stronger ideological reasons, so do not talk to us about providing food for the needy.

Solutions to lower the cost of food are not spelt out here, but we know the Greens have form in this area. They do not believe in markets, and it would be no surprise to hear a call for price capping on food. That is what this is all about. The temptation to resort to price controls in challenging economic times is understandable, but unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed. For the same reasons as my colleague Mr Mulholland has said, there are sound economic arguments against this kind of interference in the market.

But this is not just a philosophical argument, and thankfully we do not have to rely on economic theory or political faith to understand it. We can look at the cold hard facts of history in this country and across the world. From the Soviet Union’s infamous bread lines – and actually I was in the USSR and saw the bread lines – to the recent economic collapse in Venezuela, price controls have consistently led to shortages, black markets and economic turmoil. Closer to home, in the 1970s Australia experienced the adverse effects of wage and price controls, which disrupted market equilibrium and led to unintended consequences.

But why do price controls fail so consistently? The answer lies in the fundamental principles of economics. When prices are artificially capped, the organic balance between supply and demand is disturbed. Producers find it unprofitable to sell at lower prices, leading to a decline in production and quality. Consumers facing shortages often end up paying more through black markets or alternative expensive sources. Politically, while price caps might seem an appealing quick fix, a populist move good for Twitter and good for the photo-op, they erode trust in our institutions. They imply that the government does not trust the market, a market comprising numerous suppliers, sellers and consumers and one that has shown remarkable efficiency and resilience over the years. In the Australian context our food market is a testament to this efficiency. With a plethora of suppliers and minimal barriers to entry, it has been self-regulating effectively. Over the long term we have seen a general trend of decreasing real prices of food. This trend is a testament to the market’s ability to provide the best outcome for the greatest number, especially for those less fortunate among us. For all those that do not know how farmers work, they are price takers not price makers, and they are subject to the weather and markets. And we produce the best products.

Like so much else of the Greens’ policy agenda it is naive and, worse still, will actively damage the poorest, yet another example of the luxury beliefs which the new left – the educated, wealthy, middle-class left – can afford to feel good advocating while the ultimate cost will fall on those with the lowest income. We cannot panic, and addressing current inflation by resorting to price controls would be just that – panic. The most hurried solutions are usually the worst. History has shown us that such measures are like applying a bandaid to a deep wound. They might cover the problem temporarily but do not heal the underlying issue.

In recent weeks we have heard full and convincing arguments against rent caps. In my view the arguments against food price caps, where the market is even more efficient, are indisputable. From an economic point of view it would be preferable to seek solutions which do not distort the market, namely increasing income, perhaps through tax or rate cuts – try that; you are always in favour of increasing taxes and rates – or through investment in agricultural technology or essential transport infrastructure. You opposed the inquiry into how we could do better road building in this state – you opposed that – which would actually make transport of food much more efficient and less costly. Doing all those things would boost productivity and reduce the prices. You are opposed to gas, which is vital in many of the food production areas. You are opposed to wood collection so people can actually keep warm. You are opposed to most things except a subsidy on electric scooters or whatever you were suggesting this morning. I mean, I cannot drive my electric scooter 20 kilometres to get to buy the milk, for heaven’s sake. I might get the horse out. I will have to get the horse and cart out if left to the Greens.

Harriet Shing: Get your sulky. Hitch up your sulky.

Bev McARTHUR: I will be hitching. And the Greens do absolutely nothing in this chamber to lower taxes. Never, ever have you voted to lower taxes. You never do anything to increase access to a variety of energy sources. You are opposed to most energy sources. You only want renewables. I am technology agnostic – I will have the lot – to increase supply and reduce the cost of energy.

Matthew Bach: And nuclear.

Bev McARTHUR: And nuclear. Let us have nuclear while we are on the job.

Harriet Shing: It’s a pre-cooked hamburger with nuclear, isn’t it, Bev?

Bev McARTHUR: Absolutely. Anyway, we will have any form of energy to increase supply, but no, you have just got one sort of idea. But you are very happy to provide a subsidy for EVs using brown coal. I mean, the only cars driving around on brown coal are electric vehicles. You are into handouts, not hands up, and you forever never want to remove the heavy hand of government, which slows down and impedes enterprise.

In conclusion, at this difficult economic juncture we should choose the course supported by historical evidence and economic rationale, not the feel-good, too-good-to-be-true solutions peddled by the Greens and their ideological allies. We must trust the inherent efficiency of our food market. It is not just a matter of economic policy but of upholding a principle that has been the bedrock of our prosperity: the principle of market freedom. Part 2 of Dr Mansfield’s motion invites an inquiry into options available to lower the cost of food et cetera. I would strongly suggest that the house does not need an inquiry to show how best to lower the cost of food and improve access to affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food. We know it already. It is the market which provides these things in abundance: consumer choice, lower prices and affordability for all. For this reason, while agreeing with Dr Mansfield on the centrality of good food in our lives to physical and mental health, I cannot believe an inquiry into government interference in the food market is either necessary or desirable.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:36): It does not seem to matter what the problem is, the Greens solution is always more government and socialism. I have been absolutely shocked over the last few sitting weeks to hear an actual discussion about price controls. Everywhere that they are implemented it ends up in misery.

I was very upset before hearing Dr Bach’s contribution, where he was apparently the first person in this Parliament to mention Mr Milei from Argentina, the new libertarian president of Argentina. Before he was elected I was watching him very closely and watching his supporters, and it just so happens that there is a very big Twitter account of an Argentinian man who happens to live in Melbourne. He was sending pictures of what was actually a Woolworths supermarket, of the tomatoes, and he was absolutely astounded, and so were his friends back home in Argentina, to see this massive variety of tomatoes in Australia at the supermarket. You can buy every single variety that you could imagine. Even I do not know some of these varieties. If you go in there and you want to buy potatoes, you are unlucky if you have got less than nine types of potatoes to choose from.

This is because we allow markets to operate, and the reason that his Argentinian friends found it so astounding and amazing is because in Argentina, to their detriment, they have had price controls for a very long time. Argentinians, if they can buy tomatoes at all, are very lucky to just get a single type of not very nice tomato. They might be rotten. Under many countries that have had price controls they are lucky if they can get an onion and a potato. It does conflict me somewhat, as I know that the end point of this misery of socialism is people will get so fed up once the poverty rate reaches around 40 ‍per cent that they will elect a libertarian president, so I know that there is at least some upside. There is at least some glimmer of hope, but I love my state and country so much I do not want to subject them to this. I am happy to hear the major parties, at least on this point, both oppose price controls. I was very worried when I heard the Greens talking about this. I was wondering whether Labor was going to join in on this insanity, but to their credit I heard Labor MPs talking about markets and all this sort of stuff.

But there is something that I would like to talk about as well around food security. People look at our current state in history and talk about it as if we are facing the end of the world and all this sort of thing. I would like to talk about a green revolution – not you guys, the actual green revolution, where we managed through synthetic fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, selective breeding and the power of science to undertake an increase in agricultural productivity the likes of which had never been seen in human history.

This has led to a point now in history where hunger throughout the world is declining at a rate that we have never seen. There is now less hunger in the world than ever, and a large part of that was driven, much to the consternation of the Greens and their supporters, by fossil fuels, through synthetic fertilisers, farm machinery like tractors – we have not seen any electric tractors in Australia yet – trucks, all of these things. It is all powered by diesel.

One of the big factors that is feeding into the current food prices is energy of course, and it has been mentioned by many MPs around here. We must do everything that we can to decrease energy costs, both in electricity, for the refrigeration at the supermarkets, and also through the production on the farm and transportation. Another thing is the lack of competition. I know the Greens do not like the major supermarkets much, but there is competition already. We have got Aldi; we have got Costco. I quite like Costco and shop there quite often; they have got some really good stuff. Aldi is not bad either; my wife quite likes Aldi. But a number of years ago there was a competitor to Aldi, another German company, Lidl, and Lidl was very interested in setting up operations in Australia. In fact they went so far as to buy land here. They were going to set up distribution warehouses and supermarkets and all this sort of stuff, and at the last minute they pulled the plug. And do you know why they pulled the plug? Because of all of the planning restrictions. They did not consider that they could successfully operate a business. Now, I am not blaming this on Victoria; this was Australia-wide. They thought that it was such a hostile environment they did not want to set up here.

If we want more competition, let us get rid some of these planning controls on setting up. In every other Costco that I have seen throughout the world they have got pharmacies in the Costco to allow cheaper medicines, and they supply cheaper medicine and everyday medicines that you can normally get at the pharmacy. Why don’t we do that in Australia? Of course it is because we have got these planning controls and protections that do not allow us to set up a pharmacy within a supermarket. I know a number of years ago Coles was looking at this as well – setting up pharmacies within the supermarket to compete with pharmacies. The Pharmacy Guild did not like that, and there was a big fight and it never happened.

Planning controls are limiting competition. We must look at everything that we can do to increase competition in the market, to increase the efficiency of markets by allowing them to operate and to decrease energy costs. I do not think that the Greens believe in any of that stuff. I think that they think that the magic power of government simply twisting a dial and changing the price of something will somehow fix things. But as we know and as the people of Argentina tell us, that simply does not work.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:43): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on Dr Mansfield’s motion in relation to a referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee about food security. Obviously whilst the motion is in its terms and on its face about food insecurity and what options there are to lower the cost of food, the debate has ranged widely into a number of areas. The real issues that many in our community are having with the cost of living have featured largely in this debate, and I want to echo many of the sentiments made by my colleagues on this side that we do understand and recognise that many, many of our constituents are absolutely feeling the pinch from the rising cost of living. The impact of the range of events that have contributed to price rises following through to many and various aspects of the everyday essentials that many in our community require to survive is being felt right across the board – whether that be food prices, whether that be mortgage and interest rates or whether that be rents. The lists obviously go on and on.

In the last month actually I have spent a bit of time visiting some of the emergency relief providers that exist in parts of the Southern Metropolitan Region. I had the great privilege of spending quite a bit of time at the Bayside Community Information and Support Service, also known as BayCISS, in Hampton East recently, talking with them about what they are seeing and the different needs of people who are walking through the front door of their rather well-worn facility, I think I will say – it is probably the polite way to say it – a facility they do make the most of, and you could see by the stacking of the shelves of food for those who desperately need it just how important these kinds of services are. Speaking both with the CEO of BayCISS and with the president of the board, who himself volunteers every week to drop food parcels out to those in the local community who need support, he has seen more and more demand, more and more drops to make, in the last 12, 18 months. I think what that demonstrates absolutely is that the consequences of the rising cost of living over the recent period are having a real effect on many in my community.

I also spent some time at Bayside Community Emergency Relief, who have facilities, a little room really, again overstuffed with goods, where every day volunteers come in and fill packages to go out to groups in the community who need support. The demand is not abating. Fortunately, the generosity is not abating either of those in the community who volunteer their time. The challenge we have of course is that we cannot expect that organisations like these are going to solve these problems. They are at one end of the spectrum, an important end and an end that we should support, but this problem is not one that we can expect people like the Bayside Community Information and Support Service or the Bayside Community Emergency Relief to solve. There are much broader issues that exist right across our economy that we need to deal with.

Whilst we absolutely understand the issues that are the consequences of cost-of-living impacts being felt across the community, I think it is worth taking a little bit of time, particularly because we have had new inflation data out today, to just have a look at some of the trends that we are seeing. Hopefully, for those doing it tough there might be signs of some improvement in some of the underlying issues that are confronting people with the cost of living. What we have seen in the September quarter figures that were released a month ago is that for annual food inflation, so the basket of goods related solely to food, there was a 4.8 per cent increase in the year to the end of September – a significant increase, but not as much as it was the quarter before, which was 7.5 per cent, and a long way from the eye-watering 9.2 per cent increase in food inflation that we saw in the 12 months to December last year.

That in no way diminishes the impact that rising prices are having on people, but I think what we are seeing, hopefully, are signs that the peak of particularly food inflation in the community may have passed, as have some of those factors that were big drivers of that curve. We will not know this for a while, but it is important. Even the data released today demonstrates that particularly for things like fresh fruit and vegetables there was only a 1 per cent annual increase in those price movements. But we still have a problem in areas like breads and cereals, which have gone up 8.5 per cent in the last year, and dairy and related products, which are up 7.8 per cent, so there are certainly particular elements of the basket of goods that people need to survive that are still growing despite the fact that price growth seems to have eased a little in certain areas.

In the context of debate on this issue, one that we could spend quite a lot of time going through, I think we do need to understand that the range of issues around food security do affect people in a number of ways. They are measured by both the availability question – do people have access to the various types of food that they want at appropriate prices? – and whether that access is on a stable footing, because it is no good having access to quality, nutritional food some of the time. It is something that you have got to see happening consistently so that people always know that food is there. That relates to things like the location of outlets, availability of food within stores – all the issues surrounding that‍ – and moving into dimensions like stability, making sure that there are not fluctuations in incomes and that we have things like wages policy and economic security derived from people being paid properly and we have secure labour market conditions so that they get a decent day’s pay, which is what they use to buy the essentials of life.

The Labor government also understands that, more broadly, cost of living is a significant issue. We do not as a state government hold all of the levers here. I mentioned at the start of my speech that we cannot expect those emergency relief providers to be doing all the heavy lifting. There are certainly other levers, many of which reside primarily at a Commonwealth level with respect to income support, family assistance payments – and that action is required. I think one of the interesting things to observe in today’s inflation data is the impact that the recent record increases in Commonwealth rent assistance have had on moderating the scale of rent increases in the CPI. Rent inflation was not as bad this quarter because of the increases in Commonwealth rent assistance. I think it tells us that those sorts of changes to transfer payments are an incredibly important part of the mix in making sure that people have food on the table and a roof over their head. I hope that our friends in Canberra continue to do what they have done so far, which has been to increase those payments and cash assistance.

There is a whole lot of other support that the state government has been providing in terms of cost-of-living relief. My colleague Mr Galea went through that in some detail. These are exceptionally important issues that we need to deal with and that we need to be listening to our communities about. I will leave my contribution there, as my time has expired.

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:53): As Mr Batchelor noted, in some respects this appears to be a benign motion: that we should look into the impact of food insecurity in Victoria on physical and mental health and poverty and hardship – okay. There is a very strange reference in point (2) to ‘culturally appropriate food’. I am not sure what that would mean. Previously I have seen Greens motions refer to access to culturally appropriate food as a human right. Culturally I am a bit Greek. There is not much Greek food in the parliamentary cafe. Is this impinging upon my human rights, I wonder. It is a very odd reference and one I simply do not understand.

It is a benign-looking motion, as Mr Batchelor correctly said, but over the last few weeks here in this place of course members of the Greens political party have been talking about rent freezes, price caps and other failed utopian socialist policies, so we know what they want with this motion. They want this to be a vehicle to then somehow find somebody who backs price controls. I am sure they would be able to find some people who – as Mr Batchelor quite rightly said and as Mr Mulholland said before him – are currently struggling so much, being crushed by cost-of-living increases, so we must never be flippant when we talk about the current cost-of-living crisis.

This is oftentimes what happens when we have wall-to-wall Labor governments. This is oftentimes what happens when we have spiralling inflation. Mr Limbrick made reference to the fact that in Argentina the sorts of policies that are openly pursued by the Greens have led to almost total economic collapse and then the election of someone who the left of politics utterly despises. It is interesting he makes that reference. I was almost thinking that it could be a fun thing in my final week to cross the floor and support this motion on the basis, as Mr Limbrick said, that these policies always then lead to long periods of centre-right government. I was thinking about Britain in the 1970s, when Milton Friedman and others in the New Liberal movement wrote what they wrote. It was initially most unpopular, but then of course Britons experienced the 1970s. They experienced the winter of discontent. They experienced price controls, and Maggie Thatcher, who had previously been a peripheral political figure, was elevated, because for some time she had been speaking about economic freedom. Now, like Mr Limbrick, I love my state and I love the people I represent far too much to submit them to a ridiculous charade whereby we seek to find some rationale for price controls.

I would also have my worries that no matter what a committee heard about prices, the Greens would argue that that committee had backed price controls. I was alongside Mr Batchelor – Mr Batchelor was the deputy chair, and a very good deputy chair too, of the committee that recently sat looking into very serious matters: our housing affordability crisis and our renting crisis. We heard from so many experts, for example, from the Grattan Institute and the Centre for Independent Studies – who do not always agree, by the way – that one of the worst things we could do would be to put in place a rent cap. I do not follow many Greens members on social media, but nonetheless I have been alerted to the fact – I was yesterday – that the Greens have been peddling an outright lie on social media, and I was not very surprised by that. They said, and I think the Greens political party still says on social media, ‘It’s time for a rent freeze,’ and they say that this is a recommendation of the report. It is not. It is blatantly not. The Greens political party sought to stack out our hearings, but they could not find one expert – not one – from the left, from the right or from any point on the political spectrum who would back rent controls, and yet the Greens are peddling an outright lie.

Now, perhaps with enough pressure the Greens may take it down, just like that odious woman – what is her name, Mehreen Faruqi – has been forced to take down that hideous picture that she took posing in front of a placard with somebody throwing a Star of David into a bin saying that Jewish people are rubbish and the world needs to be cleansed of them. It used to be a high political crime, I remember, certainly for anybody on the right, to pose alongside a placard. There was a dreadful placard at one rally I remember that Mr Abbott went to. I think it said ‘Ditch the witch’. That was an awful slur against Ms Gillard, our best former prime minister, in my view. I think she did some good things when she was prime minister, but what I am referring to is her amazing and outstanding contribution to our country since leaving office. If only all miserable ghosts like Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull would just shut up and do something useful like Ms Gillard has been doing. I am not aware that Mr Abbott knew that that placard was there, but Mehreen Faruqi did when she posted this picture online. Now she has taken it down – okay. We deserve more than that. We deserve an apology. Other people are calling for her to go. But this – although it is nowhere near, of course, as odious and insulting as that – does demonstrate the type of political movement we are dealing with and the predictable actions of the Greens political party should this seemingly benign motion get up and should the Greens therefore be able to argue, as they have argued with rents, that there are sensible people recommending price controls. Of course there are none.

It used to be alleged that those on the right were stupider than those on the left. I remember John Stuart Mill once said that conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. Well, over recent times the Greens political party has cemented itself as the stupid party in this state. The Greens political party, the leadership of which loves to lecture others, especially members of the Liberal Party, about populism, now embraces every obviously stupid populist concern going around, whether it is rent freezes or whether it is price caps. I do not need to recapitulate the excellent commentary of others about the devastating and entirely predictable outcomes of price caps. We need to treat the broad issues here incredibly seriously.

Mr Batchelor was right that so many of our constituents are suffering dreadfully right now. I agree with Mr Limbrick: the obvious answer when it comes to prices is more competition – greater freedom, not less. And it has been noted that many Australians, many Victorians, appear to be rusted on in terms of their shopping behaviour to one of the big two supermarkets. Well, I am very pleased now that Aldi is expanding. I regularly shop at Aldi. As I said to Ms Shing, my charming German au pair very much enjoys the pickled sausages that I can purchase for her from Aldi. They are much cheaper than similar products from either Coles or Woolworths. There are other supermarkets we should allow into the market. I refer members back to Mr Limbrick’s excellent commentary about planning as well. Our planning restrictions, and this is obviously something that Minister Blandthorn knows much about, are far too restrictive, far too onerous.

There are things we could do, coming directly to the motion, to ultimately reduce prices and to provide more culturally appropriate food. Referring back to Jule, my charming German au pair, she finds far more culturally appropriate food at Aldi than at either of the main supermarkets, and it is quite cheap. She is able to access all manner of interesting German treats because of greater freedom, because of greater competition in the market, because of more players. I would love to see more players. Soon I will be moving to the UK, and there I will be able to go to Lidl. Are they Germans as well? I think they are. If I have got more money that month, I could go to Marks & Spencer. They are fabulous but a bit pricey. There is Asda as well; they are great. We have an incredibly restrictive marketplace. We have incredibly restrictive planning provisions.

We know the outcome the Greens want. Sir Humphrey Appleby said, ‘Never establish an inquiry if you don’t know the outcome.’ The outcome the Greens will post on social media is that, ‘Here’s a committee of Parliament saying that we should have price controls’, just like they lied and said, ‘Here’s a committee of Parliament saying that we should have a rent freeze.’ We all know the right answer to this question: it is ditch the wall-to-wall Labor governments, drive down interest rates, cancel the Suburban Rail Loop and allow far greater freedom in the marketplace.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:03): It actually has been a very entertaining debate today. I have noticed that the government crossbenchers have been sitting on the fence and they have had a foot either side.

Georgie Crozier: Splinters.

Melina BATH: And I think potentially, as Ms Crozier just said, they have splinters from sitting on the fence. But apparently now they have gone back to their original conversation with the Greens and will be supporting the Greens on this motion. We have been very clear. I know you are surprised at that, Dr Bach, but apparently now they are supporting this motion for a referral. It is motion 242 in Dr Mansfield’s name. We would have liked to have seen and would have fully supported motion 267 standing in Dr Ratnam’s name. That is a fulsome and wholesome and deep dive into the cost-of-living issues and those affected individuals and families doing it very tough. We would have supported that.

Let me talk about my interest. It has been a wideranging debate, so I will not cover back over the very good contributions of my Liberal colleagues, but as a National I would like to talk about the country, the regions. First of all, the Greens are very good at putting out, as we have heard, social media posts, but indeed their website talks about the profiteering supermarkets of Coles and Woolworths and the evilness of those.

I did a bit of a Google search, and I have also been to towns in my electorate. I have looked at Omeo, and I have been to the supermarket in Omeo. Omeo, funnily enough, does not have a large supermarket. It does not have a Coles or a Woolworths, it has a local family-owned FoodWorks. Indeed Orbost, again a beautiful town that I know very well, has a FoodWorks and an IGA. Also, the median income of people in Orbost is just under $800 per week. They have two supermarkets, not part of that big duopoly – those big evil dudes, according to the Greens – and an average income of $800 per week. Let us go to the good people in Brunswick. I think it was actually Brunswick East that I looked up. The median weekly income in Brunswick households is $2100, and they have three supermarkets. They have Woolworths, one of those duopolies. They also have Cheaper Buy Miles and a local IGA. Now, I put that on record for when the Greens start to look at options.

In this motion 242 from Dr Mansfield we certainly agree with part (1), because it mimics part (1) of the other motion, the other referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee about the rising cost pressures facing Victoria, their physical and mental health impacts and economic stress. We want to see a deep dive into those. But the second part, ‘options available to lower the cost of food’, of course is code for price caps on essential items. We have seen again on their website talk about how all around the world governments are taking a range of actions, such as putting price caps on essentials. Now, if you are putting price caps on essentials, you are also going to punish those people that live in rural and regional Victoria, not only because of the fact that it depends on the supermarket – and these supermarkets operate on very thin margins with locally owned, family-based businesses, and they are employing local people – but because you are often in the region where primary producers are making, growing, producing and trying to sell the product that forms part of that essential food item.

Let us just look at just one factor in terms of that energy supply and food supply chain. If you are looking at, for example, dairying, there have been rising input costs in dairying over the last year. I have contacted a local dairy farmer who said that their monthly electricity bill at the same time last year was $2800 a month and this year was up to $4000 for that month. So if you are going to put a cap on essential services and you are going to put a cap on essential food, it will be on milk and, I am assuming, the ingredients that go into our daily lives, our daily food sources. You are going to put a cap on farmers’ profits, yet their input costs are going up and up and up.

We also know that in relation to the Victorian Farmers Federation and investing in regional Victoria in their report in 2022 the total annual transport costs in the ag industry was $5.8 billion a year, with supply chain costs often accounting for the single largest cost in agricultural production. And what have we got here? We have got the Labor government refusing to fund maintenance on roads to the extent it should be. They are cutting costs on maintenance of roads, and we see fuel prices and wear and tear on getting that product from farm gate to market. Also we see the Essential Services Commission talking about the increase in electricity prices.

So this Greens motion that has come up is short-sighted. We need to go to motion 267, which has a deep dive into the real issues. We will certainly not be supporting this. We note that the government has consequently taken the splinters from whence they have come and jumped over to support this, but the Nationals will not be supporting this motion.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.