Australia’s new law on supermarket “price gouging” (also known as excessive pricing) starts on July 1 2026.

It prohibits any very large supermarket with revenue exceeding A$30 billion – currently only Coles and Woolworths – from charging a price for a grocery product that is significantly excessive compared to the cost of supply, plus a reasonable margin.

The law is an addition to the existing mandatory Food and Grocery Code. It will be enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Significant financial penalties apply for any breach.

The law comes into effect at a time when the major supermarkets are under scrutiny for their pricing practices.

Recently Coles was found to have misled consumers under its “Down Down” promotion, where it advertised prices as reduced, even though the prices were higher than originally advertised. Significant penalties are expected. A similar action by the ACCC against Woolworths is awaiting judgment.

Why was the new law introduced?

The new law fulfils the Labor government’s pre-election promise to ban supermarket price gouging as part of its commitment to address cost of living pressures.

The law was introduced following evidence of rising grocery prices.

Last year, the ACCC’s supermarkets inquiry found Coles and Woolworths have significant market share – more than two thirds of Australian grocery sales. They are also among the most profitable supermarket businesses globally and face little competition.

Although the ACCC did not recommend an excessive pricing law, it anticipated that greater competition would reduce profit margins in the sector.

Other inquiries into supermarket pricing, including by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Senate Select Committee into supermarket prices, recommended an excessive pricing law. Separate parliamentary inquiries in Queensland and South Australia also pointed to the need for tighter regulation of the sector.

Australia’s law goes further than other countries

Australia’s law is unique. Countries that have introduced a dedicated price gouging law have done so primarily for a limited time in cases of emergency, like the COVID pandemic, when products (such as face masks) are scarce and the risk of price gouging is high.

The European Union uses its competition law to prohibit large companies from abusing their dominance to harm competition, including by charging excessive prices.

However, excessive pricing is not expressly part of Australia’s competition law.

Instead, Australia chose to include excessive pricing in the Grocery Code. This approach confines excessive pricing only to large supermarkets, rather than to other sectors of the economy.

Even so, it is expected Australia will rely on competition cases from the EU and the United Kingdom in applying the new law. However, even in the EU and UK, the cases are not extensive and the principles around what constitutes an excessive price are not fully settled.

How will the law apply in practice?

The new law does not define when prices are significantly excessive (or provide examples), nor does it specify what is a reasonable profit margin.

In the EU, the overarching test of whether a price is excessive is if the price is significantly above what would be charged in a competitive market.

However, the test will be difficult to apply because the nature of a supermarket business involves costs that are spread across a huge portfolio of products. So it is hard to allocate costs and profits to a single product. Supermarkets also deal with hundreds of suppliers, with prices and costs changing frequently.

Therefore, courts and regulators look to other means for determining whether a price is excessive. This could be the price charged by other companies for a similar product, or the price charged for the product in different places or at different times.

The new law places an emphasis on whether a supermarket is making a “reasonable” profit margin. However, determining the profit margin of a business is notoriously difficult and what is “reasonable” is open to debate and proof.

All this means the new law will be difficult to apply, as noted in Treasury’s consultation paper.

What can consumers expect from the new law?

In practice, the new law is likely to be used only infrequently, given the difficulties of proof. Large supermarkets will also have an incentive to defend any excessive pricing claim brought by the ACCC.

The law is not a silver bullet for achieving fair grocery prices or for addressing cost of living pressures. Consumers need to manage their expectations of what it can realistically achieve on its own.

It was always intended that the excessive pricing law would be part of a broader armoury of consumer measures. This includes:

• the new merger law, which requires major supermarkets to notify the ACCC of certain acquisitions
• funding the consumer group CHOICE to provide greater transparency on consumer prices, and
• funding for the ACCC to address misleading conduct by supermarkets, including increased funding in the recent May budget.

The new law does put Coles and Woolworths on notice that their pricing practices are being watched.

Will these July 1 changes transform the market dominance of Woolworths and Coles? It’s unlikely. But having new commercial incentives for large supermarkets to review their pricing practices can only be positive for consumers.

Ray Steinwall, Adjunct Professor, UNSW Law, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post The new price gouging law starts on July 1. Can it rein in Coles and Woolworths? first appeared on The Australia Today.

The man alleged he was unfairly treated after a workplace incident in which a colleague told him, in blunt terms, to cover up his “plumber’s crack” — a reference to his exposed lower back while working a casual shift.

Fair Work Commission Deputy President Alan Colman dismissed the application in a decision published last week, saying there was no evidence the worker had actually been dismissed at all.

“Anyone wanting insight into the phenomenon of unmeritorious claims in the Fair Work Commission may wish to consider [this case],” Deputy President Colman said, warning that such applications add to the Commission’s “burgeoning workload”.

The Commission heard that the worker was upset after the comment, saying his “feelings were hurt”, and subsequently filed an unfair dismissal claim seeking compensation from Woolworths.

However, Woolworths told the Commission the employee had continued to pick up shifts after lodging the claim, and later simply stopped turning up for work. The company maintained that there had been no termination or dismissal process at any point.

Deputy President Colman found the claim was effectively speculative and not grounded in any actual dismissal, noting it appeared to be an attempt to pursue a financial settlement rather than a genuine workplace dispute.

“This case had nothing to do with dismissal,” he said, describing it as a claim made in pursuit of compensation “that would spare Woolworths the nuisance of defending it”.

The worker also failed to attend a scheduled telephone hearing, which the Commission noted further undermined the application. It was also revealed that this was his fifth application in two years.

The ruling comes amid growing pressure on Australia’s workplace tribunal system. Fair Work Commission President Justice Adam Hatcher has previously warned that filings are rising sharply, with close to 55,000 cases expected in a financial year — up around 70 per cent over three years.

He has attributed part of the increase to the use of artificial intelligence tools assisting applicants in preparing claims, many of which may lack proper legal grounding.

Deputy President Colman said cases like this are unfair not only to employers who must respond to baseless allegations but also to other workers waiting for legitimate disputes to be heard.

“It is unfair to respondents who have no case to answer. It is unfair to applicants with cases of substance waiting their turn to be heard,” he said, warning that there is currently little deterrent to filing speculative claims.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Woolies worker’s complaint backfires as Fair Work judge blasts AI generated case first appeared on The Australia Today.

“I have encouraged him to come to Australia as well. We need more competition in the supermarket sector,” Albanese told reporters, signalling that the government sees the Emirati-based retail giant as a potential disruptor to the Coles-Woolworths duopoly.

For Yusuff Ali, 69, the idea of expanding into Australia is just the latest chapter in a remarkable migrant success story.

Born in a small village in Kerala, India, Yusuff Ali left for Abu Dhabi in 1973 to help his uncle run a modest distribution business. Within decades, he transformed that venture into LuLu Group International — a global retail empire with more than 260 hypermarkets and shopping malls across the Gulf, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Today, LuLu employs more than 70,000 people from 46 nations and generates annual revenues exceeding US$8 billion.

Yusuff Ali’s hypermarkets are known for their scale and cultural sensitivity, stocking everything from Indian spices and British tea to Filipino snacks and halal-certified Australian meat. That diversity of products has made LuLu a shopping destination for millions of expatriates in the Gulf and could resonate strongly with Australia’s multicultural consumers.

Albanese himself noted that the company already sources directly from Australian farmers, including mango and orange growers and meat exporters supplying halal-certified products to Gulf markets.

Unlike many global tycoons, Yusuff Ali is recognised as much for his philanthropy as for his business empire. He has contributed to hospitals, schools, and disaster relief efforts across India and the Gulf, and has been honoured with prestigious awards including the UAE’s highest civilian award, Bahrain’s Wessam Al Bahrain, the Queen’s Award for Enterprise, and India’s Padma Shri.

In 2024, Yusuff Ali listed LuLu Retail on the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange, raising US$1.7 billion in one of the Gulf’s biggest retail IPOs. His investments also include the Waldorf Astoria in Scotland, London’s Great Scotland Yard Hotel, and a minority stake in Cochin International Airport, the world’s first fully solar-powered airport.

For Australia, Yusuff Ali’s entry could mean more than just another supermarket chain. His arrival would inject long-awaited competition into a sector that has been dominated by two players for decades. Aldi’s arrival in 2001 reshaped grocery shopping habits, and industry experts believe LuLu could spark a similar disruption.

Albanese’s invitation also comes as a new free trade agreement with the UAE removes tariffs on nearly all Australian exports and opens the door to billions of dollars in Gulf investment through the Emirates’ vast sovereign wealth funds.

For Yusuff Ali, who began life in modest surroundings in Kerala before rising to become one of the Gulf’s most respected business leaders, expansion into Australia would be both a business move and a symbolic milestone. His story reflects the resilience and ambition of the migrant journey, creating opportunities not just for himself but for tens of thousands of employees worldwide.

If LuLu does set up shop in Australia, local shoppers may soon find themselves with a new choice at the checkout — one shaped by the determination of a young man from India who became the Gulf’s retail king.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Albanese invites Indian-origin UAE billionaire to bring LuLu Hypermarkets to Australia first appeared on The Australia Today.

At a time most people are trying to cut their weekly grocery bills, Australia’s supermarket giants have been hit with legal action for allegedly misleading shoppers over the price of hundreds of products.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on Monday announced it was launching separate actions in the Federal Court against the largest and second-largest grocery chains, Woolworths and Coles.

The ACCC alleges the two have systematically misled consumers over price discounts on hundreds of everyday products. The ACCC chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, said the alleged wrongdoing involved the sales of “tens of millions” of products, reaping “significant” extra revenue for the businesses.

Woolworths’ list of 266 items included Arnott’s Tim Tams, Dolmio sauces, Doritos salsa, Friskies cat food, Kellogg’s cereal and Stayfree pads, while the 245 products allegedly targeted by Coles included Arnott’s Shapes biscuits, Band-Aids, Bega cheese, Cadbury chocolates and Libra tampons.

These were not one-off pricing errors. The ACCC alleges the misleading conduct took place over 20 months as part of the Woolworths “Prices Dropped” and the Coles “Down, Down” promotional campaigns.

How shoppers were allegedly misled

The ACCC alleges on repeated occasions the supermarkets’ strategy was to temporarily raise the price of goods before applying the so-called discount.

The approach meant that although the boldly placed, coloured discount tickets showed a reduction from the previous “regular” price of the products, the discounted price was still higher than the price before the temporary price rise.

The ACCC gave the example of how consumers were allegedly misled over savings on a 370-gram family pack of Oreo original biscuits.

From at least January 1 2021 until November 27 2022, Woolworths offered the Oreos for sale at a regular price of $3.50 on a pre-existing “Prices Dropped” promotion. Then, on November 28 2022, the price was increased to $5.00 for 22 days.

On December 20 2022, the product was placed on a “Prices Dropped” promotion with the tickets showing a “Prices Dropped” price of $4.50 and a “was” price of $5.00. The “Prices Dropped” price of $4.50 was in fact 29% higher than the product’s previous regular price of $3.50.

What is the legal claim?

The ACCC does not regulate prices. Instead, it acts on breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including making false or misleading claims about the prices of goods and services.

While it was true that Woolworths and Coles reduced the shelf price of the products, the ACCC alleges they didn’t reveal that the starting price had recently been increased. It is this conduct of promoting a discount from a recently inflated price that the ACCC says would mislead consumers.

The ACCC’s argument is the “ordinary and reasonable” consumer expects a discount to be genuine, not coming off a recently inflated price. The net effect of that strategy is just an increased price.

Other cases

This is not the first time the ACCC has pursued such a claim. In 2020, the commission successfully went after online retailer Kogan for engaging in a similar strategy.

Kogan ran an online promotion advertising to consumers that they could use the code TAXTIME to reduce prices by 10% at the checkout. The court found the ads conveyed false or misleading representations because Kogan had increased the prices of more than 600 of its products immediately before the promotion by at least 10% per cent.

A similar strategy of offering discounts that were not genuinely delivered has also been raised against insurer IAG. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleges IAG did not deliver promised loyalty discounts to customers because their premiums were increased before the discount was applied by more than the amount of the discount.

IAG is now facing action for civil penalties from the regulator (ASIC) and a class action by affected customers.

Potential penalties Woolies and Coles might face

The ACCC is seeking fines (civil penalties) which could be significant. In the Kogan case, the Federal Court awarded penalties of $350,000.

But since November 2022, potential penalties have risen. These increases are designed to ensure companies do not treat the possibility of being penalised as a cost of doing business that is outweighed (and disregarded) by the benefits that might come from contraventions of the law.

These new penalty amounts work on a sliding scale: they start at $50 million but can go up to potentially 30% of a company’s turnover during the period of the contravening conduct.

This amount is per contravention. This means, if the ACCC’s allegations of misleading conduct are established, each time the supermarkets misled consumers, they would technically be liable to pay the full penalty amount.

That said, in such a case, a court would likely take a more holistic approach in setting the penalty, taking several matters into account including: the extent of the conduct, its impact on consumers, the gain to the business and whether the conduct was deliberate.

Fittingly, the ACCC is also asking the supermarkets to make a contribution to charities that provide food to people in need.

Notably, in May Qantas agreed with the ACCC to pay a penalty of $100 million, subject to court approval and in addition to compensating customers, for misleading conduct in selling tickets for flights it had already cancelled.

Jeannie Marie Paterson, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The post Woolworths and Coles sued by ACCC for allegedly misleading shoppers over the price of more than 500 products first appeared on The Australia Today.

Think of some of the world’s biggest brands: Nike, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Apple. With what do you associate them? Are they positive associations? Now consider, do you trust them?

Brand trust is a measure of how customers feel about a brand in terms of how well the brand delivers on its promises. Trust is an important measure for any organisation, large or small.

Whether or not customers trust a brand can be the difference between choosing that brand’s products or services over another.

In Australia, Woolworths held the title of our most trusted brand for three and a half years. But recent cost-of-living pressures have put supermarkets in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

Roy Morgan Research’s most recent trust rankings show Woolworths has slipped to number two, handing its crown to hardware behemoth Bunnings.

It’s clear that trust is fragile and can be quickly squandered when brands lose touch with those they serve.

So what makes us trust a brand in the first place? And why do we trust some more than others?

What makes us trust a brand?

According to customer experience management firm Qualtrics, brand trust is

the confidence that customers have in a brand’s ability to deliver on what it promises. As a brand consistently meets the expectations it has set in the minds of customers, trust in that brand grows.

There are many ways to go about measuring brand trust. A typical first step is to ask lots of people what they think, collating their general opinions on product quality and the brand’s customer service experience.

This can be strengthened with more quantifiable elements, including:

• online ratings and reviews
• social media “sentiment” (positive, negative or neutral)
• corporate social responsibility activities
• philanthropic efforts
• customer data security and privacy.

Some surveys go even deeper, asking respondents to consider a brand’s vision and mission, its approaches to sustainability and worker standards, and how honest its advertising appears.

Is this a real and useful metric?

The qualitative methodology used by Roy Morgan to determine what Australian consumers think about 1,000 brands has been administered over two decades, so the data can be reliably compared across time.

On measures of both trust and distrust, it asks respondents which brands they trust and why. This approach is useful because it tells us which elements factor into brand trust judgements.

Customer responses about the survey’s most recent winner, Bunnings, show that customer service, product range, value-for-money pricing and generous returns policies are the key drivers of strong trust in its brand.

Here are some examples:

Great customer service. Love their welcoming staff. Whether it’s nuts and bolts or a new toilet seat, they have it all, value for money.

Great products and price and have a no quibble refund policy.

Great stock range, help is there if you need it and it is my go-to for my gardening and tool needs. Really convenient trading hours, and their return policy is good.

In addition to trust, there are three other metrics commonly used to assess brand performance:

• brand equity – the commercial or social value of consumer perceptions of a brand
• brand loyalty – consumer willingness to consistently choose one brand over others regardless of price or competitor’s efforts
• brand affinity – the emotional connection and common values between a brand and its customers.

However, trust is becoming a disproportionately important metric as consumers demand that companies provide increased transparency and exhibit greater care for their customers, not just their shareholders.

Why do Australians trust retailers so much?

Of Australia’s top ten most trusted brands, seven are retailers – Bunnings, Woolworths, Aldi, Coles, Kmart, Myer and Big W.

This stands in contrast with the United States, where the most trusted brands are predominantly from the healthcare sector.

So why do retail brands dominate our trust rankings?

They certainly aren’t small local businesses. Our retail sector is highly concentrated, dominated by a few giant retail brands.

We have only two major department stores (David Jones and Myer), three major discount department stores (Big W, Target and Kmart) and a supermarket “duopoly” (Coles and Woolworths).

It’s most likely then that these brands have been enjoying leftover goodwill from the pandemic.

As Australia closed down to tackle COVID-19, the retail sector, and in particular the grocery sector, was credited with enabling customers to safely access food and household goods.

Compared with many other countries, we did not see a predominance of empty shelves across Australia. Retailers in this country stepped up – implementing or improving their online shopping capabilities and ensuring physical stores followed health guidelines and protocols.

Now, with the pandemic behind us and in an environment of high inflation, the big two supermarkets face growing distrust and a public inquiry.

Lessons from the losers

After two high profile disasters, Optus finds itself the most distrusted brand in Australia.

Its companions in the “most distrusted” group include social media brands Meta (Facebook), TikTok and X.

Qantas, Medibank Private, Newscorp, Nestle and Amazon also made the top 10.

The main reason consumers distrust brands is for a perceived failure to live up to their promises and responsibilities.

For example, worker conditions at multinational firm Amazon are seen by some consumers as a reflection of questionable business practices.

Other brands may have earned a reputation for failing to deliver the basics, like when chronic flight delays and cancellations plagued many Qantas customers.

Lessons from the winners

On the flip side, consumers have rewarded budget-friendly retailers with increased trust in the most recent rankings.

Aldi, Kmart and Bunnings have improved their standing as trusted brands, no doubt in part because they have helped many Australian consumers deal with tight household budgets.

As discretionary consumer spending continues to tighten, we may see a more permanent consumer shopping shift towards value for money brands and discounters.

Trust is a fragile thing to maintain once earned. As we move through 2024, Australian companies must pay close attention to their most important asset – strong relationships with those they serve.

Louise Grimmer, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora needs fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon. Buy an annual ‘The Australia Today Membership’ to support independent journalism and get special benefits.

The post Bunnings has toppled Woolworths as Australia’s most ‘trusted’ brand first appeared on The Australia Today.

Mr Banducci said in a sattement:

“It has been a privilege to be a member of the Woolies team and one I have never taken for granted.”

Woolworths Group chair Scott Perkins said in a statement to the Australian share market.

“I would like to thank Brad for his outstanding leadership and contribution. Brad has led a remarkable turnaround and transformation of the Group.”

Following an extensive international search process supported by external consultants, Woolworths has also announced the appointment of the incoming and 13th Managing Director and Group CEO of Woolworths Group.

The supermarket giant said in a statement that it is promoting Amanda Bardwell to the top job, after an “extensive international search process”.

Ms Bardwell has worked for the Woolworths for 23 years and is currently heading up its online grocery, e-commerce and loyalty sub-division, WooliesX.

Mr Perkins said the incoming CEo is a “proven leader.”

“Amanda is highly respected throughout the organisation and I know, like Brad, will live our purpose and work hard to achieve Woolworths Group’s full potential.” 

In her new role Ms Bardwell will get $2.15million a year, slightly less than the base salary of Mr Banducci who was on $2.6million. She will also receive generous bonus incentives, with the former CEO pocketing $8.65million in total remuneration last year.

Earlier, ABC’s Four Corners aired footage of the departing CEO Brad Banducci walking out of an interview in which he criticised former competition commission chairman Rod Sims before asking for his comments to be struck from the record. When Mr Banducci’s request was refused, he attempted to end the interview.

Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), said in a statement that Mr Banducci’s decision to ban Australia Day in Woolworths stores in January 2024 was woke.

“The resignation of Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci is a warning to woke corporates and the elite director class to stop disrespecting mainstream values and running down Australia.”

Woolworths overall results show a massive loss of $781 million, after the company booked a $NZ1.6 billion ($1.5 billion) writedown in the value of its New Zealand grocery business and a $209 million reduction in the value of a stake in ASX-listed alcohol and hotels spin-off Endeavour.

But excluding those one-offs, Woolworths announced a 2.5 per cent rise in half-year profit to $929 million. That was based on a 4.4 per cent increase in revenue compared to the same period a year earlier.

Further, Woolworths results show its Australian food sales increased 5.4 per cent in the first half, and that pre-tax profits in that same division jumped 9.9 per cent.

While, WooliesX, headed by incoming chief executive Ms Bardwell, first-half total sales jumped 27.5 per cent. The division’s pre-tax profits increased 132.3 per cent to $168 million, with its profit margin climbing 1.86 percentage points to 4.1 per cent.

Mr Banducci will retire in September 2024, after almost nine years in the top job.

Woolworths and Coles are facing a Greens-led Senate inquiry with allegations of price gouging and unfair practices with suppliers. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has suggested that supermarkets conduct could be “an abuse of market power.”

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora needs fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon. Buy an annual ‘The Australia Today Membership’ to support independent journalism and get special benefits.

The post Supermarket giant Woolworths CEO resigns amidst massive $781 million loss first appeared on The Australia Today.

Calling the situation “out of sync,” PM Albanese emphasised the responsibility of these chains to ensure fair pricing for consumers. This statement comes as a review into the supermarkets’ code of conduct gains momentum.

Former Labor minister Craig Emerson has been appointed by the federal government to lead this crucial review. The focus will be on examining the disparity between the prices paid to farmers for produce and the amounts charged to customers at the checkout.

“At a time when people are doing it tough, the big supermarket chains have been making record profits,”

Mr Albanese noted, highlighting the need for a balance between corporate profitability and consumer fairness.

During the 2022/23 financial year, Coles reported profits exceeding $1 billion, while Woolworths registered a staggering $1.6 billion.

In light of these figures, PM Albanese urged major chains to pass on cost reductions on grocery items to their customers. The current voluntary and industry-led code of conduct might be mandated to ensure compliance, as suggested by PM.

Allan Fels, former chair of the consumer watchdog, echoed these concerns, advocating for a code of conduct to ensure farmers receive fair prices from supermarkets. He pointed out instances where supermarkets were quick to increase prices but slow to reduce them, citing the example of lamb prices.

This review will run concurrently with a Senate inquiry into supermarket prices, set to hold hearings in February and release a final report in May.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor stressed the need for greater competitiveness in the supermarket sector to ensure lower prices for consumers.

“At a time like this, when real disposable incomes are being hit hard, we need to support any sensible policy that leads to lower prices for essential items,”

he stated on ABC Radio.

The government’s stance puts supermarket giants on notice, signalling a potential shift towards more stringent regulations to protect both consumers and producers in the Australian grocery market. As families across the nation feel the pinch of rising living costs, these developments could mark a significant step towards more equitable pricing in the retail food sector.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora needs fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon. Buy an annual ‘The Australia Today Membership’ to support independent journalism and get special benefits.

The post Prime Minister Albanese Calls for Fair Pricing as Supermarkets Report Record Profits Amid Rising Grocery Costs first appeared on The Australia Today.

Robert Hortle, Commissioner of Wage Inspectorate Victoria, said in a statement:

“Victorians expect businesses with significant payroll resources to get this stuff right. They’d be disappointed to see a household name facing underpayment allegations. Long service leave is a long standing, valued workplace entitlement in Victoria, and the Wage Inspectorate is here to ensure it is paid when it is owed.”

Mr Hortle added:

“The amount of underpayment never tells the full story in long service leave matters. It’s hard to put a value on the leave workers were initially denied. Time that could have been spent with family, travelling or just relaxing.”

It is alleged that between 2018 and 2021, Woolworths Group contravened section 9(2) of Victoria’s Long Service Leave Act 2018 by failing to pay more than $960,000 in long service leave entitlements to 1,199 former employees.

During the same period, Woolstar Pty. Limited is alleged to have also contravened section 9(2) by failing to pay more than $45,000 in long service leave entitlements to 36 former employees.

The maximum penalty for each offence by a body corporate is 60 penalty units for each day during which the offences continue ($9,671.40 from July 2018 to June 2019, $9,913.20 from July 2019 to June 2021 and $10,904.40 from July 2021 to June 2022).

The matter is listed for mention in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 6 September 2023.

In addition to the matter against Woolworths and Woolstar, the Wage Inspectorate has cases against Optus, CommSec and BankWest before the court alleging breaches of Victoria’s long service leave laws.

In 2021, a Wage Inspectorate investigation found over 4,000 former Coles workers in Victoria were underpaid almost $700,000 in long service leave entitlements.

The Wage Inspectorate will not provide further details while the matter is before the court.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora needs fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon. Buy an annual ‘The Australia Today Membership’ to support independent journalism and get special benefits.

The post Woolworths accused of allegedly underpaying $1 million in long service leave to 1235 former employees first appeared on The Australia Today.