Food and Grocery Code Review Recommends Mandatory Code

FOOD AND GROCERY CODE REVIEW RECOMMENDS MANDATORY CODE FOR SUPERMARKETS

After a long process, the Food and Grocery Code Review was completed in June 2024.. CLICK HERE TO SEE DR EMERSONS REPORT

The government response to the Emerson Report was published on the same day – agreeing to a mandatory Code of Conduct for supermarkets when dealing with suppliers. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE GOVERMENT RESPONSE

So then Dr Emerson sent away and drafted up a mandatory Code of Conduct. IT IS A DRAFT SET OF REGULATIONS – CLICK HERE TO SEE. Among other things, it includes an excellent definition of “retribution” which could be incorporated with a few changes into a proposed MEAT POULTRY CODE. ACGC has responded to this ARGUING THAT THE CODE NEEDS TO EXTEND TO FARMERS (click here to see), and the NFF Horticuture Council reckons the thing is much too weak.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ACGC RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CODE

So why should we bother, when this is all about supermarkets and processors?

Because this report goes to Treasury, and we need to educate them about meat poultry supply chains. It is Treasury that would enact a meat poultry Code of Conduct.
Because we will want to pick up our own mandatory Code and we have to make sure the two Codes fit together
Because the more noise we make in ALL forums about a mandatory Code for meat poultry, the more government will listen
Because we are getting closer to a meat poultry mandatory Code and need to keep the pressure up.

Take a look at the proposed definition of “retribution” and contact the office with your comments about whether including this in a meat poultry Code woudl be worthehile:

8 Meaning of retribution
(1) Retribution, by a large grocery business against a supplier, includes (without
limitation) any of the following actions:
(a) delisting a grocery product of the supplier;
(b) requiring the supplier to make excessive contributions towards promotional
or marketing costs for the supplier’s grocery product;
(c) rejecting fresh produce from the supplier;
(d) changing the location of the supplier’s grocery product in store or online to
the detriment of the supplier;
(e) delaying restocking the supplier’s grocery product in store or online;
(f) varying, terminating, or electing not to renew an agreement with the
supplier for the supply of an own label product;
(g) reducing the volume of stock ordered from the supplier;
(h) varying, terminating, or electing not to renew a grocery supply agreement
with the supplier.
(2) However, an action is not retribution if:
(a) the action is taken for genuine commercial reasons; and
(b) the action is not taken because the supplier exercised, or indicated that it
will or may exercise, a right under this Code against the large grocery
business; and
(c) the action is not taken because the supplier was, or may have been, able to
exercise a right under this Code against the large grocery business.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, taking an action as punishment for a matter
mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) or (c) is not a genuine commercial reason.
(4) A large grocery business that wishes to rely on subsection (2) in relation to an
action bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter.

JAN 2024 UPDATE – GOVERNMENT’S FOOD AND GROCERY CODE REVIEW

In the Jan newsletter we mentioned we had a seat for live consultation with former Labor frontbencher and PhD economist Dr Craig Emerson at the Food and Grocery Code review. ACGC developed a submission on behalf of growers – remembering that it’s not only the growers that are being “got at” by supermarkets; but because they are proxies for the supermarkets, processors are being “got at” as well.

SEE THE SUBMISSION HERE

Latest Information

View All

CHANGES TO NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES – TIME FOR ACTION

NATIONAL FEDERAL ANIMAL WELFARE GUIDELINES are the legal guidelines which every grower in Australia has to meet. These Guidelines may be captured in legislation on a state by state basis – most states do, some states modify them slightly. Importantly, the RSPCA, ACMF and other key groups sit on the panel which develops the National […]

RSPCA RISKS ENTIRE MEAT POULTRY INDUSTRY

The RSPCA is choosing to risk the health and safety of the entire meat poultry industry right across Australia with its current Accreditation (and proposed future replacement, Certification) scheme in three ways: 1. The Current Scheme ACGC has discovered that RSPCA is so intent on litter health that farmers are having to rotary hoe their […]

Local Avian Influenza Outbreak Sparks Review of Biosecurity Agreement

In the wake of the H7 “local” Avian Influenza outbreaks in Vic, NSW and ACT, there has been a rush of bureaucratic survey-taking, and requests for input and opinion, all hoping that meat poultry growers tell government departments how wonderfully they handled the outbreak. Sadly, they are receiving the truth: the good, the bad and […]