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?

  1. 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.
  2. Because we will want to pick up our own mandatory Code and we have to make sure the two Codes fit together
  3. Because the more noise we make in ALL forums about a mandatory Code for meat poultry, the more government will listen
  4. 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

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 […]

read more

ACGC Comments on National Competition Policy Principles and Plan

You might recall the “old” National Competition Policy and Principles. That’s the highy theoretical, economist-driven, philosophical document that resulted in removal of the Meat Poultry growers’ Countervailing power legislation in all states, resulting in grower not even having a full ability to use delegates to negotiate thier comtacts for them.  Even the ACCC law changes […]

read more

ACGC Comments on Proposed New/Updated National Water Plan

The old National Water Plan, published in the early 2000’s, brought us (eventually) the highly contested Murray Darling Basin Plan State goverments getting involved in your dam storages a trading scheme for water that works poorly during drought….. and so on. NOW the government wants to impose a NEW National Water Plan. It appears that […]

read more