Australia

Woolworths and Coles are big companies that plan to stay around for a long time. Could not one or both of them commit to a policy of truthful advertising and stand by it long enough to establish a reputation that customers could trust?

This hasn’t happened – with supermarkets, or telecoms, or banks or anywhere else, at least in the absence of comprehensive public shaming driven by government action. But why not?

One explanation, apparent from the evidence in the Coles case, is that no one wants to be the first to move. Given the short-term pressure that decision-makers are under, it’s easy to imagine that any proposal of this kind will be put in the too-hard basket and left there.

Another possibility is that distrust is so widespread that no single company can break the pattern. The era of neoliberalism has certainly strengthened this distrust. There was a time when used car dealers were famously untrustworthy but financial institutions were pillars of probity. Today, when buying a second-hand car, the biggest risk is not that the speedo will be wound back but that you will be sold a loan with deceptively high interest. In this context, you just assume everyone is lying.

Last week, the German-owned supermarket chain took another step into the Australian mainstream, trialling a grocery delivery service with DoorDash in Canberra ahead of a potential expansion around the country.

Aldi has long resisted offering deliveries, given the service would make a basket of groceries more expensive, undercutting its price advantage over Coles and Woolworths.

[…]

Aldi tried a similar service with a third-party delivery provider in the UK, but it didn’t last. The chain is also hesitant to build its own delivery system because that would add significant costs to the business, which would either result in higher grocery prices or less profits for its German owners.

Prof Gary Mortimer, a retail expert at the Queensland University of Technology, says Aldi has had to respond to the delivery trend.

“Online food and groceries now represent anywhere between 10 to 12% of supermarket revenue,” Mortimer says.

“As Aldi enters into that space, even using a third-party provider like DoorDash, Coles and Woolworths will be looking at how they go about defending that market share.”

Retail expert Bronwyn Thompson says Aldi considers the competitive advantage of a delivery service to be worth the additional expense.

“If they’re trying to be more of a ‘whole shop’ destination, this is part of that,” Thompson says.

Guardian Australia has spoken with several young workers and families who feel their teenagers were pressured to join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) in their first days on the job, including a 14-year-old who was recruited in mid-2024 on her first shift at Hungry Jack’s.

[…]

Lachlan, said he got a text from the union around the time his daughter Sarah was signed up, but he did not believe that was sufficient. Lachlan is a union member himself, but in his view the SDA organiser’s manner left no room for his daughter to say no.

He said it was not the right approach for a 14-year-old first-time worker: “I support the unions, but I don’t support predatory tactics.”

He said Sarah is now a member of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU), an upstart union that formed in 2016 in opposition to the SDA.

[…]

In the mid-2010s, a series of reports in the Age detailed how part-time workers at McDonald’s, Coles and other retail employers were being underpaid due to deals negotiated by the union, leading to accusations of a “cosy” relationship between the SDA and employers. “[The SDA] has always bargained in the best interests of workers within the industrial relations framework at the time,” the union said at the time.

A number of SDA-brokered deals between workers and employers came under scrutiny at the time. Its 2015 deal with Coles, for example, had to be remedied after the Fair Work Commission decided it failed the “Better-Off Overall Test” (BOOT) because a cut in penalty rates had left a substantial number of workers worse off.

Well said:

This week, it was revealed that despite the Australian government’s world-first teen social media ban, around seven in 10 children remain on major platforms. What’s more, the eSafety report also shows that there has been no notable change in cyberbullying or image-based abuse reported by children.

For a policy that was touted as the solution to keeping kids safe from harm online, this is a damning indictment of the ban’s effectiveness.

Who could possibly have predicted that this wasn’t going to work? Well, lots of people.

Countless experts were ignored, including those in the fields of digital wellbeing, digital rights advocacy, youth mental health and more than 140 academics and 20 Australian civil society organisations. Even the eSafety commissioner herself had doubts, and internally the government was aware of a lack of evidence to support the ban before they passed the legislation anyway.

[…]

Ultimately, the fundamental problem with age-gating is that it fails to address any of the root problems with our current online landscape – that is, the extractive business models and pernicious design features of mainstream tech companies. We all exist in a highly commercialised information ecosystem, rife with algorithmically amplified misinformation, scams, harmful content and AI slop. Children are particularly vulnerable to these issues but the reality is that it impacts everyone, even if you’re blissfully absent from Facebook or Instagram.

Not only is the social media ban working just as predicted (that is to say, it’s not); what other, more effective alternatives might the Australian government have pursued while spending the better part of two years chasing this red herring? What if, instead of trying and failing to kick kids off social media, we focused our attention on the reasons why being online is so often detrimental in the first place?

If this is the first time you’re hearing about it, you’re not alone. Despite the significance of the changes, these latest rules are the result of industry codes, which differs to regular legislation. These codes don’t go through parliament. Instead, they’re developed by the tech industry and registered by the eSafety commissioner in a process called co-regulation. On one hand, this can be good: it can allow for more flexibility or technology-specific detail that is less appropriate in legislation. On the other: it creates risk of industry co-option, and by bypassing parliamentary process, can give an enormous amount of power to an unelected official (in this case, the eSafety commissioner).

Greens senator David Shoebridge has called the implications of age verification for search engines “staggering” and noted that “these proposals don’t have to go through an elected parliament and we can’t vote them down no matter how significant concerns are. That combined with lack of public input is a serious issue.”

The age verification policy development process has been littered with blunders that make a mockery of meaningful consultation and evidence-based policy development. It is particularly striking that these codes were drafted before the completion of the government’s $6.5m trial into the efficacy of age assurance. Later, the trial’s preliminary findings conceded the technology is not guaranteed to be effective, and noted “concerning evidence” that some technology providers were seeking to collect too much personal information.

While a government-commissioned survey on the teen social media ban found overwhelming support in theory, it also found most people have no idea what that means in practice, with many uncomfortable with the methods it might entail – such as biometric face scanning or handing over your credit card details. And while there was much fanfare around the social media ban, it’s not clear there is a social licence to extend this approach to search engines and beyond. It seems many people may be unpleasantly surprised.

If this is the first time you’re hearing about it, you’re not alone. Despite the significance of the changes, these latest rules are the result of industry codes, which differs to regular legislation. These codes don’t go through parliament. Instead, they’re developed by the tech industry and registered by the eSafety commissioner in a process called co-regulation. On one hand, this can be good: it can allow for more flexibility or technology-specific detail that is less appropriate in legislation. On the other: it creates risk of industry co-option, and by bypassing parliamentary process, can give an enormous amount of power to an unelected official (in this case, the eSafety commissioner).

Greens senator David Shoebridge has called the implications of age verification for search engines “staggering” and noted that “these proposals don’t have to go through an elected parliament and we can’t vote them down no matter how significant concerns are. That combined with lack of public input is a serious issue.”

The age verification policy development process has been littered with blunders that make a mockery of meaningful consultation and evidence-based policy development. It is particularly striking that these codes were drafted before the completion of the government’s $6.5m trial into the efficacy of age assurance. Later, the trial’s preliminary findings conceded the technology is not guaranteed to be effective, and noted “concerning evidence” that some technology providers were seeking to collect too much personal information.

While a government-commissioned survey on the teen social media ban found overwhelming support in theory, it also found most people have no idea what that means in practice, with many uncomfortable with the methods it might entail – such as biometric face scanning or handing over your credit card details. And while there was much fanfare around the social media ban, it’s not clear there is a social licence to extend this approach to search engines and beyond. It seems many people may be unpleasantly surprised.

The ban will prohibit very large retailers from charging prices that are excessive when compared to the cost of the supply plus a reasonable margin.

The new ban on excessive pricing of groceries for consumers in the Food and Grocery Code is now law and will come into effect on 1 July 2026.

This will fix a key gap in Australia’s competition and consumer protection framework and provide a safeguard for consumers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found in its Supermarkets inquiry that Coles and Woolworths have limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price and that their dominance of the sector seems set to continue.

If Coles and Woolworths breach these new price gouging laws, the maximum penalty per contravention is the greater of: $10 million; three times the value of the benefit derived, or, if that value cannot be determined; 10 per cent of the company’s turnover during the preceding 12 months.

The ACCC will be responsible for policing the excessive pricing regime.

Competition led to Coles shortening the amount of time it established a higher price before it was discounted — down to four weeks under its internal policies known as "guardrails".

The guardrails were designed to ensure shoppers weren't misled by prices rising and falling too quickly.

But Coles was desperate to move quicker because it was watching arch-rival Woolworths do exactly that and feared being left behind.

During the trial, Coles admitted it had broken its guardrails on pricing for at least two products — Arnotts Shapes biscuits and the Nature's Gift dog food.

It also downplayed the significance, saying it was due to mistakes and errors — not any "planned" campaign.

The ACCC hit back, saying 62 of the 245 products were sold at the higher price for less than 28 days before being discounted, and it wasn't just one or two "outliers."

It would appear the economic volatility of recent years is not going to ease in the foreseeable future, so it’s concerning we’re not getting any better at protecting the food security of particularly vulnerable Australians. Rather, despite a number of short-term measures, such as one-off payments and rebates, a significant number of households continue to struggle to meet their fundamental needs.

Australia’s housing affordability crisis appears to be supercharging food insecurity in a way we haven’t seen before with nearly 1 in 2 rental households reporting as food insecure. It is entirely unacceptable that people across Australia are facing scenarios where food and shelter have become mutually exclusive.

Overall food insecurity levels have not improved on 2024, with certain groups being observably worse off. Shockingly, nearly 7 in 10 (67%) of households that have a person with a disability or health issue now experience food insecurity, with three quarters of these severely affected. Also alarming is that a similar proportion (68%) of single-parent households are now food insecure. 

Er… Nothing.

Entry into Australia's supermarket sector isn't so simple, according to retail expert Lisa Asher from the University of Sydney.

Aldi entered the market in 2001 and it had taken the company 24 years to get to 600 stores, which was a market share of slightly less than 10 per cent, she said.

"So this idea that it's easy to get market share when Aldi is one of the most innovative grocery retailing models that we have at the moment in the world," she said.

[…]

Ms Asher [highlighted] that divesture powers existed in places such as the United Kingdom and United States.

Without these powers in Australia, she said retailers such as Coles and Woolworths had minimal competition.

In 2000, Franklins had about 12.3 per cent of Australia's market share.

Now, no single retailer outside of Coles and Woolworths has more than 8 per cent.

"There are no disincentives for entrenching market concentration and dominance," she said.

The focus should be less on large foreign chains entering Australia's grocery market, and more about empowering local entrepreneurship, she said.