One Nation submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.
These regulations are misleading because it allows most businesses to refuse cash. It only requires cash acceptance at supermarkets and petrol stations for purchases under $500 between 7 am and 9 pm, while providing further exemptions for rural towns lacking banks or ATMs.
Cash is vital for cultural customs (such as Lunar New Year and wedding traditions) and essential for the quarter of Australians who are digitally excluded or affected during internet outages, whereby ALL Australians have to rely on cash.
Labor, Liberals and the Nationals are all pushing a cashless agenda because they receive substantial political donations from the big four banks.
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: One Nation has submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025. These regulations are dishonestly promoted as mandating cash; yet, in a display of rank deceit, these regulations allow every business in the country to not accept cash, unless they’re a supermarket or a petrol station, for amounts under $500, and then only from 7 am to 9 pm—outside that, to not take cash. There’s a further exemption for rural towns without a bank or ATM, which, these days, is most towns. Businesses do not have to take cash.
In the last parliament, the Liberals and Labor tried to ban cash, and were defeated when One Nation and Labor’s ethnic branches were opposed. Labor is now trying to sneak in a cash ban through regulation. Chinese and Vietnamese give cash during Lunar New Year. Greeks pin cash gifts to wedding dresses. Labor is wiping out all these beautiful customs—gone! Not only is cash cultural for many Australians; a quarter of our people are digitally excluded, yet the Canberra bubble never understands. When the internet goes down, that figure is 100 per cent excluded from cash. Without cash what are people to do in an internet outage? Is the uniparty of the Liberals, Labor and Nationals beholden to the banks because it accepts huge donations from banks? In 2022-23, Westpac donated $193,000; the Commonwealth Bank, $174,000; ANZ, $91,000; and NAB, $138,000.
I questioned ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb on how the regulator is standing up for everyday Australians against corporate giants.
I congratulated the ACCC on their major court win against Coles for misleading price discounts. While 14 products were selected by the judge as a sample set, the deceptive conduct ruling applies across more than 200 cases.
A decision on similar allegations against Woolworths is currently reserved in the courts.
Supermarkets are backed by massive global institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, with endless legal resources. The ACCC assured me they are not daunted and point to recent actions against Amazon and Microsoft.
The ACCC highlighted the urgent need for new Unfair Trading Practices laws to crack down on sneaky business tactics that current laws miss, such as subscription traps you can’t cancel and manipulative mobile interfaces.
I thanked Ms Cass-Gottlieb for her concise, upfront, and comprehensive answers.
We need strong, clear enforcement to protect Aussie families and small businesses from predatory corporate conduct.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I’ll start with the ACCC and the court case against Coles for misleading conduct. Congratulations.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a great result, and one which Coles richly deserved. I note you only listed 14 products in your prosecution when you identified over 200 cases of offering misleading discounts. What was the logic behind that choice?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We took action in relation to the 250. That choice of the 14 was by the judge in order to focus the proceedings on a sample set of products. But the conclusions the judge has reached—which is that 13 of that sample set are misleading and deceptive—and criteria will be applied across the full 250. It was a manner for the judge to more efficiently conduct the proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A similar case for Woolies is still before the courts. Is there a timeframe on that case?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The judgement is reserved, and we will await the judge’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: These supermarkets have corporations on their share register with trillions in funds invested: BlackRock, Vanguard, First State, State Street et cetera. They’re able to muster huge legal resources for Coles and Woolies. Are you appropriately resourced to conduct these cases for maximum benefit? I mean, you had a victory.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, we prioritise the matters that are most significant in terms of consumer harm—cost of living and aspects of that nature—and cost of doing business. We are well aware in the case of this sector that we need to look not only at consumers but at suppliers, including Australian farmers. So we do prioritise. In addition, in the last budget we received a $67 million uplift specifically to assist with enforcement in both competition matters and consumer protection matters, recognising the importance of setting clear standards and having clear guidance across the business community on the way in which the law applies.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are many factors involved in which cases you take on. Ms
Cass-Gottlieb: There are. We have to take account of a range of factors in order to determine where we can give most benefit to the public through our strong enforcement program.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re not daunted by the deep pockets of BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street? They own controlling interests in many Australian brands.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: No, we are not daunted. You will have seen other litigation that we commenced in the past year, including on allegations relating to Microsoft’s conduct with the rollout of integration of Copilot in the Microsoft 365 program, and only a week ago we commenced action against Amazon in relation to its online marketplace sales of products that we allege are unsafe. We are confident and dedicated to take action where it’s most important for the public benefit, and that includes against very major domestic and global companies.
Senator ROBERTS: These fines being awarded go into consolidated revenue. You don’t get to keep the money in your budget. Is that correct?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you get to deduct your costs in the prosecution before handing over the proceeds?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Not—
Senator ROBERTS: Would that incentivise you to—
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: If we win, we will recover our costs from the other side. But, if we don’t, we will also pay their costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Your February 2026 opening statement contained this passage: The ACCC continues to observe concerning business conduct that, while not necessarily breaching current consumer laws, nevertheless causes significant harm to consumers and small businesses … Can you expand on that comment, please.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This was particularly reflecting the importance of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill that has passed the lower house and is before a committee in the Senate currently. The importance of that bill is that there is some conduct for which at this time we consider there is not sufficient coverage under the Australian Consumer Law to protect consumers or to protect small businesses. It includes conduct that is not expressly misleading and deceptive or expressly unconscionable as that has been interpreted. It is important to introduce the amendment that this bill will bring, which is to create a general principle prohibition upon unfair trading practices. The sorts of ones we have considered, which are the ones we were thinking about there, are, say, when an interface on a mobile phone is nudging you to make a purchase or confusing you with a significant amount of information which means you can’t focus on what really matters to you or a subscription that you find practically impossible to cancel. These sorts of examples need amendment to be covered by our law. This bill which the government has introduced is very important, and we welcome it and are looking forward to its passage so that we can then conduct investigations and move through a compliance and enforcement program with it.
Senator ROBERTS: That completes my questioning for the ACCC. I want to comment and put on the record that I appreciate Ms Cass-Gottlieb’s succinctness and comprehensiveness. It’s very clear; it’s wonderful.
Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.
In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!
Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.
We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.
When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.
The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.
One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?
Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.
Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.
Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?
Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?
Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy.
Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?
Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.
Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?
Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—
Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?
Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?
Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?
Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.
CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?
CHAIR: If they’re very quick.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.
Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?
Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.
One Nation agrees with the sentiment behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolworths have morphed from trusted Australian grocery stores into greedy, shareholder-driven machines that have rightfully become the most disliked brands in the country.
While we support the goal of reining them in, we cannot support this specific bill for several reasons:
✔️ Free enterprise is doing what it does best — punishing greed. We see Amazon partnering with Harris Farm to deliver fresh food and independent retailers like IGA and Supabarn are treating customers like they matter.
✔️ We don’t need more poorly worded regulations. What we need is the ACCC and the Labor government to grow a spine and enforce the laws we already have. The supermarkets are already using deceptive “specials” to manipulate prices and the fines they receive are a pittance.
✔️ If we’re going to talk about price gouging, let’s talk about the government. Between $70 cigarette packets, fuel excise, and skyrocketing energy bills, the government is the biggest price gouger of all.
This bill won’t help the Aussie family at the checkout.
Instead, it will simply create a goldmine for lawyers. And with their deep pockets, Coles and Woolworths will be the ones who will walk away winning while the customers lose.
One Nation supports the “principle” of stopping corporate greed, however we completely oppose this flawed implementation.
STOP making new, ineffective laws and start enforcing the ones that actually hold these giant corporations to account.
Transcript
One Nation agrees with the motivation behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolies have far too much market power and they’re exercising that power in a way that benefits their shareholders, not their customers. With BlackRock Inc. holding influential positions in the share registers of these once fine companies, rapacious greed was always going to be the outcome. The accent here, though, is on the fundamental mistake Coles and Woolies are making, which is to exercise market power for the benefit of their shareholders, not their customers. Customers have been given notice. Coles and Woolies, once trusted and respected names, are now the two most disliked brand names in the Australian corporate scene. What a fall from grace!
This abuse of market power has caused customers to migrate to new options, so the market’s coming to the rescue. In a stunning rebuke to Coles and Woolworths, Amazon has now paired with Harris Farm to add fresh food to Amazon. Amazon now offers same-day and next-day delivery of Harris Farm products—including meat, dairy, eggs and fresh produce—to over 80 suburbs in Sydney’s inner city, inner west and surrounds. This will use specialised insulated chilled packaging via Amazon Flex for freshness. Harris Farm already had its own online store and partnered with Uber Direct for quick store based same-day delivery prior to this happening. That’s the beauty of free enterprise competition. If one retailer turns a cynical and greedy operation, this creates an opportunity for someone else. And Coles and Woolies will be done.
If you haven’t been into your local Harris Farm, IGA or Supabarn lately, I suggest you do that because Coles and Woolies have put their prices up much more than the inflation rate would justify, and the independent retailers have not. The price difference now is almost negligible, and you still get served by human beings. Fancy that—a human being serving! A retailer who values the customers wants to treat them as human—what a refreshing change! The 25c paper bags don’t fall apart, but the Coles and Woolies’ paper-thin rubbish bags faint with fright when confronted with an escalator or steps on the way back to your car. We’ve all had this happen.
The existing regulations need to be policed before we add new ones, especially ones as poorly worded as this bill. Seriously, this bill could mean anything. The ACCC conducted an inquiry into deceptive price advertising by Coles and Woolies and found they’re using specials to put the price of a product up, then down and then up again in a way that leaves the public confused as to the real price. And the public is learning from this. They know that Coles and Woolies are not focused on customers; they’re focused on their BlackRock Inc. investors. They exploit the confusion to put the prices up further. They were fined a pittance and they’re still doing it. Surely we have laws already to bring these companies to heel. This Labor government needs to grow a bloody spine and just enforce the laws. You’re not enforcing the laws, and then you’re quite often wanting more. How much have Coles and Woolies donated to the ALP in recent years?
While we are on the subject of price gouging, will this bill cover price gouging by the government? Seventy dollars for a packet of cigarettes is price gouging. Fuel excise, the fees on passports, energy bills, insurance, strata fees—these are price gouging One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation. This bill won’t do anything except create a lawyers’ picnic that Coles and Woolies will win. It will be a lawyers’ picnic, and the customers will lose.
There’s nothing worse than spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car for it to breakdown after its driven out of the dealership. Unfortunately, lots of Australians are left without any help when this happens.
I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about what they’re doing to protect Australians who end up in this situation.
The protections in place aren’t good enough. One Nation believes every Australian should be able to get an easy refund if their new car breaks down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’m pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that the cost of living is important and that competition impacts the cost of living. I’d like to understand a little bit about the motor vehicle industry and your involvement in it. There seems to be some systematic level of ‘lemon’ cars being sold by some manufacturers. If they feel there are no consequences for selling dodgy products, won’t that have a significant impact on competition in the motor vehicle industry?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This is an important issue that the ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators are very engaged in. In terms of a range of new vehicles, they are each subject to consumer guarantees so that there is an underpinning of fitness for purpose and that they meet the qualities and specifications on which they’ve been sold. The ACCC is seeking, and the government has announced, reforms to the law such that if there are contraventions of a guarantee, including on a motor vehicle, the ACCC can take action not solely to require giving a consumer the remedy, which currently is an action that can be taken—
Senator ROBERTS: ACCC can do that?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We can. However, consumers find it very difficult to do so. We find it is a poor way to get actual compliance. The law reform proposes that that will actually be a breach of our act. Where you see repeated indications of this, that we can seek significant penalties as well as consumer remediation—it is reported to us and to state and territory regulators that this is a problem particularly a problem for low-income families and consumers, and it is a problem we seek to take action on with the states and territories. Being able to take action for a serious and systemic breach and to get significant penalties will be the best deterrence.
Senator ROBERTS: In other words, you will strengthen your provisions and add provisions to it.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. That is what we are seeking.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically because you’re aware there are systemic quality issues among some manufacturers.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly.
Mr Greiss: We’ve also taken, over the years, quite a number of actions for those types of systemic issues against a number of car manufacturers—Ford and Mazda, just to name two. They are very intensive exercises, very resource intensive. As the chair just pointed out, the ability to penalise for failure to abide by the consumer guarantees will be a very important reform.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a comprehensive answer; thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yW_7YV0IeJE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:00:002025-01-02 14:54:51Lemon Car Dealers Let Off the Hook
