I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, on whose traditional lands we meet, and pay respect to all First Nations people here today.
Economist John Crawford started his public service career in the 1940s working under Nugget Coombs in the Department of Post‑War Reconstruction (Miller 2007, Uhr 2006).
After taking a strong interest in agriculture, tariffs and trade in his academic studies, Crawford became the director of the Department’s rural and regional planning divisions (Powell & Macintyre 2015).
Those planning divisions evolved into the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which would serve as the Commonwealth agency responsible for examining proposals for settling returned soldiers on productive farms.
With Crawford as the inaugural director, the Bureau would assess ‘the suitability of climate and soil, the adequacy of the farm areas and likely economic viability of the farms’ (Powell & Macintyre 2015).
It was a significant task because no one wanted to repeat the costly mistakes of the 1920s where nearly 12,000 soldier settlers abandoned their farms within a few years.
But Crawford saw greater potential for the Bureau.
He proposed broader functions such as studies on the outlook for primary industries, land use investigations and research to promote certain commodities (Powell & Macintyre 2015).
The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crawford and its broader functions transferred to the Department of Commerce and Agriculture in 1946.
Through various departmental leadership roles, Crawford went on to be one of the great public administrators of his generation.
John Crawford is the only economist ever to be recognised as the Australian of the Year, winning the award in 1981 for his work as ‘one of the foremost architects of Australia’s post‑war growth’ (Australian of the Year n.d) (I can’t help noting in passing that we’re probably due for another economist to take the top gong).
Meanwhile, the Bureau has broadened its economic knowledge base and has added names to its title over the years as it merged with other research agencies (ABARES n.d).
Some 80 years and dozens of outlook conferences later, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences continues to uphold John Crawford’s best traditions.
In his words, providing a ‘fact‑finding service’ and providing ‘the material and critical analyses of problems with which policy can be better made’ (Crawford 1952).
Recognising the ongoing importance of your work, our government announced additional funding in last year’s Budget to help:
- improve regional data sources
- collect information on low‑emissions technology, and
- examine the effect of emissions policies on agriculture and regions (DAFF 2023).
Concentrating on competition in agriculture
As a kid who attended an agricultural high school, I’ve always been fascinated by farming. But competition is my primary reason for being here today.
Since at least the days of Adam Smith, economists have spruiked the virtues of competition (Leigh 2022).
Industries with plenty of competitors tend to deliver better prices, more choices and stronger productivity growth.
Uncompetitive markets tend to deliver higher prices, lower wages, less choice, and less innovation. A lack of competition leads to problems that can be difficult to undo.
Today, I will talk about one problem that has only become worse in the recent decades: market concentration.
When I took on the competition portfolio, a friend issued me a challenge: ‘How many Australian industries can you name that are not dominated by a few big firms?’ (Leigh 2024a).
It’s a tough ask.
Applying the rule of thumb that a market is concentrated if the largest 4 firms control one‑third or more, research by Adam Triggs and I found over half of the industries in the Australian economy are concentrated markets (Leigh & Triggs 2016).
Indeed, many people asked to take on my friend’s challenge might well answer ‘farming’. And it turns out that for many commodities – though not all – farming is quite competitive.
A straightforward source of market concentration data are the annual industry estimates produced by IBIS World. They estimate the market share of the top 4 firms for several hundred industries.
A round‑up of IBIS World data on the market share of the largest 4 companies in parts of the agricultural supply chain shows farmers are often caught in the middle.
Upstream, farmers deal with concentrated markets for their inputs.
The largest 4 companies in fertiliser manufacturing in Australia have a combined market share of 62 per cent (IBIS World 2024a).
The largest 4 in hardware and building supplies retailing control about 49 per cent of the market (IBIS World 2024b).
And the market share for garden supplies retailing is about 33 per cent for the largest 4 firms (IBIS World 2024c).
Downstream, farmers deal with concentrated markets for processing, freight and retailing.
According to IBIS World industry reports, there is concentration in fruit and vegetable processing, with the largest 4 companies holding about 34 per cent of the market (IBIS World 2023).
For meat processing, market share of the largest 4 companies is 44 per cent with JBS Australia, Thomas Food International and Teys Australia being the dominant players (IBIS World 2024d).
For rail freight transport, the 4 largest including Aurizon and Pacific ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ have a combined 64 per cent market share (IBIS World 2024e).
For shipping freight transport in Australia, the market share of 2 companies – ANL and Maersk – amounts to about 85 per cent (IBIS World 2024f).
When it comes to supermarkets and grocery stores in Australia, it is well documented that Coles and Woolworths account for two‑thirds of the market (IBIS World 2024g).
These figures show that the agricultural supply chain is highly concentrated at the national level.
However, for many farmers, their options are even more limited than these figures suggest, as transport costs and risk of spoilage further limit the commercially viable options available to them.
To further illustrate the point about farmers being caught in the middle, today I will draw on case studies from a series of reports where concerns have been raised about market concentration harming farmers.
And I will finish by outlining our actions to improve competition laws, to revitalise competition policy in Australia and to make the economy more productive.
Digging in
First, we should never underestimate the importance and efficiency gains of farm equipment and machinery.
Historian James Burke argues the entire modern world is the result of the plough (Harford 2017).
Increasing farm productivity meant communities could build up a surplus of food, people could settle in one place and everyone’s job no longer had to be finding food (Leigh 2024b).
Knowing where your next meal was coming from allowed craftspeople to specialise, it allowed trade to flourish, and it allowed people to think about improving the world around them.
Any list of top Australian inventions typically includes Richard Bowyer Smith and his brother Clarence’s invention in 1876 of the stump‑jump plough (Dictionary of Biography n.d).
These days, we are no longer talking about the humble plough.
We are talking about a billion‑dollar farm machinery industry consisting of hi‑tech harvesters, tractors and seeding machinery (DAFF 2022).
John Deere has more software development engineers than mechanical design engineers (Patel 2021).
For farmers, machinery represents a significant capital investment involving upfront and ongoing costs (ACCC 2021).
But many Australian farmers feel they have no genuine choice or ability to shop around.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s 2021 market study found farm machinery markets are concentrated at the manufacturer and dealership levels (ACCC 2021).
Compared to car manufacturers, agricultural machinery makers have greater ability to leverage their market share in new sales to reduce competition in the market for servicing, repairs and parts.
Warranties restrict the purchaser to a single authorised dealer for servicing and repairs.
And tech restrictions mean independent repairers or farmers can’t access the parts, manuals and diagnostic software they need to carry out repairs.
In short, farmers have few choices when buying machinery but even less choice when servicing or repairing that equipment.
The Productivity Commission further examined difficulties accessing repair data as part of the right to repair inquiry (PC 2021).
It agreed restrictions harm farmers through higher repair prices, reduced access and choice, and greater financial risks from repair delays.
The Productivity Commission recommended the government intervene by introducing a repair supplies obligation on agricultural machinery.
This would require manufacturers to provide access to repair information and diagnostic software tools to machinery owners and independent repairers on fair and reasonable commercial terms.
As you may know, I have advocated for the need for access to service and repair information over many years.
In July 2022, I launched Australia’s first right to repair law, the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme.
The government is currently monitoring how this scheme is operating for the benefit of independent repairers and consumers.
Extending right to repair to other sectors, such as agriculture, is a good thing for the economy, businesses and consumers.
I am pleased there have been negotiations between Australian farmers and the farm machinery industry to consider putting in place a voluntary right to repair arrangements for the sector.
I encourage parties to continue those negotiations as voluntary arrangements are a great opportunity to foster collaboration and flexibility and can often lead to innovative and effective outcomes.
Seeds of doubt
Seeds are the next input I want to cover.
The US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service examined the seed sector as part of its paper on concentration and competition in agribusiness (MacDonald J et al. 2023).
The 2023 paper found the seed sector ‘has become highly integrated with agricultural chemicals and more concentrated, with fewer and larger firms dominating supply’.
Using 2021 annual report data, it said Bayer, ChemChina’s Syngenta Group, Corteva and BASF were the biggest players in global sales for seeds and agricultural chemicals.
The Economic Research Service found seed prices rose significantly as markets became more concentrated but said the evidence was mixed on the influence of other factors.
Between 1990 and 2020, the average seed price went up by 270 per cent and the average price for genetically modified varieties rose 463 per cent (MacDonald J et al. 2023).
Despite the higher seed costs, the paper said it could be argued that genetically modified varieties resulted in ‘significant productivity gains to farmers’.
It also said higher seed prices may have supported research and development with the number of patents for new crop varieties doubling compared to earlier decades.
Still, there are not many other industries where the price of a key input has grown fivefold in thirty years.
Mergers have changed the global seed and farm chemical industry in recent years, and questions remain about what it means for prices and innovation in the long term.
Sour competition grapes
Wine grapes arrived with the first fleet in 1788 as cuttings collected en route by Captain Arthur Phillip.
They were planted at Sydney Cove but withered and died without producing any fruit.
Which is why it’s called the Rum Rebellion, not the Chardonnay Coup.
Nevertheless, a fledging wine industry struggled to its feet through booms and busts of the 1800s and by the turn of the century had taken root.
In the most recent year for which statistics are available, Australia exported 621 million litres of wine (Wine Australia 2024). That figure exceeds domestic wine sales, estimated at 444 million litres.
There are more than 2,000 wineries and approximately 6,000 grape growers across our 65 wine growing regions.
They have over 160,000 full and part‑time employees.
But while the terroir may be good, the vineyard not a level playing field.
A wine grape market study completed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2019 found a highly concentrated industry (ACCC 2019).
Issues in the supply chain included a lack of competition, potential unfair contract terms, a lack of price transparency, and imbalanced risk allocation in favour of winemakers over grape growers.
The largest 1 per cent of winemakers accounted for over 80 per cent of wine production.
Four retailers account for over 80 per cent of sales by value in the domestic retail liquor market.
The 5 largest winemakers account for an estimated 87 per cent of volume in the Australian wine export market.
And the trend has been towards even greater consolidation of large winemakers in recent years.
Change is never easy in agricultural industries subject to boom‑and slump cycles of over production in the good times and consolidation in the bad.
In 2021 the ACCC found that commercial practices in the wine grape industry had improved since their 2019 report but warned that regulatory action may be necessary without further reforms in payment times and transparency.
Industry is taking steps to improve transparency but there is still work to be done to ensure a fair and functioning wine, grape and retail market.
In August, we appointed former competition minister Craig Emerson to lead an independent impact analysis of the wine and grape sector’s regulatory options (Collins 2024).
Dr Emerson’s report will examine fair trading, competitive relationships, contracting practices and risk allocation.
Competition beef
Those problems are not unique to the grape and wine industry.
In 2023, the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Farmers Federation released an issues paper criticising the lack of transparency and competition across Australia’s agricultural supply chains (NFF 2023).
The ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Farmers Federation said reduced competition meant farmers weren’t receiving the incomes they deserved with long‑term consequences for competitiveness, economic and environmental sustainability and profitability.
Those concerns echoed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s cattle and beef market study of 2017. That study found evidence that conflicts of interest regularly arise in saleyard transactions when buyers bid for livestock on behalf of multiple clients, and when agents represent both a cattle seller and a cattle buyer in the same transaction (ACCC 2017).
The report pointed out that cattle auctions have characteristics that make it easier for cartels to develop, including repeated interactions with the same auctioneers, who are often linked by social networks that make it easier to ‘punish’ auctioneers who break away from agreed anti‑competitive bidding practices. Other problematic behaviours included the exclusion of rival agents, and a lack of transparency around saleyard weighing protocols.
There is a cyclical element to many concerns about competitiveness in the market structure of the Australian cattle and beef industry.
An ongoing concern is the impact on producers of market concentration and buyer power during tough times, such as droughts.
Seasonal and cyclical fluctuations in supply can also affect the profitability of meat processors, dampening incentives for new entrants and reducing competition through mergers or acquisitions of incumbents.
The 2017 report found that the top 5 Australian processors account for around 57 per cent of total cattle slaughter (ACCC 2017).
A follow‑up report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2 years later found that the industry had taken some steps towards improving transparency in dealings between processors and farmers, but, again, there was still work to do (ACCC 2019).
Super concentrated
Another highly concentrated part of the agricultural supply chain in Australia are supermarkets.
Coles and Woolworths account for about 67 per cent of national retail sales (Mulino 2024, ACCC 2024 p147).
Only 2 OECD countries – New Zealand and Norway – have a greater market share of sales controlled by 2 supermarkets (ACCC 2024 p148).
Earlier this year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics handed down an excellent report on the inquiry into promoting economic dynamism, competition and business formation.
The Committee received evidence on the high market share in the supermarket sector, profit margins, and the power imbalance in the relationship between the major supermarkets and farm‑gate producers.
The report said: ‘Many agricultural suppliers are at risk of that power imbalance being used to negotiate outcomes that affect profitability and, therefore, the capacity and willingness to invest.’
At the same time as the Parliamentary inquiry, our government is taking action on several fronts.
Food and Grocery Code of Conduct
First, we are making sure the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is working effectively and fairly.
The voluntary Code was introduced in 2015 to improve behaviour in the way supermarkets deal with suppliers – including growers where they supply directly to supermarkets.
Dr Craig Emerson’s independent review found the Code is ‘needed to address persistent bargaining power imbalances between supermarkets and their smaller suppliers’ (Emerson 2024).
Dr Emerson made 11 recommendations for improving the Code and the government announced in June that it will adopt them all (Treasury 2024a).
The Code will be made mandatory with Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Metcash subject to million‑dollar penalties for serious breaches.
There will be improvements to the dispute resolution mechanisms. There will be a pathway for anonymous complaints from suppliers and whistle‑blowers, and guards against retribution by supermarkets.
We released exposure drafts for consultation in September and we aim to introduce legislation into the Parliament later this year.
Supermarket inquiry
Second, we understand more needs to be done to achieve a competitive and sustainable food and grocery sector.
So, we directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake a 12‑month inquiry into supermarket pricing.
It allows the watchdog to conduct a deep dive into competition and pricing practices in the supermarket sector for the first time in more than 15 years.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s interim report released in September said, ‘Australia’s supermarket industry is changing’ but remains ‘highly concentrated’ (ACCC 2024).
In the era of online shopping, loyalty programs and data technology, Coles and Woolworths have expanded their share of take‑home food and grocery sales by a combined 3.7 percentage points since 2006-07.
Supermarkets have also expanded into broader ‘ecosystems’ beyond grocery retailing but in highly complementary areas such as advertising and data analytics, pet products, telco and insurance services (ACCC 2024 p161).
As well as conducting consumer surveys as part of the inquiry, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission held 7 roundtables to listen to farmers and fresh produce wholesalers.
Although no conclusions have been made, the interim report highlighted concerns from fresh produce suppliers about information asymmetries, power imbalances and specific practices that have enabled supermarkets to transfer disproportionate risk and cost onto suppliers.
In the next phase of the inquiry, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will undertake 14 case studies to examine supermarket profit margins and how profits are distributed in the supply chain.
And it will hand a final report to the government in February 2025.
CHOICE retail reports
Third, we announced funding for consumer group CHOICE to produce quarterly reports on retail grocery prices.
The CHOICE reports will compare grocery prices at different retailers, highlighting those charging the most and the least.
We have already seen the first 2 ‘basket of goods’ quarterly reports using data from March and June to help consumers make informed decisions about what they’re buying and where they shop (Leigh 2024c).
Other measures
Earlier this month, the Australian Government announced around $30 million in additional funding to the ACCC to crack down on misleading and deceptive pricing practices and unconscionable conduct in the supermarket and retail sectors.
This will strengthen the ACCC’s ability to proactively monitor behaviour and investigate concerns about supermarkets and retailers falsely justifying higher prices.
In addition to this crackdown, the Treasurer will work closely with states and territories through the Council on Federal Financial Relations to reform planning and zoning regulations, which will help boost competition in the supermarket sector by opening up more sites for new stores (Albanese 2024).
Strengthening protections against unfair contract terms
Unfair contract term protections are another area where we have already made improvements.
Unfair contract terms are terms that are clearly lopsided – for example by allowing the more powerful party to unilaterally change prices, or cancel the contract.
Under the former government, such terms were unenforceable, but it was not an offence to include them in a contract.
Fertiliser
For example, last year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated complaints about fertiliser companies using contracts in a way that could disadvantage farmers (ACCC 2023).
Contract terms allegedly gave larger suppliers the right to unilaterally vary the quantity delivered or to terminate the agreement and restricted buyers from raising issues about defects.
Fertiliser suppliers co‑operated and changed the contract terms to address the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s concerns.
Potatoes
In another example, the Federal Court in 2019 declared Mitolo Group, Australia’s largest potato wholesaler, used unfair terms in contracts with growers (ACCC 2019).
The court declared contract terms that allowed Mitolo to unilaterally determine or vary the price paid to growers as void.
Terms preventing growers from selling potatoes to other purchasers and terms stopping farmers from selling their property unless the buyer entered into a contract with Mitolo were also declared void.
Stronger laws
More broadly, the problem is the laws weren’t stopping the use of unfair terms, which remain prevalent in standard form contracts.
A court could declare a contract term to be unfair and therefore void and unenforceable, but until our government took office, the law didn’t allow penalties to be imposed.
We have fixed that. In 2022, we delivered on our promise to strengthen unfair contract term laws (Leigh & Collins 2022).
We introduced civil penalty provisions outlawing the use of, and reliance on, unfair terms in standard form contracts.
And we extended the coverage of the protections.
We lifted the eligibility cap from businesses with less than 20 employees to businesses with less than 100 employees, or annual turnover of less than $10 million.
The most significant merger reforms in decades
Merger regulation is one of the key pillars of competition law (Leigh 2024a).
It acts as the ‘preventive medicine’ against the few mergers that substantially lessen competition.
But feedback suggests our system isn’t as healthy as it could be.
The Competition Taskforce found Australia’s ‘ad hoc’ merger process is unfit for a modern economy and said we lag best practice in other countries.
In response, we have announced the most significant reforms to merger settings in almost 50 years.
The proposed reforms will make Australia’s merger approval system faster, stronger, simpler, targeted and more transparent.
Revitalising ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Competition Policy
The Albanese government is working with state and territories to revitalise ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Competition Policy.
There is consensus that pro‑competitive reforms are worth doing and we are aiming for agreement by the end of the year.
The original ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Competition Policy underpinned a generation of growth from the 1990s (Leigh 2024d).
While it left us in a good position, the economy has changed, and the nation now faces new challenges that the original policy could not have anticipated.
These include digitalisation, the growth in human services, the net zero transformation and supporting Australia’s most vulnerable (Treasury 2024b).
Trade opportunities
We are also looking to improve competitiveness overseas as well as at home.
Our farmers are internationally competitive with Australia exporting around 72 per cent of the total value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production (ABARES 2024).
Historically, Australia’s farmers have been among the strongest advocates of trade liberalisation. The old ‘protection all round’ strategy meant that Australian farmers paid more for imported farm machinery, and faced tariffs from other countries to which they exported their produce.
Reductions in Australia’s domestic tariffs under the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments made farm equipment more affordable. It also bought Australia international credibility – enabling us to spearhead reform through the creation in 1986 of the Cairns Group of Fair Trading Nations, to advocate for liberalisation of global trade in agricultural goods (cairnsgroup.org).
Today, our government is building on that legacy. Invested: Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy said, ‘Australia is already a key partner in helping Southeast Asia meet its food security needs’, and notes that ‘there is strong potential to develop this trade relationship further towards 2040’ (DFAT 2023).
So, trade forms a significant part of our broader economic agenda.
And as Trade Minister Don Farrell observes, we are ‘delivering on our commitment to secure new trade and investment opportunities for Australian exporters, producers, farmers and businesses’ (Farrell 2024).
Closing remarks
Let me finish by saying, competitive markets matter in all parts of the Australian economy, but especially in the farm sector.
As the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Mick Keogh crisply puts it: ‘there are many farmers, but few processors or wholesalers, and even fewer major retailers’ (Keogh 2021).
As my analysis of IBIS World data shows, small‑scale farmers are often the meat in a market concentration sandwich.
Upstream, there is often no choice about dealing with large‑scale providers on inputs.
Downstream, there is often no choice about negotiating with larger processors and retailers.
And through various examples from many reports over several years, we can see that market concentration hurts farmers.
Higher prices for inputs.
Less choice for repairs.
Power imbalances in negotiating contracts.
A lack of transparency around prices.
And potentially unfair contract terms.
I’m pleased to say, as outlined today, the government is focused on practical solutions to improve our competition settings.
And we appreciate the expertise and insights of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
Thank you.
Note: My thanks to officials in the Australian Treasury for invaluable drafting assistance.
References
Albanese, A; Chalmers, J. (2024) ‘, [media release] The Treasury, accessed 1 October 2024.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) n.d , online content.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2024) , ABARES Insights.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2024) .
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2017) – Final Report.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2019a), , media release issued 20 August 2019.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2020) Final Report.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2021) .
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2023) Accessed 21 August 2023.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2019b) , Accessed 2 August 2019.
Australian of the Year Awards (n.d) .
Cairns Group, The. (n.d)
Collins (2024) [media release] The Treasury, accessed 23 August 2024.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2022) Accessed 4 November 2022.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2023) Budget 2023-2024 fact sheet, Australian Government.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2023) , a report for the Australian Government accessed September 2023.
Dictionary of Biography, Australian. Richard Bowyer Smith entry,
Emerson C (2024) , [final report] Treasury.
Farrell D (2024) Press conference, Parliament House Accessed 17 September 2024.
Harford T 27 November (2017) BBC World Service.
IBIS World (2024a) ‘Agricultural machinery manufacturing in Australia’, Industry Report, February 2024.
IBIS World (2024b) ‘Hardware and building supplies retailing in Australia’, Industry Report, February 2024.
IBIS World (2024c) ‘Garden supplies retailing in Australia’, Industry Report, March 2024.
IBIS World (2024d) ‘Meat processing in Australia’, Industry Report, June 2024.
IBIS World (2024e) ‘Rail freight transport in Australia’, Industry Report, September 2024.
IBIS World (2024f) ‘Water freight transport in Australia’, Industry Report, May 2024.
IBIS World (2024g) ‘Supermarkets and grocery stores in Australia, Industry Report, August 2024.IBIS World 2023, ‘Fruit and vegetable processing in Australia’, Industry Report, August 2023.
Keogh M (2021) Speech to the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Farmers’ Federation accessed 11 June 2021.
Leigh A 28 November (2022) [opinion piece] The Australian.
Leigh A 27 August (2024a) [opinion piece] The Canberra Times.
Leigh A (2024b) The Shortest History of Economics, Black Inc.
Leigh A (2024b) [media release] Accessed 20 June 2024.
Leigh A (2024c) [media release] Accessed 20 June 2024.
Leigh A (2024d) [opinion piece] The Australian.
Leigh A and Collins J (2023) [media release] Accessed 26 July 2022.
Leigh A and Triggs A (2016), . Australian Economic Review, 49: 389-412.
MacDonald J, Dong X, and Fuglie K (2023) United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No.256.
Miller J (2007) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 17, 2007, ANU.
Mulino D (2024) Report on the inquiry into promoting economic dynamism, competition and business formation, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Economics.
³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Farmers’ Federation (NFF) (2023), , ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Farmers’ Federation Issues Paper.
Patel N 15 June (2021) , The Verge.
Powell G & Macintyre S (2015) , ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Archives of Australia Research Guide.
Productivity Commission (PC) (2021) Report No.97, accessed 29 October 2021.
Treasury (2024a) , Treasury.
Treasury (2024b) Treasury.
Uhr J (2006) Australian ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ University, accessed 21 June 2006.
Whitnall T and Pitts N (2020) ABARES.
Wine Australia (2024), Market insights, , Wine Australia.
