I think you're under-estimating the the amount o food 'deserts' we have in this country. But in our case, its literally because some of it is an actual desert. Think of the regional towns, outback towns, far north cape, indigenous communities, islanders like cocos. These places can have a pretty hard time getting food deliveries sometimes, let alone freah food. Extending Australia's food delivery system would be a valuable project to undertake. The Fair Go Supermarkets plan doesn't address that though in any meaningful way though.

97% goes towards paying suppliers, staff, utilities and covering other operating costs.

I'm looking at the Woolworths 2026 Annual report and I do not know how you got those numbers. These reports are beautifully formatted cryptic messes designed to hide stuff, not to properly inform debate on government ownership or how the books would change under government operation.

Their raw revenue was 72 billion, then they claim most of that is spent on these vague categories:

• Cost of sales
• Branch expenses
• Administration expenses
• Other expenses

Some of these things contain some components of suppliers, staff and utilities. But there is a lot going other places.

"Profit" is a very dangerous term because it's intentionally gamed in the reporting by all companies to reduce tax liability. Woolworths claims they are only left with 1 billion in profit after they do their sums, but, under government control you'd realise that this number is really misleading. Eg checkout these things in their report:

• 3 billion of asset depreciation
• ~1 billion of shareholder dividends (remember that's not "profit"!)
• ~1 billion for underpaid staff rumeneration (it's cheaper to pay them right in the first place and not have to do court costs, dear god)
• (probably a lot more interesting stuff I've missed, on a train RN)

I'm going to say their headline tiny profitability is not what you think it is, and that they're not poor Woolies struggling with borderline profitability because of big employee and big supplier. For more fun on creative book keeping: checkout airlines. Some of them intentionally teeter themselves to reported non-profitability when it suits them.

? Cole's NPAT was $1.09 billion on nearly $45 billion in sales for the 2026 EOFY. and that was AFTER they got slugged with having to pay back $235 million in wages and fines for wage theft. Take that out and the net profit actually lifted by around 13.7%. This is also reflected in the fact dividends increased by 13% to shareholders.

Woolies gets even more a weasel as they claim 2-3%...on a global market they're trying to expand into. Isolate Australia and its a very fucking different story

edit: Also very much worth noting these "Supermarkets" do not exist in vacuums. Coles group owns Coles Supermarkets / local / online - all listed as seperate entities of course - Reddy Express, Liquorland, First Choice Liquor Market, Coles Financial Services, Coles Mobile and Flybuys

Woolies? Woolworths/Metro/Woolworths at Work - again, all separate tax entities - FreshChoice & SuperValue, Milkrun, BigW, Petstock, Healthylife, PFD Food Services <-- THIS IS A BIG ONE AS THEY ARE WHOLESALE FOOD SUPPLIERS. HMMMMMMM and Everyday Rewards

Why would a nationalised industry be concerned with making profits? It's a public service and would have the purpose of providing fair price to producers and consumers. Even if it operates at a loss if it saves Australians money and provides financial security to Australian farmers than its providing well worth economic, strategic and social benefits.

Having the Government run ~200 stores isn’t going to drastically cut prices to make things more affordable, not without underpaying staff or suppliers?

As a government-run business, they have no need to pursue profit; they provide a service to people. The point of state-run grocery stores is to spend government money providing for people's needs, there is no justification to underpay workers nor suppliers, nor to overcharge for the groceries.

Pay the suppliers a fair rate for their goods; this might be above what the duopolists pay, and that's no problem. Charge a retail price low enough that people can afford groceries. Pay the workers enough to decently remunerate their work; this might be above what other grocery workers are paid, and that's no problem.

The Australian government can always pay whatever Australian dollars are needed for this. By legislating they will pay the money they thereby create the money to pay for it. We should demand they pay for whatever is needed to provide what we need, without any condition on the business to return any profit.

Perhaps that results in a business that returns no profit. Perhaps as a business even ends up spending more money than it brings in. This is fine, so long as it does what we need it to do for that money spent.

(For those concerned with the risk of inflation by spending government money: that's a valid concern! But paying decent prices to farmers for food, paying decent wages to workers in the grocery stores, is not what drives inflation. Let's reduce inflation by taxing away the super-wealth of billionaires.)

All of these valid goals are compatible simultaneously, because there is no need for the state-run grocery business to be profitable. Government is meant to provide for its people, it is irrelevant whether the business returns a profit.

My understanding is that Mamdani opened government run stores as an alternative option rather than replacements to private grocery stores. The headline is misleading.