Commission says Horticulture Code review can help promote transparency, protections
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has shared that Fruitico Pty Ltd and Fresh Express Produce Pty Ltd each paid penalties of $99,000, after the companies each received five infringement notices from ACCC for alleged Horticulture Code breaches.
In paying the penalties, the businesses did not admit to contravening the Australian Consumer Law or the Horticulture Code of Conduct, a mandatory industry code under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
“All horticultural traders should be on notice that we are monitoring their compliance with the Code and will take enforcement action where necessary,” said Mick Keogh, ACCC deputy chair, in a media release.
The ACCC asserted that Fruitico – a Western Australian grower, buyer, and wholesaler that processes around 80 percent of the state’s table grapes each year – traded with table grape growers without a Code‑compliant horticulture produce agreement imposed.
“Agreements that don’t meet the Code’s minimum standards reduce transparency and prevent growers from accessing essential information about their trading relationship and produce sales,” Keogh said.
The ACCC also claimed that Fresh Express – a Western Australian wholesaler of wide-ranging horticulture produce – failed to give the Code-required gross sale price information to growers in statements about the sale of produce.
“Growers need clear, timely information about how prices are set and how their produce is sold,” Keogh said.
In its media release, the ACCC expressed concern that the Horticulture Code’s existing requirements may not equip growers with clear and timely information and may not promote transparency throughout the supply chain.
On 28 January 2026, the federal government announced an independent review of the Horticulture Code, which has remained unaltered since 2017. The ACCC described this review as a chance to strengthen and clarify the requirements for horticulture produce agreements.
“Measures such as strengthening pricing transparency, banning the use of opaque pricing methods, and requiring grower statements to show clearer pricing details would help growers to more easily check outcomes and understand returns,” Keogh said in the ACCC’s media release.
In its submission for an initial consultation that closed in March, the ACCC called for amendments to:
“Providing more detailed and timely sale information, for example, buyer details, price, sale date and any relationship between trader and buyer, would also allow growers to better compare terms between wholesalers and enhance competition in the market,” Keogh said.
According to the ACCC, the absence of detailed information increases the likelihood of disputes and negatively affects growers’ long-term business planning and ability to navigate market trends.
