Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I just want to just start off by saying it was a bit of a shock and that I was hoping that Glen Bennett might actually speak for a little bit longer to give me time to sort of relax into this bill. But it's nice to actually see the member because I think he's been moved on to another select committee and I haven't actually seen him in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. But nice to have him back.It is actually a pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill in its second reading. As my colleague did I'd like to first of all acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill to the House but I'd also like to acknowledge my colleague Andrew Bayly who has actually done some substantive work in this bill and all of the select committee members given the fact that this bill was introduced in urgency and the select committee literally only had a very short time to actually get this back to the House. I'd like to commend the work of everyone involved including the chair Jamie Strange who has actually worked really I guess cooperatively with Andrew Bayly who is our spokesperson in this area as well as all of the select committee staffers and officials who have actually come to help the select committee get to this point.As Mr Bayly has actually said the National Party will be supporting this bill but there are some issues that we had in fact identified during the select committee process which I'm sure that the Minister is actually well aware of. Initially when I saw this bill I thought Yep this is quite a simple bill dealing specifically with two covenants that the Commerce Commission had actually identified." and they are the restrictive covenants that actually put restrictions on how land can be actually developed for land that might be attached to a shopping complex that the supermarket doesn't actually—or the grocery entity the two big duopoly might be connected to. They could potentially put restrictions on how those lands can be developed to make sure that competition doesn't actually develop. The other is the exclusive covenant provision that is often placed in for example big shopping complexes where they don't actually want another competitor in the same complex—for example let's say in a Westfield shopping complex they might have one grocery entity and they don't actually want their competitor to actually have leases on that area.And we're identifying that when you have a situation like we have currently when there is a huge cost of living crisis you actually want to make sure that there is enough competition in place so that the prices will go down. I'm not quite sure that removing these two covenants will actually immediately produce that but I commend the Minister for starting the work and I look forward to more work in this space because at the moment grocery is so expensive and I think every household in New Zealand understands what it's like to go shopping at the supermarket whether it's actually New World or Countdown. Both are just as expensive as well as Pak 'N Save. But they're owned by two entities. It is a duopoly. And the very fact that even our local dairies are owned by one of them and the wholesale shop where dairies and other little shops actually go to do the shopping for the customers is actually controlled by one of these two entities means that the duopoly could effectively control how much everyone actually pays for their groceries and their daily requirements. So putting any kind of legislative process any kind of bills that would actually restrict their control over how much they charge is I think a good thing.But one of the things that I know that Mr Bayly did very well in explaining is that when we heard the submissions in select committee I was effectively shocked to find out that within some of these covenants and the lease agreements that these supermarkets in fact go into with their landlords there is a major restriction in what other shops can actually take lease. For example the definition of "supermarket" seems to be extremely wide. When normal people think of a supermarket you actually think about things like grocery shopping whether it's actually breads and meats and fish fresh vegetables and fruit. You often get things like Panadol and there's a bit of you know a section of pharmaceutical things that you can actually get for emergencies for example. But you wouldn't effectively think that it will prevent an actual pharmacy from setting up next to a supermarket but the exclusive covenant could potentially restrict these shops from actually setting up.For example—and I know that the Food & Grocery Council's Katherine Rich's submission was actually quoted by Mr Bayly. But would you think that even childcare services is considered a supermarket activity? Banking finance arts and craft even men's shoes and hairdressing is considered supermarket activity and it is actually built into some of these leases which makes it potentially unable for one of these shops a hairdressing salon to open up at these stores whether it's actually a Westfield that one of the supermarkets might have an exclusive covenant in. So it could also mean that a childcare centre could not potentially open up because it would be deemed part of the lease where the supermarket entity the grocery entity—one of the two duopolies—have an exclusivity with the landlord. I'm sure that that's not what they intended to do perhaps but it is there and it does actually prevent these entities from actually opening up other competition to the supermarket entity that exists.New Zealand is at a time—I mean the world is I guess and New Zealand is currently going through this huge cost of living crisis and anything we can actually do to reduce costs for mums and dads out there who have to go to the supermarket and see the prices for meat for example or fresh vegetables currently. It is shocking and we need to do more to make sure that we create competition in the market to bring down the prices. This bill doesn't actually bring about that competition immediately but it does actually start the process and I look forward to the next bill that the Minister will actually bring.One of the things that we were quite concerned about which Mr Bayly actually did a lot of work on was in terms of the compensation that the supermarket entities could potentially ask of the landlords when these covenants are actually removed or become illegal because they might actually have the power to say well effectively by removing the exclusivity rights and also the restrictive covenants where they actually prevent the land from being developed to actually build another supermarket nearby might mean that they are losing you know hypothetical revenue and they could potentially get the landlord to compensate them. It could be huge amounts of money.I think effectively when the supermarket chains are actually dealing with an entity like Westfield it's a big big big entity versus another big entity so it won't be such a big problem but when you talk about a mum and dad landlord who might live in regional New Zealand or a smaller town New Zealand where they do not have the power base they have a power imbalance and the landlord doesn't have the kind of power that these supermarket chains actually have and that is something that we would like to make sure that we provide in the bill. So I look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper that is actually coming and hopefully we can talk more about that. I too commend this bill to the House and I support it fully."