Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I will say from the outset that Labour Party members will support the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill to select committee because unlike that member who has just spoken Melissa Lee who is orbiting a stratosphere that very few New Zealanders have been on and who proved how out of touch she is we believe there is a problem. We believe there is a deficiency. We commend the Green Party for bringing this bill to the House. However we agree that there are some difficulties with the bill but they could well be addressed in select committee.Labour drafted before the last election what we would consider a pretty robust and tailor-made piece of legislation. I would have to say to the Green colleague congratulations on the bill but I think there are some substantial weaknesses in it—for instance there is no penalty regime in here. The adjudicator is empowered to simply investigate and if they cannot resolve the issue as I understand it from the bill they can require the Minister to invoke their powers under the Act to invite an inquiry. We set out in our code of conduct—and we have a code of conduct already drafted in a piece of legislation—a penalties regime where the adjudicator should have the power to investigate publicise information but also to render penalties. We would say we will support it to select committee. There are some difficulties I think also in terms of exclusions. Supermarkets for instance so my partner Jane tells me have a major area of cosmetics. They are excluded from this piece of legislation. They are subject to market power as are pharmaceuticals tobacco greeting cards and gardening equipment. A number of those issues I think need to be refined and addressed.We will support it to select committee but I will just say this in the brief call I have got to the member opposite. Obviously the National Party purports to be a friend of business. Ms Lee says that she has a choice when she goes to the grocer’s shop the fishmonger or whatever. Obviously she has never come across for instance an entity of people called tomato growers. Tomato growers—Todd Barclay: Ha ha!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and the member from down south where my old man’s family comes from does not understand this either. Tomato growers were told by Progressive Enterprises for instance: “At a certain point in time we will buy your tomatoes for x price.” Tomato growers went there and said: “Well actually x price is less than what we can produce for.” The answer was: “Well son if you want to be on the shelves next year that is the deal.” As a result many of those market gardeners certainly down in Canterbury and other places have gone out of business. If you actually read some of the submissions to the Commerce Commission you would argue there is a difficulty here. The UK for instance has a very robust piece of legislation. They have far more grocery chains than New Zealand does and they believe there is a difficulty there is a problem and it does warrant an adjudicator. They have a slightly strange system where the adjudicator can recommend penalties but then has to get a Minister to sign them off which I find quite strange.I think the costs are we established about half a million bucks to three-quarters of a million a year. So the so-called massive cost that is going to be visited on the consumer as the industry pays for it as that member purports is bunkum. She has not done her research. She has not done her homework. We would also say that an adjudicator would be part of the Commerce Commission bureaucracy and would have the right—cost recovery—to use the investigative personnel and staff of the Commerce Commission rather than creating as that member seems to think some sort of duplication. These are suggestions that we may put to the Green member if the bill makes it to a select committee to improve the bill. But the National members simply say: “There is not a problem. We will do nothing about it. We are a friend of the big end of town.” And I wonder what they say to all the suppliers down in Wallacetown in Gore in Invercargill down the young fellow’s way who have been royally done over—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. Members are not to be addressed in that ageist manner. Clayton Cosgrove—[Interruption] Order! Was that you Jonathan Coleman who made that comment?Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It was me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yes Mr Assistant Speaker. I withdraw and apologise.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is OK. I am only 46—younger than you mate. Anyway as I was saying before I was interrupted by the father of the House I suspect—