Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be talking in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill. I thank the Minister for giving a fulsome introduction which is very useful. I just want to reiterate that we find ourselves in the situation where New Zealanders are facing a huge cost of living crisis and this is a way of trying to deal with this issue—certainly with the cost of buying groceries. That's why National is supporting this bill.But I just want to labour before I get into the actual details of the bill that this is but one of many aspects that need to be put in place if the Government is serious about making sure that the price of groceries and living costs in general are reduced over time because without effective monitoring without a proper regulator and without wholesale access being opened up—all those other aspects that the Commerce Commission talked about—then this one small portion which deals with what grocery retailers have been doing in respect of their land rights is a small and significant but certainly by no means comprehensive solution in terms of reducing grocery prices over time.So with that sort of caveat I just do want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper 174 that the Minister has tabled. I'm grateful that he acknowledged that it was in response to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee's views of the issue of making sure that what is meant to happen actually happens. Of course the issue we've got is that we don't quite know what the future regulatory body that's going to oversee the grocery trade is. The Government is talking about establishing a grocery regulator and it says it's moving at pace. We don't—and certainly didn't at the select committee stage when we were deliberating on this bill before it came back into the House—have access or know anything about the proposed grocery regulator if that's indeed going to be the option that the Government puts forward in due course. But we did want to make sure that there was a mechanism for active and proactive monitoring of the changes proposed particularly around new section 28A inserted by clause 4.So the first thing I just want to ask around the rules here is that we had a couple of concerns at the select committee stage. The first one is that some complaint could be laid at the door of the Commerce Commission for actually allowing many of these lease arrangements being put in place. So we're now trying to deal with something that has happened in the past and so it gives rise to whether in fact the Commerce Commission is capable of actually adequately enforcing this. So I'm so glad that the Supplementary Order Paper gives the Commerce Commission the right to seek information—and as the Minister said—relating to any contract arrangement understanding or covenant including the process relating to the negotiation or renegotiation of the contract arrangement understanding or covenant.So my first question is—I just want the Minister to be absolutely clear with the House that this is going to be a proactive operation of the Commerce Commission because traditionally the Commerce Commissions acts in a reactive way—i.e. if someone makes a complaint then they respond. What the select committee was very clear about and wants to make sure that the Minister shares this understanding and makes sure that we're clear in the House what the intent of this is is that the Commerce Commission will be proactive in monitoring this.Secondly the other issue that we talked about was the issue of resourcing of the Commerce Commission. Has and will the Government provide sufficient funding or ensure that the Commerce Commission has sufficient resourcing to actually proactively monitor this? One is intent and the second one deals with capability. We want to make sure and I'd be very keen for the Minister to be absolutely clear with the House if he can tonight in the time we've got left as to whether in fact that is right on both counts.