Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I will answer the member Andrew Bayly's questions in consecutive order. I thought that they were all important questions worthy of putting answers on record. If they inspire further questions I will certainly welcome them.In the first instance I made it clear to the commission in a recent letter of expectation that it should devote resources to implementing this bill. I have communicated with them an expectation that they are proactive in their stance. The commission has also been kept informed of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee's expectation that it take a proactive approach to monitoring as well using the powers given to it under the bill. The commission advised the select committee via officials that it has already identified further investigation of covenants at issue and the bill as a priority area. So we can see that that is something that is being picked up. It has enforcement criteria it uses to prioritise compliance monitoring and enforcement activities of course.The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 174 itself improves on the monitoring function already in the bill. The SOP replaces the new monitoring function in new section 28A(3A) with a bespoke information-gathering power. The new power slightly increases the range of agreements and covenants the commission can require information about. It also makes it clear that the commission can require that information in order to assess compliance with a range of provisions both under the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act.To add to those two aspects which I think address something of the member's questions I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that in the market study the commission itself pointed to areas it thought worthy of further investigation from its own initial studies. The commission is reported as having opened three investigations subsequently into restrictive covenants and exclusivity covenants on leases which it signalled in the report in paragraph 9.67. The commission states in the report that it's reviewing the historical and current use of restrictive covenants and exclusivity covenants and leases that might be at risk of breaking sections 27 or 28 of the Commerce Act. So it has now I'm informed opened three investigations into that matter.Refusal to supply by suppliers to low-price retailers: the commission likewise in the grocery report indicated its intent to open an investigation on that matter—that's paragraphs 6.187 to 6.191 and 9.135 in the report itself. It's received some information which relates to suppliers indicating they're only willing to supply if a grocery retailer does not undercut the retail prices set by other grocery retailers of the suppliers' products. That information included examples of the supplier refusing to supply a low-price retailer and in some cases that the suppliers' refusal to supply in favourable terms to a retailer followed a concern being raised by another grocery retailer about the supply of trades.And then also land banking is another area that the commission indicated that it would review whether there was any historical or ongoing matters raised in the context of acquisition of land that might be at risk of breaching section 47 anti-competitive acquisitions or section 27 anti-competitive arrangements of the Commerce Act. So my understanding is that it's currently reviewing in that area whether investigations should take place.Other strategic conduct such as best-price clauses or exclusive supply agreements is also something that the commission is considering whether appropriate action might be undertaken. The Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 also comes into force on 16 August 2022 with a new prohibition against unconscionable conduct. So it's also just received some new powers granted by this House that come into effect very shortly and it will then consider the appropriate use of the full range of its Fair Trading Act compliance and enforcement functions and powers now granted by the Parliament.The final one I'd mention is just around pricing and promotional practices. Independent of the market study the commission noted it has received a number of complaints under the Fair Trading Act related to supermarkets. While not currently investigating the commission noted it may at any stage of course utilise its Fair Trade Act compliance and enforcement functions and powers.There is work progressing I know by the supermarkets themselves to try and simplify their pricing structures to make them clearer to understand and so on. I wrote to them to ask them to progress the recommendations in the market study—immediately I received that market study—because I saw that was something that the supermarkets themselves could get on with in order to make their pricing more transparent so consumers could make better decisions.So I thank the member for those questions. I do think it's very clear that there is an expectation that the commission will be proactive in monitoring and if we pass this bill it will have new monitoring functions with bespoke information-gathering powers necessary to perform that task.