Dowie Sarah: Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8541. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise in opposition to the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill 2015. I think that I am living in a little bit of a warped sense of reality having listened to some of the arguments opposite because I would simply say: Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission is our regulatory body that takes care of competition and looks at fair trading and in my mind it is certainly working well and the parent Acts that govern it the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act are working well. So I do not believe that this bill is a strategic change for the better. In fact I think this is just really messing around the edges and a little bit of jiggery-pokery.As has been discussed before the aim of this bill is to require a change to the Commerce Act and put in place a supermarket adjudicator to resolve disputes between supermarkets and suppliers. Again my question is why when have the Commerce Commission which is our primary competition regulatory agency? We have already got good legislation in place which is working well. The commission was established in 1986 and it is an independent body. So its functions its enforcement and all of its regulatory activities are independently undertaken.Todd Barclay: And Goldie’s doing a good job.SARAH DOWIE: Yes the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is doing a very good job in overseeing commerce and all that it entails.The Commerce Commission’s purpose is to achieve the best possible outcomes in competitive and regulated markets for the long-term benefit of New Zealanders and I believe it certainly is doing this. We do not need further red tape to complicate the issue. That is something that I learnt when my colleague the honourable member Jacqui Dean ran a series of workshops called “Rules Reduction”. We held one of those meetings in Invercargill it was well attended and one of the things that I learnt is that people in general especially in Southland and in New Zealand instinctively know what is fair. And actually people do not automatically revert to the worst-case scenario in their dealings. We do not need to govern for that minority. People in business do not like complicated or overly bureaucratic rules. We do not need an extra layer on top of legislation that is already working well. We do not need another adjudicator on top of an independent body that is doings its job well and is completing its mandated tasks well.If you over-complicate these rules even good operators will not be able to comply with all of the red tape that is put in place. They will not have the time and they will not have the resources and the only winners will be lawyers at the end of the day as they navigate through a complex set of rules trying to trip up honest hard-working businesses as they go about their fair trading.As my colleagues pointed out last year the Commerce Commission investigated and found no evidence that a major supermarket company had breached the Commerce Act or the Fair Trading Act. In coming to this decision the Commerce Commission report did not indicate at any stage that it lacked the tools the expertise or the resources needed to complete that investigation. As the Government we have no plans to compel supermarkets to enter into any industry code unless they want to do so voluntarily. We believe that people instinctively know what is fair. We believe that the existing legislation is working well and that the Commerce Commission is doing its job appropriately. There is therefore no need for this bill and I therefore oppose it.