sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Labour promises to make 'excessive' prices illegal, and to set a 'clear legal test'

Public Policy / news
Labour promises to make 'excessive' prices illegal, and to set a 'clear legal test'
A composite image of grid paper overlayed with a hand holding a petrol nozzle, a hand holding a receipt and a toy supermarket basket full of plastic fruit and vegetables.
Composite image source: 123rf.com and interest.co.nz.

Labour is pledging to make it illegal for large companies to charge “excessive prices” for essential goods and services, or to pay “unfairly low” prices to suppliers.

Leader Chris Hipkins promised to set a “clear legal test… [for] prices well above what they would otherwise be in a competitive market, sustained over time,” in an election policy announcement. The party says the policy could apply to the likes of food, power, fuel, transport, telecommunications banking, and insurance.

Labour wants to give the Commerce Commission powers to investigate price gouging, and penalise companies that gouge and force them to “hand back every dollar of excess profit.”

"Right now, a company big enough to dodge competition can charge excessive prices for the basics, like food and fuel, and there's no law against it,” Hipkins said. “Labour will change that, by making it illegal for big powerful companies to rip off New Zealanders on the essentials.”

Consumer affairs spokesperson Arena Williams said the growers “who put food on our shelves get squeezed by the big players just as hard as the families buying it.”

“This is aimed at a small number of very large companies, it won't touch the 97 percent of New Zealand businesses that are small, like your local dairy or cafe.

“It also only applies in markets for essentials, like food, power, fuel, transport, telecommunications banking, and insurance.”

The policy is similar to the recent Green Party promise to follow Australia’s recent move to ban “excessive pricing”. They want to restrict supermarkets to charging prices that are not in excess relative to the cost of supplying the products, plus a fair margin.

Supermarkets would be required to record prices so to be able to provide to the Commerce Commission when requested, with breaches carrying a proposed penalty of up to $10 million, three times the value of the commercial gain, or 10% of turnover.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

20 Comments

ummmh.   Labour had / has the grocery commissioner.   A wonderful useless example of how Labour and the left have no idea of how the world works.

Up
0

As per the other thread - It's not 'the left' or indeed any political hue.

This is a collection of energy problems, combining as a predicament.

But stupidly, still being evaluated in a keystroke-issued, fiat-levered, growth-assuming, debt betting proxy. 

What we need is a media who understand the fiction that is money. 

 

Up
4

And still we think its better to ship foodstuffs all over the globe for reasons of 'efficiency'.

Up
2

The administrative overhead is potentially colossal, and the queue of court cases would be enormous. Just dumb and looks desperate. 

It's also a queasy flashback to Muldoonist authoritarian regulation that had us in such a parlous state in the 1980s.

Or you could just aim to foster a strong cooperative grocery sector that's run by and for the co-op members and doesn't require a large extension to the public service. 

Up
0

I'm almost finding this cost of living stuff comical. All sorts of crazy shit that is almost guaranteed to increase the cost of living is being proposed in the hope that the NZ voter is a moron (which may well be the case). Labour are becoming unvoteable 

Up
2

I'm being reduced to voting who I hate (not just dislike) least.

I think there should be a 'no confidence' option on the ballot, that if selected by enough people, means all the parties go back to their manifestos and we go through an election again. 

Up
3

Wasn't there a fellow who changed his name to 'None of the Above?'. 

Up
3

the growers “who put food on our shelves get squeezed by the big players just as hard as the families buying it.”

So many problems with this blanket thinking. 

  • You can put produce or FMCG on a supermarket shelf at any price point. There is a price point whereby shoppers won't buy your product or look for substitutes - a willingness-to-pay threshold.
  • Like a broken record, but it needs to be said. You cannot have "affordable prices" in daily needs like FMCG when you're still reliant on Ponzinomics because things like the cost of land have to be absorbed across the supply chain - that includes producers (farms / manufacturers) and retailers (supermarkets). 

Unfortunately our thought leaders and ruling elite refuse to even communicate this to the hoi polloi. Businesses have to make a minimum margin or there is no reason to exist. It's ludicrous to think labour and capital are going to be allocated for no return.   

Up
1

Problem is, the cartel set prices, not the supplier. Even "specials" are a forced haircut for growers, while the retail margin stays the same. You can do that sort of thing when you own the market and politicians are bought and paid for. The cartel couldn't really give a toss about "costs of producers". They'd happily bankrupt them and ship food in from China and Vietnam. 

Up
4

Problem is, the cartel set prices, not the supplier. Even "specials" are a forced haircut for growers, while the retail margin stays the same.

That is addressed through joint business planning. In a highly competitive category, that is inevitable. 

Up
0

Do you think going back to transparent processes, like open auctions for produce, might help the producers get fairer prices? 

The exclusive agreements now allowed seem to hand a hell of a lot of power to the supermarkets. 

Up
1

'A clear legal test' for excessive prices. Has Hipkins actually discussed with the CC how this would work in practise or is he just spouting superficially good sounding ideas?  

Up
1

The latter. Superficial. 

To some degree, I'm supportive of govts who intervene to support the purchasing power of the people. But it requires actual strategy and planning, not just saying things to gain favor among the people. Chipster has no idea how this can be executed in practical terms. Nor do his mates. 

Up
3

He's identified insurance as one of the 'excessively priced' group but I doubt he could prove his claim, much beyond observing the painful increase in premiums over recent times or perhaps some superficial ROC numbers. And as for suggestions that some sort of intervention would occur to address the insurers gouging, I await with interest his announcements on what corrective action he'd deploy. 

Up
0

A 'clear legal test' sounds a lot like 'interminable court actions'.

Up
1

Yep. Interminable and ruinously expensive. Not to mention the damage to NZ inc's brand. Hipkins promises big, pitching himself as a modern version of monopoly buster Teddy Roosevelt, but in reality its mostly empty promises. He is aware that at best they might score a few low hanging fruit wins but in terms of the big picture little will change.  

Up
1

it is not designed to solve the problem of food availability, rather it is designed to make you think something is being done about it.

Up
1

Labours small target strategy. Hipkins has absorbed some of the lessons from Ardern's 100K social houses & light rail policy announcement fiascoes.    

Up
1

Nobody can campaign on transformation. They can only virtue signal and cosplay about it. 

Up
1

Clueless....

Up
1