Government should cut GST on food if it's worried about butter price – Fran O'Sullivan
Or that any notion of Fonterra slashing its own margins was not going to happen. They are thin when compared with the margins applied by supermarkets to dairy products, and she knows it.
The upshot is that Willis did seek explanations from Hurrell over the co-operative's pricing, which she of course accepted. Within days, she was talking up Fonterra and the surging global prices on the Mike Hosking show as a plus – as indeed they are when it comes to the impact on the New Zealand economy.
Hurrell subsequently made it clear his company is not moving to a two-tiered pricing system: an export price geared to global prices and a subsidised price for domestic consumers. There was more besides.
It was sensible for Fonterra to shut the issue down quickly. It currently has its consumer brands business on the market. Any suggestion of a move to a two-tiered system would be a complication to that sales process or indeed an IPO of that business if that ultimately turns out to be the Fonterra board's preferred option.
But while there was an element of the performative to the Beehive shenanigans, it does underline how much 'cost of living' issues are a lightning rod when it comes to sparking domestic dissatisfaction with the Government.
Willis later described her meeting with Hurrell as 'constructive and engaging', underlining the fact that Fonterra does not control retail prices and that the final price is set by supermarkets, whose contracts and pricing strategies vary.
This was more grist to Willis' campaign against what she claims are supermarkets profiteering at the expense of consumers. Already, she has been working to reduce the barriers to entry for other competitors.
Willis has been encouraged that the Commerce Commission has taken a case against grocery giant Foodstuffs North Island and Gilmours Wholesale to court over what it believes is cartel conduct.
The regulator said civil proceedings would be filed against the big grocery suppliers under the Commerce Act and Grocery Industry Competition Act (GICA). Foodstuffs 'strongly denies' any unlawful conduct.
The Commerce Commission has also levelled criminal charges against retailer Noel Leeming over what it claims is a misleading price-matching promotion.
The company 'firmly' maintains it had not committed an offence and would vigorously defend itself against multiple charges of misleading customers under the Fair Trading Act.
Put that to one side.
Prices have escalated on multiple fronts: dairy products, meat and some fruits; electricity and gas, rates, insurances. But they have decreased on others: mortgage and loan interest rates, and some fuels.
There is little point in trying to jawbone prices down.
In many respects, the answer lies with Willis.
If she is overly concerned, she could wipe the 15% GST from particular food items. This is the case in Australia, where its 10% GST does not apply to meat, fish, produce, cheese and eggs, plain milk and cream, bread, butter and other spreads, bottled water, tea and coffee, cooking ingredients and oils, or infant formula.
In Britain, most foods are zero-rated. Many European countries have reduced value-added tax rates for food, typically running at 5%-7%. Basic foods are exempted in Singapore, there is an 8% rate in Japan, and in the United States some states exempt various food items from sales tax.
The upshot is that New Zealand verges on being an outlier in this area.
Any changes to the GST regime would, however, have an impact on how New Zealand's tax regime is perceived as being neutral.
Farmers are not the enemy.
There is much to celebrate from our rural sector, which will deliver nearly $60 billion in export earnings this year.
The fixation on rising prices has also overly consumed the Prime Minister, who frequently talks about 'cost of living issues'.
But this is not going to be solved in the medium term.
The upshot is that, short of any intervention by the Government, consumers will just have to suck it up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
38 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
When big companies face criminal charges, what does it actually mean?
Noel Leeming is the latest big retailer to be criminally prosecuted by the Commerce Commission. But what do the charges actually mean, and will they make a difference to uncompetitive or unfair behaviour? Last week, the Commerce Commission announced it was filing criminal charges against Noel Leeming in the Auckland District Court. The government's consumer watchdog claimed the electronics chain, which is owned by The Warehouse, had breached the Fair Trading Act, particularly in its 'price match' guarantee; often, according to the commission, products from other companies will not be matched, despite Noel Leeming advertising that they will. 'It's crucial that businesses promoting any price match offer factor in the overall impression of the claims they make, and that all information is clear to customers,' said Anne Calliman, the deputy chair of the Commerce Commission, in a press release. It's not the first time the commission has filed criminal charges against retailers: Woolworths NZ, and some specific Pak'n'Save supermarkets (which are operated under a franchise model) were served with criminal charges last December for alleged breaches of the Fair Trading Act, while civil proceedings were filed against Foodstuffs North Island and Gilmours last week for alleged cartel conduct in breach of the Commerce Act. But what punishments can really be handed out? And does being served with criminal charges make a difference to how companies operate? What is the Commerce Commission? Great, starting with an easy one. The commission, also known as the CommComm (cute!), is New Zealand's competition, consumer and regulatory agency. An independent Crown entity, it's responsible for enforcing a few different laws. Under the Commerce Act, the commission can conduct market studies into competition, investigate mergers between businesses which may reduce competition and harm consumers, and recommend that particular goods or services are regulated if there is little competition. If people have been engaging in cartel conduct (ie price fixing or bid rigging), the commission can bring civil charges under the Commerce Act, with penalties including fines of up to $500,000 for an individual and $10 million (or more) for a company. As of 2021, it can also bring criminal charges under this law which could lead to imprisonment of up to seven years for individuals. Under the Fair Trading Act (FTA), the commission can investigate and prosecute companies and individuals for misleading pricing, including contract terms and pyramid schemes. It can file criminal charges through the District Court, with fines of up to $200,000 per offence for individuals and $600,000 per offence for companies. The commission also enforces some parts of the Telecommunications Act (how people are charged for internet and phone services), the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (how Fonterra charges for raw milk) and and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (money lending). People can report companies for suspected breaches of these acts, and the commission can respond by investigating and potentially filing civil or criminal charges. So the Commerce Commission can't investigate or prosecute 'high prices' – it has to have a specific example of someone breaking the law? Yeah, exactly. It might feel wrong that butter costs $11 – but a breach of the Fair Trading Act would be a misleading special, like butter being advertised as on special for $11 if that was actually the standard non-discounted price, or a shopper being charged $11 when the price tag said $10. Examples of this gathered by independent organisation Consumer and submitted to the ComCom led to Pak'nSave and Woolworths receiving criminal charges. What's the difference between civil and criminal charges? Whether civil or criminal charges are brought will depend on the particular legislation and all the circumstances of the conduct. Where there is a choice between the two, the commission will consider a range of factors including the standard of proof required (civil cases must be proved on the 'balance of probabilities' standard, but criminal cases require proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'), the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences and whether the conduct was deliberate or especially blameworthy. Are there any recent examples of companies actually having to pay big fines? Several. Last year, Kiwibank was found to have overcharged 35,000 customers by more than $6.8m, in breach of the Fair Trading Act. Kiwibank found the issues in its system and turned itself into the commission, which brought 21 criminal charges and the bank was fined $1.5m, as well as repaying the customers $9.2m to remediate. In a civil case last year, meanwhile, Foodstuffs North Island was fined $3.25m under the Commerce Act for using land covenants to block its rivals, and in 2023, One NZ copped a $3.6m fine under the Fair Trading Act for misleading customers about fibre broadband. Has the Commerce Commission ever actually sent someone to prison? Not yet, but in December last year, the High Court handed down its first criminal sentence for charges brought by the Commerce Commission under the Commerce Act, to Manesh Kumar, who rigged bids for NZTA projects. He received a sentence o f six months of community detention and 200 hours of community service. Despite the term 'criminal charges', this doesn't usually lead to lawyers yelling at each other across a courtroom, holding up different pictures of price specials available at supermarkets. Many Commerce Commission cases are settled, with the company at fault agreeing to pay a fine and not engage in the bad behaviour again. I've lost count of the articles I've read about how unfair and expensive the grocery sector is. Can the Commerce Commission make much of a difference to the fact that getting a few things for dinner always ends up costing $80? After a market study in 2022 showed that New Zealand needed more competition in the grocery sector to get better prices, the Grocery Industry Competition Act was passed by the government. Since 2023, the Commerce Commission has had a specific grocery commissioner. Yet the high prices, and the depressing headlines, continue. The commission has said that the grocery sector is one of its priorities for 2024/25. It hasn't just focused on supermarkets, but also alternatives, like filing criminal proceedings under the FTA against meal subscription company Hello Fresh for not telling customers that accepting a voucher meant they were resubscribing to the service. It's said the rules need to change so that smaller companies that sell groceries have more alternatives. But because there is so little competition in the sector, all these court cases and call-outs have made little difference. The Commerce Commission can only regulate the commercial sector as it is, not change the system as a whole. Finance minister Nicola Willis has said that breaking up the duopoly of Woolworths and Foodstuffs might be an option. 'Significant action may be required to foster genuine competition,' she said in March. For now, however, criminal charges or otherwise, the status quo remains.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Palestine Action Ban ‘Disturbing' Misuse Of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, Türk Warns
GENEVA (25 July 2025) – The UK Government's decision to proscribe the 'Palestine Action' protest group under terrorism legislation raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned today. The UK Government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 after some of its members broke into a military airfield in June and reportedly spray-painted two military aircraft, among other incidents of property damage. 'UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,' said Türk. 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' The ban, among other things, makes it a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, express support for the group, or wear an item of clothing that would arouse 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is a member of or supports the organization. Such conduct is punishable by criminal penalties, including fines and prison sentences of up to 14 years. 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' the High Commissioner said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effect on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people,' he added. Since the UK Government's ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests. 'I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards,' the High Commissioner said.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Critics frustrated at money laundering law burden
Are anti-money laundering laws leaving too much of the crime-fighting burden on small and medium businesses? The laws require any business providing financial or legal services to detect and deter illegal behaviour through due diligence procedures, like identity verification, when taking on a new client. The Government recently relaxed identity verification requirements on banks when someone is opening a bank account and is planning further changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism law. But compliance expert Uddhav Kirtikar says the law is fine as it is, and it's a case of supervisors inside the Department of Internal Affairs adding layers of compliance that go above the law. Aro Advisers' Dave Saunders has had similar frustrations and says the added compliance adds cost and uncertainty to the businesses. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
