the regulator could adopt a regime similar to that of the United Kingdom, under which an adjudicator appointed by the government is authorised to arbitrate disputes, as well as find supermarkets for any wrongdoing up to 1 per cent of their annual turnover.
Former UK supermarket ombudsman Christine Tacon, who joined the event virtually, under their mechanism, British regulators have banned large retailers from unilaterally changing agreements, delaying payments to appliers, charging for shelf space under normal circumstances and delisting suppliers without reasonable notice.
Meanwhile, regulators in New Zealand are also considering the mandatory code currently implemented in neighbouring Australia, where a government-appointed reviewer arbitrates disputes and sets the rules by which major retailers and wholesalers volunteered to abide.
According to Graeme Samuel, the former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, there are a host of benefits under Canberra’s system since arbitration is one of the successful ways of achieving cultural change. “My view was that ‘enforcement’ was a second-best way of dealing with issues between suppliers, retailers and wholesalers,” he said during the conference.
On the other hand, Rich pointed out that despite different terms and phrases used by trailers to attract consumers, they all have the same objective like any other business.
“You have heard many marketing buzzwords saying that supermarkets are customer driven and customer focused, but like any businesses, they are profit-maximising entities,” she told the commission. “As such, and unconstrained by effective competition, they regularly make decisions to maximise profits which seem against the interests of consumers in terms of choice, availability of lower-priced options, and access to innovation.”
