The Commerce Commission's making moves to level the playing field in the grocery sector.  

It's found the big supermarket players are shovelling in billions of dollars a year through supplier charges and promotional pricing, which largely isn't reaching consumers.  

It's proposed a simplified grocery code that limits the range of payments supermarkets can charge suppliers.  

Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden told Mike Hosking it's about taking away all the carve-outs.  

He says smaller suppliers currently have difficulty pushing back against large supermarkets because of the power imbalance. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The Commerce Commission's making moves to level the playing field in the grocery sector. &nbsp;
It's found the big supermarket players are shovelling in billions of dollars a year through supplier charges and promotional pricing, which largely isn't reaching consumers. &nbsp;
It's proposed a simplified grocery code that limits the range of payments supermarkets can charge suppliers. &nbsp;
Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden told Mike Hosking it's about taking away all the carve-outs. &nbsp;
He says smaller suppliers currently have difficulty pushing back against large supermarkets because of the power imbalance.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Pierre van Heerden: Grocery Commissioner on the draft simplified grocery code

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/95098a18-1109-492c-89df-b2f20155cacf/transcript

For some reason trivialities fascinate some people, especially when it comes to someone else's money. 

The Shane Jones story is your latest example. No, he shouldn't have done it, but its $30,000. We have bigger fish to fry. 

The "energy in, energy out" equation didn’t stack up, but you can't tell the media that. 

Louise Upston became the poster child for accommodation allowances even though, and this is what makes all this stuff mental, she did literally nothing wrong. 

Now the Herald have gone and crunched the numbers as to who is getting what, why, and when. 

The upshot is a lot more get it than used to, and more Labour MPs take it than National, although not by a lot. 

The forgotten part of the equation appears to be the simple rule of allowance. 

If you're not from Wellington, you are allowed an allowance. That’s it. 

The criteria is geography – are you from Wellington or not? It's not whether you're wealthy, or female, or old, or experienced, or anything. Just whether you are from Wellington. 

The fact you decide to buy a place to call your own in Wellington does not trigger any change to your allowance entitlement. So why does it become news? 

That would in part mean you are means tested, so wealthier MPs are penalised, which of course is why it isn't means tested because that would make no sense. 

Ironically it doesn’t actually even mean you are wealthy. I note Paul Goldsmith bought a pad for $325,000. You don’t need to be loaded to afford that. He, I assume like others who have purchased, simply wants a place he can call home. 

Some don’t. Some live in hotels. Each to their own but at no point does the fact you own a place change your entitlement and yet the media decides none of it's fair. 

Another of these petty, time-wasting entrapment escapades ensues where people, in this case Louise Upston, are badgered for days on end for no real gain and certainly no enhancement of the media's reputation. 

MPs’ work is weird, if not completely unique. They are not overpaid, the rules are not so bad, there are glaringly obvious alternatives. 

So let's concentrate on the important stuff, shall we? 

Stop wasting everyone's time. 

For some reason trivialities fascinate some people, especially when it comes to someone else's money.&nbsp;
The Shane Jones story is your latest example. No, he shouldn't have done it, but its $30,000. We have bigger fish to fry.&nbsp;
The "energy in, energy out" equation didn’t stack up, but you can't tell the media that.&nbsp;
Louise Upston became the poster child for accommodation allowances even though, and this is what makes all this stuff mental, she did literally nothing wrong.&nbsp;
Now the Herald have gone and crunched the numbers as to who is getting what, why, and when.&nbsp;
The upshot is a lot more get it than used to, and more Labour MPs take it than National, although not by a lot.&nbsp;
The forgotten part of the equation appears to be the simple rule of allowance.&nbsp;
If you're not from Wellington, you are allowed an allowance. That’s it.&nbsp;
The criteria is geography – are you from Wellington or not? It's not whether you're wealthy, or female, or old, or experienced, or anything. Just whether you are from Wellington.&nbsp;
The fact you decide to buy a place to call your own in Wellington does not trigger any change to your allowance entitlement. So why does it become news?&nbsp;
That would in part mean you are means tested, so wealthier MPs are penalised, which of course is why it isn't means tested because that would make no sense.&nbsp;
Ironically it doesn’t actually even mean you are wealthy. I note Paul Goldsmith bought a pad for $325,000. You don’t need to be loaded to afford that. He, I assume like others who have purchased, simply wants a place he can call home.&nbsp;
Some don’t. Some live in hotels. Each to their own but at no point does the fact you own a place change your entitlement and yet the media decides none of it's fair.&nbsp;
Another of these petty, time-wasting entrapment escapades ensues where people, in this case Louise Upston, are badgered for days on end for no real gain and certainly no enhancement of the media's reputation.&nbsp;
MPs’ work is weird, if not completely unique. They are not overpaid, the rules are not so bad, there are glaringly obvious alternatives.&nbsp;
So let's concentrate on the important stuff, shall we?&nbsp;
Stop wasting everyone's time.&nbsp;

Mike's Minute: Stop focusing on the trivialities

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/80e8b22c-ae31-420d-a727-b47c0159ec6b/transcript

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all. 

 

Netball: 7/10 

Because the pleas I have heard this week from players, and coaches, and fans to save the thing have all had passion attached to them, and passion is no bad thing. 

 

Michelin: 9/10 

It did exactly what we paid for; got buzz, got vibes, got tables booked, and reps confirmed. It's quite possibly a tourism-cum-marketing masterstroke. 

 

Chris Hipkins: 4/10 

The Michelin misread was next level cloth-ear. Keep that up and the campaign is over. 

  

Serena and Mark: 4/10 

As in Williams and Mitchell. The common thread? Age and injury. You've got to know when to fold 'em. 

 

The All Blacks: 8/10 

New era, new season, easy spanking for the opener given it's the French away, and not even a good French away. 

 

LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW 

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Netball: 7/10&nbsp;
Because the pleas I have heard this week from players, and coaches, and fans to save the thing have all had passion attached to them, and passion is no bad thing.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Michelin: 9/10&nbsp;
It did exactly what we paid for; got buzz, got vibes, got tables booked, and reps confirmed. It's quite possibly a tourism-cum-marketing masterstroke.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Chris Hipkins: 4/10&nbsp;
The Michelin misread was next level cloth-ear. Keep that up and the campaign is over.&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
Serena and Mark: 4/10&nbsp;
As in Williams and Mitchell. The common thread? Age and injury. You've got to know when to fold 'em.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The All Blacks: 8/10&nbsp;
New era, new season, easy spanking for the opener given it's the French away, and not even a good French away.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW&nbsp;

Mark the Week: The Michelin launch did exactly what we paid for

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a9055e60-9196-419d-875a-b47b017835bd/transcript

I've got a couple of questions around Mike Smith. 

Mike is back in the news because of his court case against big polluters. His case got upended by the recent Government move to block what they call "tort-based litigation" over climate change. 

Roughly speaking, the Government didn’t like the uncertainty these sort of cases create for business, and also that the decision in such matters lies with the Government, not the Mike Smiths of the world and adventurist judges who like the idea of a bit of legal exploration and dabble. 

That should have been that. Except it isn't, because Smith is back in court looking to argue the argument. 

The questions: 

1) Who pays for Mike Smith to spend his life in court? 

2) What do we do about the judicial process that allows seemingly endless claim and counterclaim, to the claim and counterclaim? 

3) What happened to the idea that the Government is the ultimate court, and we might want to bow to that idea just a bit more often? 

For every Mike Smith, who presumably has a legal mind or two on tap to dabble, there will be genuine cases of importance that are not heard. 

The judicial wheels are already hopelessly slow and exploratory musings can't be helping. 

America should be all the warning sign we need to avoid, at virtually all costs, the idea that you can simply have a stab at an idea in the hope you can find some sympathetic judge to rubber stamp Lord-knows-how many years and how many millions of dollars of mind-bending ideology that ties up businesses, lives and people in a process that may well end up nowhere. 

Clearly there are people like Smith who are born agitators, probably slightly bored, perhaps a bit aggro, but nevertheless dedicated to the idea of upset and stirring. 

Equally there will be those who have passed the bar who find the intellectual idea of bouncing a few controversial concepts about the place stimulating, if not fun and perhaps profitable. 

But most of the rest of us have a life to get on with and that includes Z Energy and Fonterra and the Government of the day. 

If Mike Smith wants to make law let him run for Parliament, our ultimate court. 

But short of that, surely there should be some rules that prevent the professional legal menace from wasting our time? 

I've got a couple of questions around Mike Smith.&nbsp;
Mike is back in the news because of his court case against big polluters. His case got upended by the recent Government move to block what they call "tort-based litigation" over climate change.&nbsp;
Roughly speaking, the Government didn’t like the uncertainty these sort of cases create for business, and also that the decision in such matters lies with the Government, not the Mike Smiths of the world and adventurist judges who like the idea of a bit of legal exploration and dabble.&nbsp;
That should have been that. Except it isn't, because Smith is back in court looking to argue the argument.&nbsp;
The questions:&nbsp;
1) Who pays for Mike Smith to spend his life in court?&nbsp;
2) What do we do about the judicial process that allows seemingly endless claim and counterclaim, to the claim and counterclaim?&nbsp;
3) What happened to the idea that the Government is the ultimate court, and we might want to bow to that idea just a bit more often?&nbsp;
For every Mike Smith, who presumably has a legal mind or two on tap to dabble, there will be genuine cases of importance that are not heard.&nbsp;
The judicial wheels are already hopelessly slow and exploratory musings can't be helping.&nbsp;
America should be all the warning sign we need to avoid, at virtually all costs, the idea that you can simply have a stab at an idea in the hope you can find some sympathetic judge to rubber stamp Lord-knows-how many years and how many millions of dollars of mind-bending ideology that ties up businesses, lives and people in a process that may well end up nowhere.&nbsp;
Clearly there are people like Smith who are born agitators, probably slightly bored, perhaps a bit aggro, but nevertheless dedicated to the idea of upset and stirring.&nbsp;
Equally there will be those who have passed the bar who find the intellectual idea of bouncing a few controversial concepts about the place stimulating, if not fun and perhaps profitable.&nbsp;
But most of the rest of us have a life to get on with and that includes Z Energy and Fonterra and the Government of the day.&nbsp;
If Mike Smith wants to make law let him run for Parliament, our ultimate court.&nbsp;
But short of that, surely there should be some rules that prevent the professional legal menace from wasting our time?&nbsp;

Mike's Minute: Where are the rules protecting us from legal menaces?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/76dddd16-0c23-47ef-a387-b47b0175d37f/transcript

Pierre van Heerden: Grocery Commissioner on the draft simplified grocery code

In 1 playlist(s)

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips