‘Possible cartel conduct': Sparky association changes policy after anti-competition accusation
'In both cases, the conduct raised issues under section 30 of the [Commerce] Act, which prohibits any person entering into a contract or arrangement, or arriving at an understanding, that contains a cartel provision,' the Commerce Commission's Vanessa Horne said.
The commission then issued NZTG with a compliance advice letter.
Horne, the general manager of competition, fair trading and credit, said NZTG had made changes as a result of the investigation.
It had changed its terms and conditions for members and had placed a permanent banner on its Facebook group warning members against discussion and conduct that could be considered anti-competitive.
NZTG's remedies had concluded the commission's investigation, she said, adding that other organisations should learn from this.
'Trade associations, professional bodies and their members should be aware they could be held liable under the Commerce Act if conduct is shown to be anti-competitive. Penalties for breaching the Commerce Act can be severe, including potential imprisonment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Scrapped Surcharges A Win For New Zealanders
Hon Scott Simpson Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Surcharges will be axed to put money back in Kiwis' pockets, says Commerce and Consumer AffairsMinisterScottSimpson. 'Surcharges are a hassle and an unwelcome surprise when shoppers get to the till. That pesky note or sticker on the payment machine will become a thing of the past. 'We're banning surcharges so consumers can shop with confidence knowing how much they will pay for their purchases. 'New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges every year, including excessive surcharges of up to $65 million. That's money that could be saved or spent elsewhere. 'By May 2026 at the latest, we will ban surcharges for in-store payments. Shoppers will no longer be penalised for their choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping or using their phone's digital wallet.' The ban follows the Commerce Commission decision to reduce interchange fees paid by businesses to accept Visa and Mastercard payments, a move to save businesses around $90 million a year. 'Surcharges cover the fees businesses pay for accepting contactless payments and credit cards, but we know these are often excessive. 'In some cases, the retailer doesn't even make it clear what the percentage is. 'A ban on surcharges means no more surprises for people who currently feel like they're being charged to use their own hard-earned money. It means they can make a purchase knowing exactly what they'll pay, and how they'll pay it.' Notes: The Retail Payment System (Ban on Surcharges) Amendment Bill is expected to be introduced by the end of this year. The ban will apply to most in-store payments made using domestic Mastercard, Visa debit, credit cards and EFTPOS. Transactions through the Visa and Mastercard networks and by EFTPOS are the main method of card payment in New Zealand. The Commerce Commission estimates New Zealanders pay about $150 million in surcharges annually including $45-$65 million in excessive surcharges. The Commerce Commission has already announced lower interchange fees paid by businesses to accept Visa and Mastercard payments. Interchange fees make up approximately 60% of merchant service fees. In the United Kingdom and across the European Union, surcharges for debit and credit cards for designated schemes are banned. Australia currently has surcharging on debit and credit cards, but this must be no more than the cost to retailers of accepting these cards. The Reserve Bank of Australia has recently proposed banning surcharges altogether for EFTPOS and Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Court of Appeal rejects couple's challenge of order confiscating $1.7m in property after cannabis operation busted
It was argued both pieces of real estate were 'tainted' by Heron's illegal activities, which a forensic accountant estimated had netted him $1.28m between 2013 and 2020, and the cash was derived in the same way. Heron acknowledged that the $153,000 was derived from illegal activity but denied that any of his real estate was 'tainted' in terms of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Last year, the High Court made an order under the act to transfer the properties and the cash to the Crown. The couple took their case to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their challenge. However, the court order allowed Lewis to keep $147,000, which Lewis, who has no criminal charges and no criminal history, had contributed to the mortgage and upkeep of the properties from her legitimate full-time employment. The sum was to be paid to her after the properties had been sold. Heron and Lewis have since taken their case to the Court of Appeal, attempting to have the High Court's decision overturned. The couple's challenge Today, the Court of Appeal released its judgment which detailed Heron argued it was only necessary for the judge to make orders that deprived him of assets to the value of the cash profit he had made illegally from the cannabis operation, which amounted to about $380,000. He submitted that the sale of the Waikuku property alone would recover more than that amount, making forfeiture of the Fernside property unnecessary. It was also argued that forfeiting the Fernside property would cause undue hardship, as Heron had established a new business on that property. Lewis argued that the relief granted to her was inadequate and that the judge failed to fully consider her contributions to the Waikuku property from 2016 to 2020. It was also submitted that Lewis should retain the increase in the capital value of the Fernside property between the date of Heron's arrest and the hearing in the High Court. 'The undue hardship that the forfeiture of both properties will cause for her can only be mitigated by recognising the legitimate financial and non-financial contributions that she made both to her family and to the two properties,' her counsel argued. But the Court of Appeal ruled the judge was correct not to grant Heron relief against forfeiture concerning the Fernside property. The decision stated the Fernside property was bought using a deposit from Heron's tainted investment account, the house was then used as a residence for the family, and the garage was converted into a 'sophisticated cannabis growing facility' using cash derived from criminal activity. 'The garage was then used exclusively to conduct a sophisticated cannabis growing operation that derived further cash profits.' The Court of Appeal also ruled it would not be appropriate to increase the relief Lewis has already received. 'On any view of the evidence, she had some appreciation of what was occurring at both properties. She also plainly knew of the significant quantities of cash her husband's activities were generating over a period spanning several years. She was also prepared to share in the benefits those activities produced.' The senior court dismissed the couple's appeals and did not make an order for costs as their appeal was legally aided. Raid found 331 cannabis plants Heron was convicted on the cannabis charges in 2021 and then turned his skills to start a legitimate business, building up a 'micro-greens' growing facility providing edible vegetable sprouts using similar methods to his former cannabis operation. When he was raided in 2020, officers found 331 cannabis plants in four different stages of cultivation in four grow rooms or tents. The bust came about a month before the 2020 nationwide referendum on whether to legalise recreational cannabis. The referendum was narrowly defeated and a draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill did not proceed. When he was first arrested, Heron claimed he had only undertaken one successful grow to supply cannabis oil 'for medicinal purposes' in anticipation of a legislative change to permit this. On the day of the search, Lewis told police that she 'knew something was going on, but not the extent', court documents say. Police said, however, that Heron had been using four times the daily average electricity use for years to power his grow rooms. Since June 2016, he had consumed more than 100kWh (units) per day. Over four months in the spring and summer of 2015, his power bill came to $3483. Police said Heron had fitted out a five-bay garage next to his house to accommodate the commercial-scale hydroponic cannabis-growing operation. Equipment found included heat pumps and air conditioners, water and nutrient supply systems and a carbon dioxide pump. 'Cash and electronic funds derived from Mr Heron's criminal activity were regularly paid into the couple's joint bank account, and used to pay the mortgages,' according to the High Court order. In the walk-in wardrobe of the couple's bedroom, police found $153,860 – in total, 3238 banknotes neatly bundled up into $10,000 packages – in two lock boxes on a shelf.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Surcharge Ban Will Benefit Consumers, Retail NZ Says
Banning surcharges will improve the retail experience for customers but risks prices being increased to cover the costs of accepting credit card payments, Retail NZ says. 'Retail payments are a contentious and complex area for retail businesses. We are pleased the Government has listened to our calls for changes in the system, to enable retailers to provide better customer experiences,' Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young says. The changes will mean retailers cannot add surcharges to in-person domestic debit and credit cards. However, businesses will still be able to add surcharges to online sales, pre-paid and international credit cards. The changes are expected to come into force by May 2026 at the latest. Removing surcharges from in-store purchases is a positive move for domestic consumers, but the wider issue of pricing will need to be considered, Ms Young says. 'Retailers continue to face costs to accept debit and credit card payments and these costs will likely be added to product prices in future,' she says. The surcharge ban will likely see an accelerated decline in EFTPOS payments by consumers. EFTPOS payments do not incur any fees to retailers. As consumers change from using EFTPOS to contactless debit and credit cards, there will be a corresponding increase in the fees paid by retailers, so the benefits in the reduction of the interchange fee will be short-lived, especially for SMEs. A 2024 survey of Retail NZ members found that only 25.6% of respondents applied surcharges. Almost half of retailers calculated a rate that covered their costs, while 39% took advice from their terminal provider or relied on information from their bank statement. About 5% looked at what other retailers are charging. Members told us that the complexity of the Merchant Payment System prevented them from fully understanding the charges and fees they pay. These fees include interchange fees, scheme fees, switch fees, other external costs, internal costs and an acquirer margin. Considerable work will be needed to ensure that terminals have the ability to distinguish between domestic debit and credit cards, and commercial or international credit cards, and charge differential surcharge rates, Ms Young says. Retail NZ's position is that all cards should be treated equally. Retail NZ also wants certainty around the Commerce Commission's ability to monitor and enforce both the new interchange fees and the ban on surcharging. The Commerce Commission will need to ensure that the fees being charged to merchants reflect the new legislation, that the savings are passed on to retailers and that other fees are not increased. 'We will be seeking more detail on the surcharge changes, particularly around commercial credit cards which are not mentioned in today's announcement, and possible future changes to online transactions. We look forward to continuing to engage with the Government as it progresses these changes,' Ms Young says.
