Latest news with #FSNI
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Business
- Spectator
Inside the Lords battle on foreign media ownership
After a two-year impasse, the future of the Daily Telegraph could be resolved shortly. A £500m deal has been struck for US firm Redbird Capital to take control of the Telegraph Media Group, with state-backed Abu Dhabi investment vehicle IMI among investors. But a fresh challenge has arisen in the House of Lords. Peers are threatening to block minister's efforts to change the law to give foreign companies a greater stake in British media outfits – up from the existing five per cent to 15 cent. This is a necessary legal change to allow the Telegraph sale to go ahead. A 'fatal motion' will be held in the Lords on Tuesday; if passed, it would kill the government's plans. It is a device seldom wielded by peers, having been last used in 2012. But opponents are growing increasingly confident that the 'fatal motion' could succeed. Two separate fronts have opened up in the Lords. The first is led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox, who tabled the motion. Lib Dem whips are understood to be pulling out all the stops to maximise turnout, including facilitating the attendance of their older peers who do not vote regularly. Their argument is simple: the power of the free press should not be sold to overseas companies susceptible to foreign government influence. The hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. The second front is led by the cross-party Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac) and its supporters like Lord Alton. Their focus is more directly on the Telegraph sale. Sir Iain Duncan Smith has written to Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, arguing that a Foreign State Intervention Notice (FSNI) be issued in this case. A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC details alleged links between Redbird Capital's chairman John Thornton and the Chinese state, including his advisory roles on Beijing's sovereign wealth fund. Sir Iain argues that this is compelling evidence for Nandy to 'adhere to your statutory duty and issue a FSIN without delay.' Both groups are seeking to influence their colleagues across the House. Given the government's lack of a majority, the hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. Tory whips are expected to vote against the fatal motion, though their colleagues will not be whipped to follow suit. Lord Forsyth, the respected chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, is expected to vote for the motion; others will likely follow his lead. One opponent notes that the Conservatives voted for fatal motions that successfully halted government legislation when they were last in opposition before 2010. A separate 'motion of regret' has been put down by Baroness Stowell, the former Leader of the House. Some supporters of the fatal motion fear it could frustrate their efforts, with wavering peers potentially voting for Stowell's amendment rather than Fox's. The government will argue that a statutory instrument can close the loophole whereby multiple states can each own 15 per cent of any publication. But their critics will counter that this is insufficient and will not stop the Telegraph deal from going ahead.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Commerce Commission To File Proceedings Against Foodstuffs North Island And Gilmours, Alleging Cartel Conduct
The Commerce Commission will shortly file civil proceedings against Foodstuffs North Island Limited (FSNI) and Gilmours Wholesale Limited (Gilmours) for alleged cartel conduct (market allocation) in breach of the Commerce Act, and alleged breaches of the Grocery Industry Competition Act (GICA). The Commission investigated agreements that FSNI and Gilmours entered into with a national grocery supplier regarding the supply of products to a hospitality customer. The supplier and the customer both have considerable volumes of business with FSNI/Gilmours. When FSNI/Gilmours discovered the supplier and customer had established a direct trading relationship, they persuaded the supplier to re-route that business through them. Commerce Commission Chair, Dr John Small, says the Commission believes FSNI and Gilmours engaged in cartel conduct which is a breach of section 30 of the Commerce Act. 'We take allegations of cartel conduct very seriously. Cartel conduct harms consumers through higher prices or reduced quality, and it harms other businesses that are trying to compete fairly,' Dr Small says. 'In this instance, the supplier wanted to provide a competitive supply channel, but this was stopped by the agreement with FSNI and Gilmours. 'We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will not hesitate to take court action, where appropriate,' Dr Small says. The Commission is also filing proceedings against FSNI and Gilmours under GICA. The Commission believes FSNI and Gilmours obstructed the supplier's ability to sell groceries to the customer in question, and did not deal with the supplier in good faith. Grocery Commissioner, Pierre van Heerden, says this behaviour could be in breach of the Grocery Supply Code. 'The Grocery Supply Code was introduced to address the power imbalance between the major supermarkets and their suppliers,' Mr van Heerden says. 'The major supermarkets are the largest customers for most grocery suppliers. This creates a reluctance for suppliers to call out bad behaviour or push back on the supermarkets for fear of damaging relationships or losing access to supermarket shelves. 'The Commission is acutely aware of the risk suppliers may face coming forward and has ways to protect their identity and business. We have anonymous reporting tools for cartels and GICA and encourage anyone concerned to use these ways of contacting us,' Mr van Heerden says. As this matter will soon be before the Court, the Commission will not be providing further comment on the case at this time. Background Cartel conduct A cartel is where two or more businesses agree not to compete with each other. Cartel conduct can take many forms, including price fixing, allocating customers, rigging bids or restricting the output of goods and services. Because cartels can harm the interests of consumers - goods and services become more expensive, consumers end up with fewer choices, and quality and service levels are likely to deteriorate – tackling cartels is one of the Commission's key enforcement priorities. Grocery Supply Code New Zealand's mandatory Grocery Supply Code was introduced under the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023. The Supply Code was created to increase transparency and certainty for suppliers through a set of rules supermarkets need to follow when dealing with suppliers. Bringing increased certainty to agreements between supermarkets and suppliers is intended to give suppliers more confidence to innovate and invest in more choice for consumers.
Scoop
01-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Foodstuffs North Island Warned For Likely Breaking Grocery Competition Law
The Commerce Commission has issued a warning to Foodstuffs North Island (FSNI) for their treatment of a supplier that likely breached the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023. 'We believe that Foodstuffs North Island likely breached a fundamental aspect of the Supply Code which is that retailers deal with suppliers in good faith at all times,' Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden says. "I'm concerned that this follows a pattern of behaviour that has been present in the industry for decades. 'This behaviour has been enabled for so long due to the significant power imbalance between the major supermarkets, who hold the vast majority of the market, and suppliers, who have limited bargaining power in comparison. 'Foodstuffs North Island appears to have obstructed and delayed a supplier request by acting in ways that we believe were uncooperative and unreasonable. 'In this instance, based on the evidence we have, we decided a warning was the right response. However, if more examples come to light, we will not hesitate to take further action,' Mr van Heerden says. The Category Manager at FSNI, who acted as the main point of contact for the supplier, also came under investigation regarding their role in this matter. 'Suppliers are reliant on their relationships with the retailers' commercial teams, so the staff in these roles within the supermarkets hold a lot of power. Any behaviour that weaponises this power imbalance is unacceptable,' Mr van Heerden says. 'The major supermarkets have a responsibility to make sure their staff are properly trained. They need to make sure their staff follow the rules and deal with suppliers in good faith. 'The changes we're proposing to the Supply Code are intended to provide more scrutiny to these relationships and clarity about what is acceptable behaviour. 'Our supplier survey showed that 37% of suppliers reported their interactions with Foodstuffs North Island as negative or very negative. This is significantly higher than suppliers' ratings for Woolworths and Foodstuffs South Island, at approximately 20%. 'We're focused on addressing this power imbalance and improving things for suppliers. We really appreciate where suppliers have come forward to tell us about issues so we can take action – like in this case where we heard directly from the supplier involved,' Mr van Heerden says. Only a Court can determine if there has been a breach of the Act. Background The warning letter can be found on the Commission's website. New Zealand's mandatory Grocery Supply Code was introduced under the Grocery Industry Competition Act. The Code was created to increase transparency and certainty for suppliers through a set of rules supermarkets need to follow when dealing with suppliers. Bringing increased certainty to agreements between supermarkets and suppliers would give suppliers more confidence to innovate and invest in more choice for consumers. The maximum penalty for breaches of the Supply Code for an individual is $200,000, or in any other case the greater of $3 million, and the value of any commercial gain; or if that can't be ascertained 3% of the company turnover.
Scoop
05-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Expert Commentary: NZ Privacy Commissioner Provides Clarity For Retailers On Facial Recognition Technology
Press Release – Optic Security Group Finding published yesterday by NZ Privacy Commissioner on supermarket facial recognition trial places retailers on notice, says FRT technology risk expert. Nicholas Dynon is Brand Strategy & Innovation Director at Optic Security Group. He is a certified security risk professional and counter terrorism practitioner. 'The inquiry report found that the live facial recognition technology (FRT) model trialed by Foodstuffs North Island Limited (FSNI) in 25 of its supermarkets complied with New Zealand's Privacy Act. While the Privacy Commissioner assessed the level of privacy intrusion as high due to every shopper's face data being collected, the privacy safeguards in the trial reduced it to an acceptable level. 'The outcome has been met with strong and immediate political support, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith lauding the result as 'great news' and stating that he now expects the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime to 'continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely'. 'The outcome also provides some much-needed clarity for retailers – and other organisations – who have held back on considering FRT as a potential solution to their security issues due to the fear of ending up on the wrong side of privacy legislation. But it's not a green light. 'The Privacy Commissioner has highlighted several changes that FSNI needs to make in order to make its trial permanent or to expand it to more stores. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) has also set out nine key expectations for organisations that are considering using FRT. 'Compliant FRT deployment is about more than just the technology itself. Factors such as identifying and assessing the specific purpose for which you want to use FRT, maintaining watchlists, protecting the system from misuse and information breach, communications to customers, staffing and training, customer interventions, incident response, managing enquiries and complaints, and maintaining and monitoring the system, are all critical to compliance – and they involve significant research, planning, testing, and careful implementation. 'At the same time, retailers should be aware that the results of an OPC survey published just weeks ago demonstrate that many New Zealanders are not supportive of the use of FRT in retail stores. 'The survey of over 1,200 New Zealanders found that 41% of respondents are 'concerned' or 'very concerned' about the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in retail stores to identify individuals. A total of 25% are neutral on the topic, 31% are either not so concerned or not concerned at all, and 3% are unsure. 49% of Maori respondents indicated concern over FRT in retail. 'For retailers considering FRT, this means not only ensuring all the privacy legislation boxes are ticked but also taking a step back and asking whether FRT is the most appropriate solution to your security problem. 'Inappropriate FRT deployment exposes an organisation not only to legal risk but also to significant reputational risk. Engaging with trusted experts to understand the privacy dimensions and factors influencing social licence to operate this emerging technology are critical.'
Scoop
05-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Expert Commentary: NZ Privacy Commissioner Provides Clarity For Retailers On Facial Recognition Technology
Press Release – Optic Security Group Finding published yesterday by NZ Privacy Commissioner on supermarket facial recognition trial places retailers on notice, says FRT technology risk expert. Nicholas Dynon is Brand Strategy & Innovation Director at Optic Security Group. He is a certified security risk professional and counter terrorism practitioner. 'The inquiry report found that the live facial recognition technology (FRT) model trialed by Foodstuffs North Island Limited (FSNI) in 25 of its supermarkets complied with New Zealand's Privacy Act. While the Privacy Commissioner assessed the level of privacy intrusion as high due to every shopper's face data being collected, the privacy safeguards in the trial reduced it to an acceptable level. 'The outcome has been met with strong and immediate political support, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith lauding the result as 'great news' and stating that he now expects the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime to 'continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely'. 'The outcome also provides some much-needed clarity for retailers – and other organisations – who have held back on considering FRT as a potential solution to their security issues due to the fear of ending up on the wrong side of privacy legislation. But it's not a green light. 'The Privacy Commissioner has highlighted several changes that FSNI needs to make in order to make its trial permanent or to expand it to more stores. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) has also set out nine key expectations for organisations that are considering using FRT. 'Compliant FRT deployment is about more than just the technology itself. Factors such as identifying and assessing the specific purpose for which you want to use FRT, maintaining watchlists, protecting the system from misuse and information breach, communications to customers, staffing and training, customer interventions, incident response, managing enquiries and complaints, and maintaining and monitoring the system, are all critical to compliance – and they involve significant research, planning, testing, and careful implementation. 'At the same time, retailers should be aware that the results of an OPC survey published just weeks ago demonstrate that many New Zealanders are not supportive of the use of FRT in retail stores. 'The survey of over 1,200 New Zealanders found that 41% of respondents are 'concerned' or 'very concerned' about the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in retail stores to identify individuals. A total of 25% are neutral on the topic, 31% are either not so concerned or not concerned at all, and 3% are unsure. 49% of Maori respondents indicated concern over FRT in retail. 'For retailers considering FRT, this means not only ensuring all the privacy legislation boxes are ticked but also taking a step back and asking whether FRT is the most appropriate solution to your security problem. 'Inappropriate FRT deployment exposes an organisation not only to legal risk but also to significant reputational risk. Engaging with trusted experts to understand the privacy dimensions and factors influencing social licence to operate this emerging technology are critical.'
