Power Simon: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18542. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am particularly interested to follow the procedure around the new role for the High Court and how that pans out in a non-legislative sense. I am not sure of the procedures around how a Minister of the Crown does that but if it is just a matter of informing the body—or signalling to it— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The Rules Committee. 
SIMON POWER 
: We need to make sure that those processes take into account what will inevitably be a different framework initially. If that is the way it is done then that is the way it is done; I cannot comment on that. But I would certainly be interested in one capacity or another to see the processes that unfold from those particular discussions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’ll keep you engaged. 
SIMON POWER 
: I thank the Minister.  
There are two or three other matters that I would just like to put on record for the Opposition. In fact the Minister has addressed one of them in part already: the issue of the new appeals regime for the input methodologies and when it is that merits reviews are to occur. I know one of the major concerns from parties originally about having a two-step review process or appeal process was that the issue that gaming could occur. The concern was that because the two steps were in place that could easily be used as a way of—I would say—stalling the finality of the determinations. But in the end unless I am wrong—and the Minister or the officials can nod or shake their heads at me at this point—the initial finding is to stay in place while those particular reviews or discussions are going on. So the risk that front-end gaming will take place is eliminated almost completely because that initial stand is to be held in place while those discussions occur. If I have got it right that means that if indeed a merit review is undertaken it will be undertaken at a time when the original determination is held in place which means that there will be no material gain to be made from taking the appeal process through more than one stage. That makes sense and as long as that process within the context of the two appeal stages is understood by all players—which it will be when they read the legislation—I think that is an important step forward.  
It is worth making a comment about the consumer-based trusts for just one second. Of course the model behind the measure applying to them is that because the consumer is—in theory anyway—both the owner and the end user the squeeze if one likes on pricing means that both those parties because they hold two such crucial roles together require a less rigorous regulatory framework. In essence they are able to ultimately control pricing by controlling their representatives on various trusts and other such bodies and controlling any input they might have into the senior management or governance process surrounding decisions on price setting and the like.  
It is also worth making one point about a curious relationship that we discovered during the Commerce Committee hearings which I know the Hon Paul Swain and I were most engaged by. It is the interesting situation of the Northland community trust company where the “democratic” processes that are supposedly responsible for keeping that natural price setting in place are slightly skewed by the fact that the trustees are appointed directly by the member of Parliament for Northland and the Maori member for that area—in other words in current terminology by the honourable members John Carter and Hone Harawira. That presents a slightly skewed version of the democratic model that the consumer-based trust is designed to put in place because of course no direct participatory pressure is able to be exerted in the same way that would occur with the other consumer-based trusts. I think it is worth making that point but I do think this measure is a tidy way of dealing with those trusts.  
I have one final question that the Minister may be able to deal with before I hand over to my colleagues who have far more expertise and detailed knowledge of these matters than I do. It is on the issue of the capacity of the Commerce Commission to deliver on the input methodologies on time. That is an important point and it was one that I and to a lesser extent the Hon Paul Swain raised with a number of submitters during the select committee process. When Ms Rebstock appeared for the commission—it was all in open session so I am not breaching any privilege—she assured the committee that we had sufficient expertise and capacity to get these input methodologies determined in a way that would not hold up the process. That is an important assurance that this Committee needs to hear from the Minister. Although I know the Minister has no direct political ability to interfere with the commission’s work nor should she or any other Minister for that matter it would be helpful to be reassured that she is confident in her ministerial capacity that the commission does have the capacity to meet those time lines in what is—and I know Lindsay Tisch and Richard Worth know more about this than I do—exceptionally complex and very very difficult work.  
I will leave my contributions on this part of the debate there but I ask the Minister just to give the Committee of the whole House some assurances in that regard.