Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like quite obviously to talk about Part 2 of the bill relating to airport services. I also want to point out what I see as a slight inconsistency between Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 does not require an Order in Council or a ministerial veto if you like around any Commerce Commission (ComCom) inquiry. ComCom can initiate an inquiry themselves as in Part 1. But in Part 2 it seems—and the Minister might want to help me out here—that the Minister or Cabinet or by Order in Council you know gets the last say in whether a short-form process or an inquiry or a regulatory investigation into the airports takes place.So that to me—in Part 2 where the Minister or Cabinet has the veto—is a good thing. That ensures that public interest is at the heart of the matter. It is not a bureaucratic decision. It might be a bureaucratic recommendation but at the end of the day the Minister has the say as to whether that short-form process bothering to intervene or to compel airports to disclose more information for the purposes of transparency and commercial understanding of those airports is with the Minister. And that's good but it's inconsistent with Part 1—if I can just reflect back on Part 1. That's where the ComCom is able to initiate an inquiry without the Minister's veto or without the Minister's public interest at heart. So if the Minister could help me out on that one that would be good.The second point is around the three airports. It does seem to be again an inconsistency where only three airports are relevant to this piece of regulation. There are a lot more than three airports around here that have the same market dominance in their area. If it's good for one why isn't it good for another if you like? Whether it's Queenstown whether it's Invercargill—I think they've still got an international airport in Invercargill correct me if I'm wrong but they do. They'd probably like a few more passengers through there and because of the lack of passengers maybe their prices are too high. Maybe they should be looked at. Maybe that is an issue.In fact where there are more passengers and more throughput and more competition you'll find that—because competition's a good thing; it drives efficiencies and it drives costs down. I would expect that where there are greater traffic flows greater levels of international and domestic transport with people coming through you will find that they're able to get their costs per capita really low. Where there's an airport—even an international one—with fewer tourists and less traffic they will struggle because of the economies of scale and the lack of throughput through the doors of that airport. So my question is: why just the three? Queenstown's been mentioned but I think as I say there are other airports and other international airports that might serve fewer people but might well be charging way too much. Let the ComCom make the recommendation.I agree that the Minister has the last right—the veto if you like or the sign-off—and that's the way it should be because the Minister in this Parliament does have public interest at heart and I see that as an inconsistency with the way the Minister's argued in the first part of this bill. Thank you.