Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Deputy Speaker it's with great pleasure I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the amended 1986 Commerce Act. I'd actually also like to join in Michael Wood's comments around Minister Faafoi and I note some media comments along the same line. He's been an excellent Minister in his civil defence and commerce portfolios—so good in fact that we think he might actually be good enough to be a New Zealand First Minister if he carries on this trajectory.Of course we know there are three parts to this bill. It amends the airports regime Part 4 of the Commerce Act; it encourages competition with the market studies regime; and it makes changes to the alternative enforcement laws—all very important distinctions. The airports—and of course New Zealand First has been in the media a little bit: my colleague Shane Jones standing up for the regions and the air connectivity and part of that of course is making sure that we get a fair go for the regional airports and making sure that they are competitive providing a good service and not just the big monopolies in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch.There have been some studies done into this—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment 2014-16 study. This started to show that Auckland Airport the profits that they were making were probably adding over and above. I think it shows that they were making a 7.6 percent return as opposed to 6.4 which was considered the benchmark and that was close to a dollar a head per passenger. So that is maybe a small increment but that was $47 million when it was added up over a five-year period. And of course Auckland Airport is looking at getting a second runway so there is a chance with those monopolistic powers to potentially do a bit of price gouging and the amendment to this Act allows the Commerce Commission to reach into that particular company and in this example have a look to make sure that the pricing that is being charged is fair it's benchmarked and it is fair to the consumer.Of course we've had some other recent examples outside of the airport industry—the BP situation recently which I'll allude to shortly—but the introduction of the market studies amendment is the bit that I would like to concentrate on because I think New Zealand is of a scale where monopolies duopolies are almost a necessary evil at times. We haven't got the population outside the behemoth that is Auckland. We have quite a large land mass and fairly small population and for businesses to get economies of scale you know there's not that much competition there to compete for.So when we see the supermarket duopolies for example we can look back maybe 10 years ago when The Warehouse tried to get into groceries. Now there wouldn't be a more well-known retailer with an existing footprint and with an existing clientele. They lasted probably less than a year in groceries because the duopoly was able to squeeze them out. Essentially that showed just how hard it is to break some of these established duopolies and get other competition coming in. We've also had the recent example as I said of BP.Monopolies aren't necessarily a bad thing. They're not necessarily evil. New Zealand's best primary industry the kiwifruit industry has a single-desk seller—a total monopoly on selling and exporting kiwifruit. Zespri has been incredibly successful. It has been supported time and again by the growers. When they get to vote they want to keep that economy of scale that market presence and that marketing clout.So monopolies aren't necessarily evil but there's horses for courses. In New Zealand as I said because of our unique circumstances—a rather large land mass and relatively small population outside of Auckland—sometimes they're just the way it is. We need to make sure that the consumers are protected and that this market studies provision that allows the Minister or the Commerce Commission to reach inside that industry and have a look—it needs to be used judiciously. There is a cost to business. We don't want this to be something that's done willy-nilly. There has to be some justification and that would be the case. There are appropriate safeguards in place within this bill and full justifications have to be made. There's terms of reference and we have to set out the scope. So New Zealand First is comfortable that this is appropriate.The other monopoly of course that is an absolute testament to central planning if you want to go down that is the New Zealand Rugby Union and the All Blacks—totally centrally planned. We dominate the world—the most successful sporting team in international sports history is centrally planned. So you know these things aren't necessarily evil. There are horses for courses.There is also the alternative enforcement mechanisms and as has been mentioned the cease and desist provisions have not been utilised for the reason that they've been a bit clunky. Only once in the last 15 years has that particular provision been used so court injunctions have been more efficient. They've been seen to get the job done faster. The commission can enforce standards and it does have the same powers as the court in some circumstances so I think this is an ability to streamline and speed up some of those provisions. So that's got to be good and that'll take cost out.So without further ado New Zealand First does support this through to the next reading. We will obviously look to the select committee—as we should—for ways that we can streamline this as I'm sure businesses will come forward. There are some powerful forces out there against this potentially so we have to make sure that even those voices are heard and that's what this Parliament is here to do.So without further ado I would like to commend this bill to the select committee. I commend the Minister and this Government again for bringing forward sensible pragmatic legislation that is looking to make life better for average New Zealanders. With that I commend this bill to the House.