Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's an absolute delight to speak on the Commerce Amendment Bill. I came down toddled down from my wee office in Bowen House as I was making the trek over and I was quite excited tonight because I thought I was going to be giving a cheerful speech about this whole House being in support of common-sense amendments for our Commerce Act. When I went through and I'd prepared this great little summary about how it's not often that we can all agree on striking a pretty finely nuanced—there's a nuanced line between I guess enabling a competitive market to get the best from our economy and as we all know competition is a core underpinning of our economic model.But in turn the purpose of the Commerce Act the principal Act—already given my speech and everything—is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefits of consumers. So I was heartened when I was reading the remarks of the former National Minister Jacqui Dean particularly with regard to undertaking market studies. This is the bit I couldn't understand—what is the Opposition saying? That's why I came down here to give this jubilant kind of commendation to the whole House because she said in June 2017 that These proposals"—speaking in regard to the market studies—"would include empowering the Commerce Commission to undertake market studies and improve its enforcement actions without having to go to court." It said that it would allow the Government to be proactive rather than reactive.But it seems that the Opposition has decided to go against what the Hon Jacqui Dean was recommending when she was at the helm for that Opposition party and they've decided to react to common-sense legislation for the betterment of our economy. Now that doesn't make any sense to me because look whilst I'm not a member on the commerce committee I am indeed a consumer. I want to commend the Hon Kris Faafoi because what he has been required to do in a very short amount of time is strike the balance between enabling competition law and getting the right balance to enable our economy. That isn't easy but there is plenty of work that has been undertaken—that was undertaken indeed under the last Minister which is why it's absolutely bamboozling on this side of the House to understand why that side of the House is not supporting common-sense legislation.But look I'll turn to the substantive matters in terms of what this amendment bill actually does. It does three parts. I'm not going to spend too much time waxing lyrical in regard to the airport regulation component but I do want to touch on the market studies and I do want to touch on the alternative enforcement provisions. Again it was just this week—I'm going to quote the honourable—where is it? Oh goodness me my notes are all over the show. Anyway I want to quote the Hon Jonathan Young who this week said in regard to—Brett Hudson: The "Hon"? He's got a promotion.KIRITAPU ALLAN: Wasn't he? I thought he was "Hon".Hon Member: Of course he's honourable.KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well anyway that fine gentleman from New Plymouth—and he's honourable in character because I absolutely agreed with his remarks from this week. He said in regard to this bill that's going through this House with the great gusto and support of the former Government—he said in regard to what happened with BP this week—now we all saw that there was a whole range of what looks to be anti-competitive behaviour. That was shown through a series of correspondence which we've had a little insight into over the course of the last week. But what that honourable member from the Opposition said was that that's why the Commerce Commission—he spoke in favour of these amendments. "That was why giving the Commerce Commission more power to study petrol market pricing was so important he said. The Commerce Amendment Bill"—the one that this Government is currently passing—"introduced to Parliament"—this is a quote apparently—"on March 28 will give the Commerce Commission the power to study the structure and behaviour of markets and compel organisations and businesses to provide information to them."Now that was the position just this week of the Opposition in regard to these issues so I don't understand—and you know look many of us sit and we work pragmatically together but I just don't understand why you're flip-flopping on such fundamental issues that benefit all New Zealand striking the balance between ensuring that consumers get the best in the long run and maintaining healthy competition. You know that we know that but some of us—that side of the House—decide to play politics with an issue that just should not be a ball to kick around right?Anyway with regard to the market studies let's just take for example if this week or prior to now there had been the ability when there was some suspicion that there might have been some fiddling going around and some strong-arming in some industries or some markets—for example petrol and its price fixing—if the Commerce Commission had on reasonable grounds determined that in the public interest it was important to conduct its own inquiry and its own market study it could have requested information. It could have requested reports or financials to make sure that every single consumer in New Zealand is benefiting as it was intended to do under the original Commerce Act to make sure that all consumers were in the long run getting the best from our industry. So I absolutely want to commend—I came down here ready to commend the National Party and our side but anyway I can't do that any more. I want to commend the work of the Hon Kris Faafoi.This is a nuanced this is a technical this is a complicated area of law. Some people know that and some people spend a lot of their time on it. I took the opportunity earlier this afternoon to go through a broad range of submissions that were made on the original inquiry and I think there was a gentleman that I must turn my mind to and make commendation of some of his remarks. I'll start with his conclusion on the report that he gave. He was an ex—oh God my notes are all over the show. There we go—there we go. His name was Donal Curtin and he was a former member of the Commerce Commission earlier on in the early 2000s straight after the introduction. [Interruption] He's probably one of your best mates. But one of the things that I found interesting from his perspective is he said look "I start from a reasonably pro-business standpoint. I am sympathetic to arguments that businesses with market power must be allowed (even required) to compete vigorously and that the law and jurisprudence must be clear enough (as much as it can be in this difficult context) to avoid dynamic or other 'chilling' inefficiencies." So effectively he's going to what the Opposition has been saying. But he said "But even from where I stand"—even from where I stand on the pro-business side of things—"I think it's reasonably clear that the status quo has failed."Again I cannot understand why the Opposition is playing politics with such a significant area of law to benefit all of our communities. Both sides of the House know this. I have no idea what you fullas are up to but anyway "even from where I stand I think it is reasonably clear that the status quo has failed. The test for anti-competitive behaviour is too weak: its design allows anti-competitive behaviour to slip through. It … risks misidentifying potentially pro-consumer behaviour." and so on and so forth.Hon Member: Whose speech is this you're reading?KIRITAPU ALLAN: This submission is a great speech and he's probably from your quarters. His name's Donal Curtin. He submits on pretty much everything—a former member of the Commerce Commission—and I think that your side of the House might benefit from sitting with somebody—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please stop bringing me into the debate.KIRITAPU ALLAN: My sincere apologies Madam Deputy Speaker. Now look we can't wax lyrical. I'm still bamboozled as to what the Opposition's up to. But what we do know is that this side of the House is taking pragmatic and prudent measures to ensure the long-term viability and security of consumers. That was the original intention of the Commerce Act and that is what this Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has done—effectively agreed with what your former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said agreed with what our good friend Jonathan Young has said just this week—to ensure that issues like BP and everything that we've seen in that correspondence don't have a long-term detrimental effect on consumers. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."