Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15471. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to theMinister of Finance: With regard to the Commerce Commission what was he implying when he toldNewstalkZB that the Government does not want “another episode where there’s such a significant impact from a decision based on our regulation”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I was not implying anything more or less than what I was actually saying. Recent decisions within our regulatory structure have been a source of some uncertainty. The Government is interested in considering whether our regulation delivers the stability necessary to attract investment to our infrastructure businesses to ensure that customers get the best possible service with the latest possible technology. That is what we mean.Hon Peter Dunne: What does the Minister say to those who suggest that his so-called health check or even his comments from this afternoon are merely code for seeking to nobble the Commerce Commission for not giving the Government the decision it was expecting on the Chorus case?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know that the member would never infer that but to anyone else I would say that that is simply not the case. If one thinks of the Commerce Commission as the referee it applies the rules as it finds them and we need to do a health check on what the rules are that it is applying.Hon Peter Dunne: What assurances can the Minister give the House that as a result of this review or whatever he wants to call it the powers of the Commerce Commission will not be weakened and its autonomy will be enhanced?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As far as I am aware the Commerce Commission has fairly impressive autonomy now so whether it can be more autonomous I think would be yet to be seen. But I do not imagine that the Government will be looking at the powers of the Commerce Commission at all. The commission will be free to continue as an independent statutory body as it always should just as the Government is free to look at the rules that the Commerce Commission applies.Clare Curran: Does he accept that regulation is necessary in the provision of network-based services because the New Zealand public spends a significant proportion of their disposal incomes on energy and communications and excessive charges take money out of the rest of the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think the member would be surprised to hear me say that yes we do believe regulation is necessary. Governments of all colours in New Zealand have spent the last 20 years trying to get the right balance of on the one hand investment that improves the quality of our infrastructure and therefore services to our families and households and on the other hand ensuring that those who own thatinfrastructure do not make excessive profits. It is a shame that her party is looking to disrupt 20 years of investment in electricity regulation which is now among the best in the world.Clare Curran: Is it not the case that the Commerce Commission made its decision about copper prices based on the requirements set out in the 2011 legislation amendments to the Telecommunications Act and if the significant fall in copper prices was not expected why was his Government not informed of this possibility at the time?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is actually a very good question from the member. It is a bit of a puzzle that sharemarkets which are normally quite good at evaluating probabilities around price tracks for instance clearly got it wrong in this case and maybe everyone else did as well. That is really the main reason why we are interested in doing a health check.