Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on the Commerce Amendment Bill first reading. As we've heard this bill has got three parts to it and I'm principally going to talk about the first two parts. The first one is around competition studies and I think first of all I should preface this with the fact that everyone in this House wants to make sure that we have good strong competition in New Zealand and that players are acting appropriately and robustly so that we do as consumers pay the lowest amount that we should for goods and services. So I don't think there's anything to debate about that point. The role of the Commerce Commission itself is really at the stake of what this is about. I just want to pick up on those points that the last speaker just raised. It's about the degree of balance and who should have the authority to go and undertake what is the most significant of any of the activities that a commission such as the Commerce Commission in New Zealand would undertake—that is undertaking a market investigation. I've got to say I think the nuance that people are missing is that New Zealand's structure is slightly different than many other competition-type organisations around the world. For instance I went to see the Competition and Markets Authority in London in December last year and it was interesting looking at their structure where the executive have a very important role to play in terms of looking at the way competition is undertaken in the market and undertaking market studies. But the difference between New Zealand and the UK as just one example is that there is another body sitting in between the executive and the ultimate decision of that Competition and Markets Authority—namely an independent board. That's the difference. There's an independent step before the commission would go off and do what is the most significant of actions that it ever takes. And bear in mind that if the commission gets it wrong that may in some cases be absolutely detrimental to the business concerned. So the reason why we're opposed to this bill is the fact that we believe that when it comes to these really really important decisions around undertaking a market study those decisions should be taken by a Minister subject to a Cabinet process so that they are given a heightened level of scrutiny before they are undertaken. That's not to say that they should not be undertaken but what it makes very clear is that there is a high threshold because as I said before if they get it wrong and there are aspersions around a market study that's undertaken and found in time to be incorrect or unproven then that can be very detrimental to the business concerned. I just want to pick up on airports which is really around Part 4 of the principal Act. As we all know the Commerce Commission has a very important role in terms of overseeing terminal charges and landing fees which basically make up the difference or the return that an airport will achieve in New Zealand. Those two are the key drivers and of course the commission has a role in terms of setting an appropriate return on investment or weighted average cost of capital for the three airports—Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. This piece of legislation provides by regulation an ability for the commission to require more information and as a former member of the Regulations Review Committee I'm sure many will appreciate that it's much more important that those types of powers should be embedded in the primary legislation and not through the back door—i.e. in the form of regulation-making power—and that is why we have a problem with this piece of legislation. So the third element of course we are supportive of but I think those two points that I've spoken about earlier are vital significant and important. I think people need to think very very clearly about them but certainly from my perspective I wouldn't be supporting this bill.