Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. Fakalofa lahi atu. It's that sort of speech—and actually the result of nine years of that former Government that has seen this trickle-down hands-under-the-bum not acting result which sees Kiwis pay some of the highest—Hon Tim Macindoe: What is a hands-under-the-bum not acting" result? GARETH HUGHES: You know it's sitting on their hands free market trickle-down Ronald Reagan - style politics that sees Kiwis pay some of the highest costs of living work some of the longest hours and receive some of the lowest wages in the entire developed world—because that Government wanted to take a hands-off approach to the economy. They were quite happy for the oil companies to fleece ordinary consumers but the reality is that they were talking about where the costs are going to lie. The member who just resumed his seat the Hon Paul Goldsmith was talking about the costs to businesses not the benefits to consumers.Now if the member only bothered to read the background documents behind this what he would find is sure there is a cost to business but that is minuscule compared to the opportunities the benefits for consumers. In fact the data shows there's a $62 million net benefit for the country as a result of making sure we've got competitive markets. Now the member the Hon Shane Jones gave a quote about markets and I agree. I think they're a great way in certain circumstances to deal with scarce resources—markets do play a role. But I also agree with the quote from Bob Menendez in the US a former senator who said "Free markets are good but what you don't want is a free-for-all market." Now what we want to avoid is the fact where we have markets that only operate for the few.This legislation deals with airports' regulations with the Commerce Commission and gives the Commerce Commission new part 3A in the principal Act to deal with market studies—the power through the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs or the Commerce Commission to do a market study into an area. This is critically important because what we don't want is markets that only work for a few. Now we've seen the argument in the petrol market when it comes to the fuel storage in the South Island in the port of Lyttelton. A valid criticism can also be levelled at the supermarket duopoly. Here you have two major players—Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—exerting massive market power and influence and control for producers but also for consumers.So this legislation simply gives the Commerce Commission the power to conduct those market studies. It's not to regulate. It's not to set the prices or do anything like that. It's simply to do a market study to look into how competitive it is. I'd point out that this power already exists in the Telecommunications Act 2001—and here is a classic case and I wonder: is the previous speaker Paul Goldsmith actually moving away from the philosophy which has rapidly driven down telecommunication prices for Kiwis? The only other area where we have the ability to do a market study is in the Telecommunications Act 2001 and it was these powers that actually led to unbundling the split-up of Telecom the entry of 2degrees into the market—a third player which has massively dropped telecommunication prices for Kiwi consumers: a clear net benefit. But if we listen to Paul Goldsmith the poor cost to Telecom would be enough to rule out this legislation. So simply having this new market studies power in the public interest dictated by the Commerce Commission or the Minister is an important point.The previous member also did a world survey and said "Well you know it only happens in a few countries."—absolutely wrong. When the OECD looked into this what they found is that of the 62 countries surveyed only New Zealand and Chile—the only two countries out of 62 developing-world and other countries surveyed—didn't have these types of powers. So I think there was a bit of a falsehood or an exaggeration. It's very clear that the overwhelming majority of developing countries do use these powers because they bring benefits to their consumers.So it's good for consumers but I would also put it that it's good for business. Now I have read the submission of Business New Zealand who are pointing out the cost. I've already talked about the benefit-cost ratio which is clearly beneficial for the country and the public interest. Those small business costs are vastly outweighed by the benefits to the economy. I would also urge Business New Zealand members that actually it's good for all businesses in New Zealand when we have competitive markets that are working effectively with competition.When you look at the sectors where there are risks of adverse market powers—fuel energy transport food telecommunications—these are critical areas for all New Zealand businesses to operate. Surely it's in all New Zealand businesses' interests to make sure we have a competitive market.The last word I'd say on the new market powers provision in this legislation is from a former Commerce Commissioner Donal Curtin who said "Most countries have come to the conclusion that if you have a competition authority it's kind of sensible that it should be able to find out whether the competition is working in places" Now this is the message to the industry: if there's nothing to hide there's nothing to fear. This is an important step forward to make sure we have competitive markets and a fair go for consumers.When it comes to airport regulation what this bill is doing is not jumping first to regulating airports—who currently are subject to information disclosure under Part 4 of the Commerce Act. It's simply providing a credible opportunity for that going forward. What's the point of asking airports which are regulated monopolies—just for example: Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. Two billion dollars was the profit paid by Auckland Airport over the last 10 years. These three international airports monopolies in their regions have huge powers to influence our tourism industry which is—what?—$14.5 billion. Ninety-nine percent of tourists fly in through these airports. There's a huge power imbalance between these monopolies who have all the power and the airlines and the airline passengers who have no power to negotiate.So this legislation isn't jumping to a regulation approach setting the prices. It's simply saying that if there is excessive price gouging or problems in these markets the Commerce Commission and the Government should have the power to regulate. I think it's important to have that credible threat if—and I'm not saying there is—in the future there are issues with those markets and if they're abusing their monopoly powers.I guess there has previously been a case—when you look at Wellington Airport's pricing the Commerce Commission found that its profits were excessive and unjustified. I believe that was in 2013—between $38 and $69 million. In 2012 to 2017 Christchurch Airport was found to be seeking excessive profits in the range of $21 to $35 million. So it is a live issue and it's important that the Government and the commission have those powers simply in reserve if it ever needs them.So the Green Party is happy to support this legislation which is making sure that there's a fair go for Kiwi consumers and that markets are operating fairly but it's not just a free-for-all and we're not going to see monopolistic or duopolistic price gouging at the expense of the New Zealand economy. Kia ora koutou."