Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Well look I want to extend in this sense of bipartisanship that one of the best things—the best policy-making machine we've got across Government—is this House. So I'd like to extend an invitation to the Minister if he will take it up. I'm pretty sure I'll get the support of my colleagues here and we'll talk to our House leadership as well. We have got the opportunity here Mr Faafoi to do the only depth of policy consideration that New Zealanders need which is for their elected officials their elected representatives to make a decision about the legislation that governs their behaviour and governs the behaviour of businesses. So enforceable undertakings behavioural undertakings—Mr Faafoi we can do it here. It is true there was a question about whether or not behavioural undertakings were in scope. As I recall the discussions in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee it was never established that they were out of scope. The question was raised by the Clerk of the House but instead when officials said Oh no no there should be more consultation."—the code for "We haven't talked to the Minister."—it was allowed to sail through principally because obviously the Government members were going to vote in accordance with that. So here's an opportunity Mr Faafoi. We could seek the leave of the House to allow that to be within the scope of the bill because the House is sovereign. So we could just at this moment tonight seek the leave of the House—can we add behavioural undertakings in? I'll go even further than that Mr Faafoi because it is quite possible that under the Standing Orders the committee of the whole House can't make that decision. So we could resolve to go back. We could report progress and go back to the House and we could seek the leave to do that. I'm sure Mr Faafoi my colleagues would support you then. If there is an issue with the Standing Orders we would give leave to immediately come back into committee for the same orders of the day for which we first resolved to go into committee this afternoon. We would support you that much Minister. Just go to the House and put the leave to add behavioural undertakings to the scope. We can resolve to go back into this committee for all of the orders of the day. We can then have a policy discussion about behavioural undertakings. It's got the support of your own members. Mr Wood thought it was a wonderful tool to add to the tool box. I agreed with him. The other members on the committee seemed to think it was a good idea as well and we could craft some policy today Minister in this House. That's Parliament at its finest. That's the reason that the public elect us to this place—to make those decisions for them. So let's show them just how nimble—we can be an agile Parliament for a change. Instead of the old waterfall model let's get agile on this. We could do this. Put down a scrum Minister—maybe one or two. We could do this work right now and we could resolve as a group of parliamentarians whether this is a good idea and should we put it in this amendment bill as it's going through because we have the right as a Parliament. Maybe not as this committee of the whole House but as a Parliament we have the right to add that to the scope because we have that sovereignty. Despite the Minister wanting to outsource a bit of that in Part 2 which has been voted on and has been successful we still have the right to make that determination. So Minister no games here—no political games at all. Both sides of the table in the select committee thought this was a good additional tool. To be absolutely clear we are not suggesting it as a policy which would mandate that the Commerce Commission had to accept it. We are not suggesting that it is something that business would have the right to demand nor would have any judicial avenue to contest; we are saying here's an opportunity to give a tool in the tool kit of the Commerce Commission that would be at its discretion to undertake. Minister we're even happy—seeing as you seemed to be quite happy in Part 1—that you as a Minister and therefore Cabinet don't get a say in whether or not it's used in any given situation. But give the tool to the Commerce Commission and allow them to decide whether or not to use it in a given circumstance. Don't give any right of appeal to the courts for a business but make it purely a discretionary thing for the Commerce Commission. It adds a useful and practical tool into their tool kit something that we'd argue—and I think your own colleagues would argue given that conversation in select committee—would advance the interests of New Zealand and it actually would advance the interests of business because it won't get much easier to reach certain undertakings through a merger process and it would be the power of Parliament in action. Those people listening or watching today would be able to witness that Minister. It doesn't necessarily happen all that often but this is our opportunity to grasp the nettle so to speak and to do it here today. So I make that offer to you Minister. We can resolve to go back to the House get leave to add this to the scope have a policy discussion here and let's add these undertakings as well."