Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Look I just wanted to address the comments from the previous speaker Paul Goldsmith because one of—Hon Member: Goldstein.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Ha ha! One of the more valid arguments he raised was around how the criminalisation process works. So let's not confuse the point that the legislation itself and what we're trying to achieve around holding cartels to account for behaviour fundamentally didn't change. It was the criminalisation aspect that you guys the Opposition now seemed to have the issue with at the time. The legislation itself fundamentally remains the same.We got to a point where—I put it to the previous speaker—there are several defence mechanisms for the individual in terms of an honest belief defence and operating in good conscience. We're not seeking to criminalise these operators; it is those with malicious intent. So they have to clearly break the law which that side of the House agreed we needed to implement in the first place. I just wanted to address that point made because it was one of the few fair points.It's much more fun to go back to one of the previous speakers Mr Finlayson who—Hon Member: Who?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Mr Finlayson.Clayton Mitchell: Who's he?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Maybe I've got the name wrong—ha ha! But I'd like to quote him because he said this bill was unnecessary. His quote was It's working pretty well." That's what the erudite member had to say about the current structure.But what I wanted to touch on now is that when the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Bill came up in the last term in its third part—five years after it was first introduced to the House—what I particularly liked in the conversation on behalf of New Zealand First was that actually here's a piece of legislation that's looking to be more permissive in terms of good business working together. We have to be—as the previous member himself the Hon Paul Goldsmith the former Minister said—mindful of cartel operations. It's bad and everyone in the House disagrees with it. But what that legislation was seeking to do was to be more permissive in the operations of business so that they could actually seek to put a case forward where their coming together in terms of two big firms providing services together was actually beneficial for the end consumer. There are cases where we see that around the world and if it's managed well it's a really good thing. That was what was exciting about that legislation. What was typical was that it was a response to what other jurisdictions around the world were already doing but credit to the Government of the time they saw what was happening around the world and thought "Yeah let's do that in New Zealand."The challenge then and what the rest of the world highlighted in their practice was yes a more permissive regime—let's allow these guys to work together if we can bring proof that the end consumer would benefit from that coalition that working together—but the balancing act was really important. New Zealand First said at the time "Fantastic you've got the balance right." If there was intent if there was malicious operation where those individuals sought to use this permissive new regime maliciously we could now hold those individuals to account through the criminalisation that was introduced and well-spoken to by the previous Ministers—criminalisation. The previous Ministers who first brought this to the House the National Ministers of the time spoke eloquently about the need for this criminalisation.So here we are today fixing what was clearly a mistake at the time. I'm not sure if we could call it cold feet but cold feet from what? One of the great arguments that most traders in the House—parliamentarians who respect trade and working with our international neighbours—always speak about is the alignment of regulation and policy. Now our biggest trading partner is Australia and here we were following along the lines of our Australian neighbour so that in our closer economic relations we could be in alignment and work together to hold international companies to account. It just made a lot of sense. And Australia wasn't the only jurisdiction that did that. We've spoken about Canada. I think we mentioned Korea and Japan. There are examples and more and more are coming online all the time so that is the challenge for New Zealand. We are a small country that must deal with the rest of the world and the best way we can do that is through the rule of law and good and agreed rules of engagement. This bill will remedy the mistake made by that previous administration.The bill itself would have cartel behaviour prohibited—it goes without saying now. We know it currently has only civil sanctions—that's what the bill's seeking to remedy tonight—and it was absurd of the former Minister to remove those criminal sanctions. You know in the whole debate leading up to that period where it had gone through select committee—and I'm happy to be corrected but if memory serves—all of the submissions said that criminalisation was appropriate and the correct thing to do and the Minister of the time absolutely agreed—absolutely agreed. And yet in the next step in the legislative process the bill was—"gutted" I think was the word used by a previous member. It just made no sense and it makes no sense and this is why we are here this evening to fix a mistake made by the party opposite.I think really and truly I've touched on the most important parts. It is something that we need to do to align our legislation with our international neighbours. It's important that we get that right. We are moving—it is a permissive regime and there must be a balance to that so that we can hold individuals to account who maliciously seek to benefit off defrauding New Zealand consumers through cartel behaviour. So it is with pleasure this evening that I do recommend this bill to the House. Madam Deputy Speaker thank you."