Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to speak in the third reading of this bill the Commerce Amendment Bill. I'd first like to acknowledge and congratulate Jacqui Dean on the work that she did as Minister in the initial stages of this bill. This is essentially a National Government bill which is the reason why we're supporting it. There was excellent work I say to the committee and to the submitters who brought this bill to its current state. Now competition is a good thing. Healthy competition is essential to drive economies efficiently and effectively to allocate resources appropriately and to ensure that the inefficient die and the efficient and effective businesses survive. But there are situations where there could be duopolies or people who have very strong market influence where they're not doing anything illegally but there is a need from time to time to investigate and to test that competition as anticipated—as expected—is being carried on in that particular market place. And that's why Jacqui Dean as commerce Minister initiated this piece of work. So let's turn to the idea of having competition studies. Now competition studies according to the bill can be initiated by the Commerce Commission or the Minister. We say that the Minister should have the final decision on whether there should be a particular study and there are some very good reasons for that. There are very good reasons why the Minister—or at least the Government; the Minister let's say—has the final veto the decision about whether a market study should take place. For a start when you've got two people throwing up ideas on what should be investigated you know it's all about prioritising. It would be tough enough for the Commerce Commission on their own to decide what is the most important in their view. In fact they are guided by the view that it must be in the public interest and I'll come to the problem with that in a moment. But you know they've only got limited resources and we know that it costs probably a million dollars or more and might take up to a year or more to do a proper study. There's no point doing a shallow short-cut flippant inquiry. If you're going to do something do it well. So there's an issue of what determines the priority that the Commerce Commission might put on their favoured list of inquiries.Then you've got the Minister. The Minister can initiate competition studies as well. That's a good thing. He or she will also have priorities. It's not clear to me how either of those two initiators prioritise. There's no criteria other than that everyone both of those people both of those entities the Minister and the Commerce Commission must have the public interest at heart.So what does that mean? What is in the public interest? I say that the Minister understands what the public interest is about because we here are involved with the communities every day. We hear and listen to people's concerns whether it's a problem that they're having with their council's consenting issues for example and I'll come to that more than a minute; whether they feel they're being ripped off at the petrol pump—I don't hear that other than the problem with the excess taxes that we know about—or whether it be supermarkets as suggested by Minister Jones but again I don't hear that from my constituents. There's lots of places in the Wairarapa that people can buy their goods and produce other than supermarkets so there's lots of competition out there in that regard. But at least the Minister can make that decision in the best interests of the public because the Minister and the politicians here are very connected to the community and the public interest. The Commerce Commission is a bureaucracy. The Commerce Commission does not necessarily have the public interest at heart. It would be difficult—and this was in submissions made in the select committee process—if challenged for the Commerce Commission to justify that study A has a greater level of public interest than study B whereas a politician can easily and justifiably say Well I'm going to make that decision in the public interest and if I'm wrong I will get voted out—I will get voted out." So it's all about the governance that we're talking about here—the governance of and accountability for those decisions as to which study should be initiated first.So we talked a lot about the fuel and the need to investigate fuel suppliers the suppliers of fuel refined oil into this country. But from where I sit as a constituent MP I hear of other issues other competitive issues or other markets that don't appear to be working as well as they could be. I know Minister Jones has his favourites. It's the supermarkets and real estate sector. Well I would disagree on the real estate sector. There's lots of and lots of competition there. No problem with having a healthy active competitive market. But we have an issue around the supply of building materials in New Zealand. Why not look at the problems and the bottlenecks and the competitive market that is or is not occurring in the building sector? We know New Zealand is an expensive place to build a house and we're short of them and I suggest to the Minister: get an inquiry get another working party if you like Minister to kick off and direct the Commerce Commission into understanding the market forces that are or are not at play in the building supply industry.Then touching on that similar industry is the consenting. Who provides consent to the building sector? The councils. Do they have competition? No they don't. So there's another example of a very tough bottleneck a bottleneck issue a monopoly situation in a local area an authority a business if you like or an entity for sure that has a monopoly situation which has a massive influence on the pace that building and homes are constructed in New Zealand. So let's direct the Commerce Commission to do that and I suggest the Minister does that. If you left it to the Commerce Commission I really don't expect them to take that initiative.Water: where is the efficient and competitive tension around the allocation—allocation I'm talking about—of water? Why not initiate an inquiry into the competitive nature of the labour market? The labour market is an extremely important resource to the well-being and productivity of this country but the labour market is not as flexible. It is less mobile than it could be. So I'm talking about the mobility and flexibility and competitive marketplace for labour and why we are not as flexible and mobile as we should be to increase productivity in this country.So if the Commerce Commission decided to initiate any of those topics there's really no accountability if it's the wrong topic if it's the wrong subject if people think it's a waste of taxpayers' money doing this or that. They've still got their job tomorrow. That's why it's important that the Minister decides. The Minister must be held accountable for the use of taxpayers' money to decide because all these initiatives and studies do cost money and that is why a Minister should be in charge and should decide on the competitive market study that needs to occur and if he gets it wrong and people don't like the way that the study is conducted or the choice of study or the cost of the study the accountability is that that Minister gets voted out. Thank you."