Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. And all of that coming from the party that say too many people are in prison. If I can say it was good to hear the Minister saying that he's having a fresh look at elements of this bill prior to it coming before the committee of the whole House. If I were to respond to some of his questions I would simply come to some elements of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee report which we placed it in and that is to say that submitters who opposed the bill stated there is no evidence of a problem with the current regime. The current regime is working very strongly very well and has very strong deterrents to the cartel behaviour. I think all of us in this House this side included want to see cartel behaviour eradicated from the New Zealand economy and from business. There's nothing worse than cartel behaviour that undermines good open competitive business. We all understand that competitive business is very important not only for ensuring that prices are well set and products are of high quality but the intention is that through the process of competition between firms which drives those firms to lower costs improve quality and develop better products in the competitive market those benefits are passed through to consumers. We want to have an economy where consumers can receive those good prices good products new products and innovation in a very good and timely way. We do not approve of or support or go soft anywhere in our view on cartel behaviour where those rival firms agree not to compete with each other by fixing prices or restricting output or allocating markets between themselves. Cartels what they basically do allow is firms to raise their prices above the competitive level without fear of losing customers to rivals and it's not good. We also understand that New Zealand is a relatively small economy and there are appropriate times and places where there is collaboration. I guess this is our point. Our point is that those collaborations—and many of them have clearances from the Commerce Commission—are essential. For example when it comes to building motorways there's probably not one firm that can do it all and they have to collaborate with one another in order to supply to the Crown or to regional councils or district councils the ability to offer that service and deliver that product. There are those nuances of decision making around what is appropriate and what is not. Our concern essentially is that the criminalisation of cartel behaviour—when many submitters said they cannot identify a problem and where in over a decade in Australia there's only been one prosecution in an economy quite significantly larger than New Zealand's—what it does is it creates a concern and hesitation around whether companies can cooperate together. And of course to go to the Commerce Commission for a clearance is not a cheap exercise. So what our concern has been is that directors of those companies would prefer to withdraw would prefer not to work together and that would start to stifle economic activity and opportunity in our country. So it's a matter of actually just getting the balance right. It's a matter of recognising that our current regime has sufficient deterrence where if there is the conviction of a cartel activity or behaviour those fines can run into the tens of millions of dollars for companies and $500000 for an individual. We consider those deterrents to be strong enough.Some submitters raised concerns that the definition of cartel conduct" amended in August 2017 is untested in its application. They were concerned that this would mean a lack of clarity in the new criminal offence which parallels the civil defence. So even though this committee looked at this bill and in good faith we worked together with our colleagues across the House to improve it our basic position is that we don't support it. And no doubt when it comes to the committee stage the Minister will introduce his thoughts and perhaps some amendments to it.Criminal sanctions have the potential to undermine the economy by having what the Minister identified from our point of view as a chilling effect on pro-competitive collaboration. That's essentially the position that we take and the international evidence that criminalisation reduces the incidence of cartel conduct is actually weak. There is no clear case to support the introduction of criminalisation to cartels. That is our view. Some actions which are not criminal in nature might be caught within the criminal sanctions. Criminal sanctions could result in this ultra-cautious decision-making at the board's table as I said before. And so as I reiterated we believe the current criminal regime for cartel conduct provides sufficient deterrents and sufficient sanctions to protect businesses and consumers.The Commerce Commission may also apply for banning orders of individuals from holding management positions for up to five years. That's one of the sanctions that are currently available. In fact there was an award of $7.5 million against a body corporate and of $100000 against an individual for the five-year prohibition against management. So I would argue that the civil sanctions are in fact a very strong deterrent.I have to say that we oppose this bill. We believe that the measures in play and in place are sufficient and we also believe in the good work of the Commerce Commission to enforce those. Thank you."