Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise today in the House to take a call on the Commerce Amendment Bill. As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West I want to acknowledge MP Jamie Strange who spoke just a few minutes ago. I was also looking forward to a discussion from my other colleague on the other side of the House David Bennett—Hon David Bennett: Well why did you let Pacific Aerospace go under? Dr GAURAV SHARMA: —who I thought was speaking today but apparently isn't. What's good? What I'm excited to see here today is that the three of us on this side of the House—at least Jamie Strange myself and MP Nanaia Mahuta—all agree that the bill should go ahead to the select committee. It would have been nice to know what David Bennett thinks about it but I gather—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt Dr Sharma. The microphone that you're at is not working and is therefore not coming through the—is not being broadcast and probably not being recorded either. So sorry to interrupt you but if you could move that would be great. Dr GAURAV SHARMA: Would you like me to start again? Oh that sounds better doesn't it? DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's much better. Dr GAURAV SHARMA: All right. Well—déjà vu—I stand here once again in the House to take a call on the Commerce Amendment Bill. As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West I just want to acknowledge Jamie Strange from Hamilton East who spoke about this and I was looking forward to my colleague on the other side of the House MP David Bennett who I thought was going to speak on the list but has changed the speaking order. On our side of the House the three of us MP Nanaia Mahuta Jamie Strange and I are in support of this bill and look forward for the bill to go to the select committee. From what I gather from the other side they're also interested in the bill going to the first reading but I'm not sure if they want to support it all the way through. Now it's an interesting bill. The proposed Commerce Amendment Bill amends the Commerce Act of 1986. The bill aims to strengthen the prohibition against the misuse of market power which is in section 36 and make other changes to improve the function of the Act. The original Commerce Act came in 1986. I know some of the other members have mentioned their ages and in the public interest I'll say that it came in a year before I was born—just to let it out there. According to section 1A of the Commerce Act of 1986 the purpose of the bill was to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand. In May 2014 the Productivity Commission published a report called Boosting Productivity in the Services Sector at the request of the then National Government. The Government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into the services sector and to identify any opportunities to improve its productivity. I'm a bit surprised that it's taken so long—between 1986 and 2014—for this to happen but in its report the Productivity Commission concluded amongst other things that section 36 of the Act should be reviewed. I want to acknowledge the then Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Jacqui Dean from the other side of the House who in 2017 in a press release said While the consultation process demonstrated that section 36 does not work it is not yet clear what the alternative would look like." And in that regard I do want to thank you Minister Kris Faafoi as well as Minister David Clark who have found that alternative for us which we are talking about today.Now new section 36 in this bill provides that a person that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose or is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the market. Section 36 of the Act prohibits persons with a substantial market from taking advantage of that power for any anti-competitive purpose. This is New Zealand's anti-monopolisation prohibition. It is not unlawful in New Zealand to be a sole supplier or acquirer in a market for goods or services or to hold substantial market power. Rather persons that hold a substantial market power must not use that power for anti-competitive purposes. Effectively this prohibition seeks to prevent firms with market power from having the competitive process by maintaining or extending their market power in a way that limits the ability of other firms to compete and in turn reduces the benefits to consumers and the economy associated with competition. Examples of conduct that may be covered by this prohibition include exclusive dealing refusal to supply or predatory pricing. When this conduct is carried out by a firm with market power it can lead to higher prices lower-quality goods and services and weak incentives for investment and innovation. The bill is informed by a review that identified three main problems with the operation of this provision in the following ways. Firstly it has the potential to fail to deter or penalise some forms of anti-competitive conduct; secondly it is costly and complex to enforce which reduces the incentives for businesses to comply with the law; and thirdly it creates some unpredictability as to its application to business conduct. To address these concerns the bill amends section 36 to make explicit that conduct by persons with substantial market power that has the purpose effect or likely effect of substantial market power to effect monopolisation be changed. Now one of the things that people have often worried about is the intellectual transfer—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Dr Gaurav Sharma you have four minutes and 15 seconds left.Dr GAURAV SHARMA: I just want to continue from where I left before we all went for dinner. A lot of us had a good kai at the DairyNZ event so thank you for hosting us.So we were talking about the Commerce Amendment Bill and the point I was making was that one of the concerns people might have had was around intellectual property. Now the Act contains three provisions that effectively provide safe harbours for certain intellectual property rights from specified provision in the Act. These provisions which are unclear in scope and untested in the courts are repealed in the bill. This amendment reflects the increasing acceptance that intellectual property rights and competition law are generally complementary with both seeking to encourage innovation and providing long-term benefits for consumers and this is quite important. In my previous life I used to have a medical device company and the intellectual property was a core part of it. So I'm quite glad that the bill as initially championed by Minister Kris Faafoi and then by Minister David Clark does address that while also closing the loopholes around the anti-competitive behaviour that we've had since the Act came in in 1986—and I just want to remind the House again—a year before I was born. So in closing the bill has my full support and I look forward to it going through the select committee process and am hoping that they will also get more of the National Party members on board in supporting this great bill. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Commerce Amendment Bill will be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee."