Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I am very very interested in taking a call on this bill and grateful that I was finally considered to make a contribution. Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It's a short list. Dr DAVID CLARK: Ha ha! I know there was a lot of choice available and I am grateful that I have the opportunity. I do feel very strongly about this particular issue that we are debating in the Parliament. I want to speak about Supplementary Order Paper 408 put forward by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove because it proposes to strengthen the bill in a way that I think is absolutely necessary in New Zealand. When we compare ourselves with what happens in Australia we come up short. We have a situation in New Zealand where new companies struggle because there is a burden of proof on them in the courts that is too great to challenge those who would exercise market power. The tests that are in place are focused around purpose—and of course those who have good representation can defend themselves; those who are monopolies or large providers can defend themselves in that kind of environment more easily—rather than concentrating on the effect ultimately of what is put into place. I am particularly fond of the detailed directives put in place by Mr Cosgrove into the legislation which spell out exactly what the court may have regard to. Of course the word may" is there because we do not want to be too directive of the courts but then it is spelt out in detail. It says "(a) whether the conduct was materially facilitated by the person's substantial degree of power in the market: (b) whether the person engaged in the conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of power in the market:" and so on. This is proposed new section 36(4)(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) on page 2 for those with the Supplementary Order Paper in their hand. What this does is it requires the court to get advice effectively. If it starts to look at these things it will have to call in specialist advice. I think it is fair to say that many people who discuss these matters who are subject experts say that the courts often do not have the expertise they need to make decisions in this area. By spelling out exactly what matters must be taken into account—"may" is what the legislation says. If the court then does go down this route it will require additional expertise and it is spelt out exactly where it may find that expertise and the nature of it. I think that that is incredibly important because we want a robust competitive market in New Zealand. We know that markets are a great way to deliver goods services and so on. They are a very efficient way of delivering those things in the market but they are efficient ways of doing things only where the market is fair and where new players can come in and introduce innovation that gives them an advantage over their competitors and we resent the current situation where too often market power is used to stifle innovation. No one is better off in that situation. Those who participate in the market are not better off because the quality of goods and services is not improved and the people who would want to innovate—who may then look for export opportunities after establishing themselves with a toehold in the New Zealand market—are stamped out and ultimately those who exercise the market power put more money into non-productive aspects of their business such as fighting court cases because it is about cute bits of the law rather than actually about the effect on the market of the anti-competitive behaviour. So I really just wanted to add my voice to that of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I recognise that his voice is loud clear and articulate but I think he is really on to something here. This is something that we need to change because otherwise those Australians across the Tasman whom we compare ourselves with really do have an unfair advantage for their innovators because their innovators can get into the market they can test their products and they will not be stomped out in the way that we have in New Zealand. On top of that I want to say that at the moment we have been passing a lot of bills through the House that look at other aspects of trade policy. We have passed dumping legislation through the House. Overall we have got a situation where there is a dramatic weakening of opportunities for innovators and that cannot be good for New Zealand. I think we need policies that support innovation and support productive investment. Therefore I want to add my voice to those in this Parliament—and I am sure there will be more—who want to speak in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 408 in the name of Clayton Cosgrove. I will stop there now. Thank you."