Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): In respect of the speech that's just been obviously the member didn't address anything in the bill so I really don't have any response other than he mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) but I'm not sure he'd read—Stuart Smith: Point of order. Madam Chair. The member is quite wrong and I think that he should withdraw and apologise. I addressed clause 14 new section 36 which amends that right at the beginning. I understand that the Minister was so busy worrying about how he's going to dig himself out of this hole but I think he should withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I go to the Minister the Hon David Clark. I don't think it's an issue for withdrawing and apologising for Stuart Smith.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: He did mention the prior member's SOP but not the content of it.I do want to come to the points though that the Hon Todd McClay raised because they I think are germane to this debate. They were issues that I covered off in my initial contribution but none the less I think they require further engagement so I'm happy to speak to those. Really the Hon Todd McClay—two things: first he raised the issue of Air New Zealand; are they in a dominant market position and arguably they are. The question really is whether any test would show that they'd acted unilaterally with the purpose effect or likely effect of being anti-competitive. So there is a test in place which could be put against any conduct if people suspected they were acting in a way that was unilaterally being anti-competitive—there is a test in place for that. It is appropriate where there are dominant players in a market that there is a test of their conduct. Now the Hon Todd McClay suggests that we should weaken the test to say Well what if they didn't know they were being anti-competitive? What if that wasn't their intention and it was a bit of an accident?"Hon Todd McClay: No they didn't know they were going to.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They didn't know they were going to be anti-competitive. Well what I would argue is whether it's intentional or not if it is anti-competitive it is anti-competitive. That is the purpose of the Act. It is stated right at the outset of the Act. Section 1A of the Act notes its purpose "is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand." It is not about what the firm's intentions might be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's about the actual state of competition in markets. That's what the whole Act is about.So from my perspective it's the actual conduct which matters and the effect on the market and the subsequent effect on consumers. So I'm here as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs with a strong eye on the impact on consumers. When the test is fair when the Commerce Commission has laid out the guidelines so that market participants understand their responsibilities it's appropriate that we use the test that is already indeed in the Act elsewhere used because it's one that can be well understood and raises the bar somewhat. The point—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.House resumed."