Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): There've been quite a number of wide-ranging calls so far. Many of them have offered some commentary on the general flavour of the bill and very few questions pertaining to the part we're in but I'll work my way through each of the contributors none the less. In answer to the Hon Judith Collins' question: no cash is not a payment network so it does not address the issue that she's raising on behalf of her local constituents.Andrew Bayly—well as he himself pointed out his initial contribution addressed a number of issues that we'd come to when we came to that part of the bill and so didn't really address Part 1 of the bill. He spent a lot of time talking down the economy and not acknowledging the 5.6 percent GDP growth that there has been in the economy and the triple A ratings that New Zealand's had from the rating agencies recently—something that's very rare in the world. The extraordinary leadership of the finance Minister Grant Robertson has to be acknowledged. As a result of his general negative talk about the economy he doesn't seem to have faith in businesses in the way that the Labour Party does but there we are—that's his prerogative. I'm sure he will raise relevant provisions in the other parts; he frequently does.In respect of Ricardo Menéndez March's question around how savings are passed on and given the regressive nature of some of these fees I think that is worth picking up. And the point I'd make is that EFTPOS is free to merchants to use including small merchants. Often you'll see with small merchants they say no payWave" or "no credit" and they apologise for it. It's because they can't bear the costs of doing business associated with those other networks. And under the designation here in the bill EFTPOS will remain free. So actually one thing people can do to help support small businesses which are often local or doing it tough is to use EFTPOS where they can. Of course payWave in times where we're concerned about a pandemic has its merits too and that doesn't have particularly high fees. So we are regulating to make sure that they do not go higher. But there is a regressiveness built into the system currently whereby often those who are using those methods are effectively subsidising those who have rewards systems through some of the more sophisticated credit card networks. And we want to put a cap on that kind of behaviour and that's one of the things this bill achieves so I do thank that member for raising that issue.Melissa Lee suggested that she would in her contribution remind herself and the House what the bill is about so that was most of her contribution. But she did ask the question whether changes in the bill will enable—well whether the bill is futureproof for future changes. As I mentioned in my initial contribution yes it will be. And that's one of the reasons we've given the Commerce Commission discretion because there will be adaptation and new payment methods that come on to the market.In respect of the member Damien Smith's contribution he raised again the question that was covered in previous readings around why we're regulating MasterCard and Visa and not American Express or Diners. The reasons have been canvassed in the House before but I think it's useful to air them again. That is in large part because they're a very small part of the market. They don't charge interchange fees which is the thing that we are regulating here but they can be designated. The Commerce Commission will have the power to designate them if it feels that is becoming a problem issue there. But I would acknowledge as well while the other cards have capped fees in order to be competitive in the market those smaller players will have to adapt to the conditions."