Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my friend the good MP for Epsom. He always gives a certain perspective that is an interesting one in the House because it's more diverse than some others. And in that light it's always nice to follow him. So just to be clear the National Party believes in competition believes that consumers should have the right to go and buy goods and services at the right price and not pay too much for them. I heard the Minister during the course of the debate as the bill progressed through the House talk only about the rights of consumers. Well I actually think he as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should also have regard for commerce in New Zealand and protecting the rights of commerce both large and small.Clearly this bill is about enhancing the powers of the Commerce Commission and generally my view is that they do a pretty good job. But this bill actually takes it a little bit further because whilst large parts of this bill—actually a National Party bill. It was actually promoted under my colleagues when we were in power. So Labour and New Zealand First have literally picked up most of it. The large departure is around the issue of the additional powers we're going to give to the Commerce Commission and of course we all know that it's been politically driven.It's been driven by the fuel price issue and we've heard about that today and then we've heard the off-the-hoof change in policy by the Prime Minister in question time—unilaterally and without notice to clearly anyone else in her party or New Zealand First or the Greens—unilaterally deciding that there's going to be no further regional taxes. Of course that is bad policy. That is bad policy. That should be done in a considered manner particularly when you're looking at large industries like the fuel industry or the airports or whatever. It shouldn't be a game and it shouldn't be something that occurs on a random basis. We should have good policy in New Zealand well-thought-through and I'm not sure that that is where we've landed with this bill as we currently work our way through.I think that the Minister has been a soft touch. I've said this before because the reason for that is many of the reasons for promoting the changes to this bill weren't actually supported in the statement in the background papers provided by the ministry. But the Minister has decided to pick up the cudgel where former Ministers and particularly National Party members have feared to tread—have feared to tread.So I think the biggest issue is the oversight of the Commerce Commission if it is to have these additional powers. We believe that there should be the right to undertake market studies. We don't disagree with that concept but the difference—and this is where I differ from the previous speaker—is how you provide an effective oversight of that. And that is the question of balance. That's a question of making sure that if we provide enhanced powers—and as the previous speaker noted they are significant. How do you provide a framework where those are only used in proper circumstances and have proper regard to the impact on both the businesses and also consumers?I think we've talked at length about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the ACCC and of course we've highlighted—and it is highlighted in the report by the officials—that this entity is empowered to undertake market studies but where they want to use these additional powers that are proposed in this bill that those powers are subject to ministerial oversight. So they are the best example and the closest example of those types of powers and how they may be exercised. But I've also highlighted the UK Competition and Markets Authority—the equivalent to the Commerce Commission. I met with them a year ago and they also have the right to undertake market inquiries as such but they also have an override—that balancing tension. In that case there is a clear separation between the management of the UK Competition and Markets Authority and the board.That's another option. So the management propose; the board decides. As proposed in this bill what would happen is the management of the Commerce Commission would propose and decide in one body. Right it could be a Minister it could be a board structure—if we had one on the Commerce Commission—but there is an element of an independent check before these comprehensive powers can be deployed.Moving on just the implication for commerce—and this is what I think the Minister is missing in his role—is that these are incredibly invasive they are time-consuming they are costly and they also besmirch the reputation of the industries when these take place. They have a chilling effect on those industries and even though they may prove to be innocent the whole thought of these inquiries are significant. Everyone in the market gets to know that the Commerce Commission are undertaking these studies. They are not done confidentially. It just seeps out in the market and the impact particularly if you're a listed company and the implication of what it might mean to your share price the disclosure regimes that you may have to meet to meet the takeovers or the market listing requirements—all those implications are significant and before you pull the trigger you need to make sure that the Commerce Commission is doing it properly and with the right reason.That's why I think the Prime Minister's comments were injudicious—saying that she wanted to undertake a review of the fuel companies and obviously one of the reasons why this bill is going through is to enable that to occur. But even worse in my view it was actually irresponsible for the Prime Minister to call to other Ministers to almost nominate—if I can use the term turkey shoot"—on which industries the Commerce Commission might also undertake market studies of. I think that's irresponsible. That's like having a trap shoot and that's not the way that this legislation which is incredibly empowering should be in use and even talked about by the Prime Minister. As I said I think it's terribly terribly irresponsible. For the Labour - New Zealand First Government to allow these unfettered powers to be conducted I just think strikes an issue in terms of what it means for corporate New Zealand. And I don't think it's been properly thought through.The other thing is—I don't think I've heard anyone talking about—does the Commerce Commission under the current construct have the necessary competency and expertise to undertake or to decide these types of issues? For instance I think if you looked at the Commerce Commission they certainly have very strong economic ability they have very strong technical skills around analytical competition issues and I think also around assessing the issue of efficiency. But the issue that the Commerce Commission has no expertise in and the one that this power actually gives them the right to undertake is the ability to broadly consider public interest.I don't think we should be asking a technical body to stray into the area of public interest. I just think that is striking a chord that is too far for what is basically a body that has quite a constrained expertise. I know there's a requirement to publish terms of reference but there's no guarantee in the legislation under what—or guidelines as to the nature and scope of their terms of reference. And again I think if you were going to introduce these broad powers these mitigating aspects that put some form of limit on them in how they're deployed should have been captured in this bill and I think it's remiss of the Minister not to have done that.The last thing I want to talk about is the issue of the cost of undertaking these market studies. I know the Government broadly talks about the $1.5 million they put up. The Minister ill-advisedly talked about these things costing $400000. That figure is so far removed from reality it's unbelievable and I think again it's showing a Minister who's been a soft touch who's out of touch with the technical aspects of this bill and does not properly understand the practical elements of what's proposed and incorporated in this bill. And I think it's a disappointment on that issue."