Commerce Amendment Bill

Well, actually, I think we now have grounds to have an amendment to clause 1. Perhaps this should now be the “Commerce (Loss of Opportunity) Amendment Bill”. We’ve just had an opportunity when this House could have undertaken some very serious and important policy work, policy work which certainly appeared to have unanimous support in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when it was raised in discussions with officials as we went through the departmental report, something that would have shown how adaptable we can be as lawmakers, something which could also have evidenced—because I think, obviously, more New Zealanders follow the proceedings of this House through the various broadcast means than follow individual select committees. It would have given the public the ability to witness work across the House—constructive work—to do something that we can all agree on that would make the fundamentals of how business can operate in New Zealand better.

I do appreciate, Minister, that commerce is perhaps not the most glamorous of all of the ministerial portfolios, but it is a hugely important one because of the mechanics of how our business and markets operate. We had the opportunity, Minister. It is regrettable that it wasn’t taken up by members opposite, it appears, but we could call this the “Commerce (Loss of Opportunity) Amendment Bill”.

Personally, I’m not going to make any great argument on the commencement clause. I know that it’s often in these parts of the committee of the whole House debates that people can start saying, “Well, I think it should come into effect in 2050.”, or certain dates which are, in some respect or other, often held to be a bit mischievous.

We have said, going into this debate and, indeed, going into the second reading, that we would support the legislation despite our concerns with it, so on that basis, we’re not going to play games around the commencement date. We’ve said we’ll support it because the Prime Minister made a very clear statement that she wanted to direct the Commerce Commission that the Part 1 market studies would commence with a study into fuel pricing. We have publicly made comments that we think that will take far too long and that Kiwis will bear the brunt of these current, or even higher, prices for the best part of a year as that is undertaken, but it would only serve to delay the initiation of such a study if we had dug in our toes in on this committee stage and sought to drag every part out for an interminable number of hours with amendment after amendment.

But, ultimately, while we don’t think the inquiry can happen quick enough and while—as we have argued earlier today—we think that the inquiry will have great impost of time and cost on small businesses, there is by no means nothing even approaching certainty that will indicate that that inquiry will find any huge misdemeanours that, if rectified, will fundamentally address the price that consumers are paying for their fuel. But none the less we said publicly, and we will do so with our actions today—we have said that it is better for New Zealanders, given what they are facing, particularly at the fuel pumps today, that Parliament resolves to get an inquiry under way than to potentially be seen to be playing politics either by opposing the legislation as a whole or by trying to craft an amendment on this clause, even if it was just to put Part 1 provisions off for a greater period of time or to make any commencement contingent on other factors such as the Government suspending the fuel taxes of the last 12 months until the date that the Commerce Commission reports back on that study.

That’s not mischievous. It’s not something the Government—we appreciate—supports, but it wouldn’t be frivolous. It wouldn’t be a mischievous amendment. It would have really positive impact, we would argue, for consumers today, and the Minister has told us repeatedly today that this bill, for him, is all about protecting consumers. But, ultimately, as we said in the preceding week, when this was up for second reading, while we disagree with elements of it—and I think we have articulated those disagreements quite effectively through this debate this afternoon—and we accept the democratic process where they have been voted on and we have not been successful in getting our amendments through, none of that is any just reason why we should stand in the way of an inquiry going ahead which may or may not result in some positive news for New Zealanders and what they pay at the pump.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.