Seeing eye to eye

In my post the other day, about the progress of our latest effort at competition law reform, I noted that the Select Committee dealing with it had reported unanimously supporting a range of law amendments, but apparently not unanimously supporting the overall Bill. 

Turns out that in fact the committee was unanimous about the Bill and the initial statement that it had been passed "by majority" was a mistake by the Committee. Last Thursday it updated the record here and now says: 

"In our final report to the House, we recommended, by majority, that the bill be passed, with all amendments recommended unanimously. This was incorrectly recorded and does not accurately reflect the committee’s resolutions. We wish to correct our recommendation to the following:

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has examined the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and recommends that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously".

At one level this is all just technical detail. More substantively, however, it does raise the probability that the unanimous view of the Committee will in fact carry through to the final form of the legislation.

The shape of things to come?

Last month the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee produced its report on the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which "amends the Commerce Act 1986 to modernise and strengthen competition settings". The marked-up Bill from the Committee, incorporating its report, can be found here. 

In principle the recommendations could be over-ridden by the whole House, and I frankly don't know how often that happens. But my guess is that given that the recommendations were unanimous, a complete overhaul is rather unlikely (that said, the Committee recommended "by majority" rather than unanimously that the Bill be passed, so I may be overdoing the degree of political harmony). In all likelihood, though, I think we have a decent steer on what the ultimate Act will look like.

By and large the Committee endorsed the thrust of the Bill as it stood, though it made a substantial number of amendments to various proposed sections. Only two elements of the Bill were thrown overboard: the proposal to allow the Commerce Commission to carry out market studies of pro-competitive regulation, and the proposal to repeal s46 of the current Act.

Giving the heave-ho to pro-competition market studies wasn't because the Committee didn't like the idea, but rather because it reckoned the existing market studies power in Part 3A of the Act already allows the Commission to do them. And just to be totally clear about it, it proposed incorporating, after the existing s51B(3), a new subsection 3A, "To avoid doubt, the [market study] recommendations may, without limitation, be made for the purpose of (a) reducing regulatory barriers to competition; or (b) the development of regulation to promote competition".

Junking the unnecessary new kind of market study power also dealt to one of its more questionable elements. Originally the Bill would have allowed the Commission to require third parties "(a) to prepare and produce forecasts, forward plans, or other information and provide them to the Commission; and (b) to apply any methodology specified by the Commission in the preparation of forecasts, forward plans, or other information". The Committee didn't like the sound of that, and neither had I in my submission: the Committee asked me about it in my Zoom session. In the end the Committee said that "Some submitters opposed enabling the Commission to compel parties to create new information, such as forecasts, describing it as overly intrusive and inconsistent with established disclosure principles. We are also concerned that this proposed information-gathering power may not be justified".

The other proposal to get the chop was repeal of s46. In the Committee's own words, "Section 46 is one of a number of provisions that provide for exceptions to the application of Part 2 of the Act (Restrictive trade practices). It draws a bright-line boundary by providing that acquisitions of assets of a business or shares are dealt with through the merger regime in Part 3 (Business acquisitions) rather than also being able to be challenged under Part 2 ... A number of submitters argued that repeal of section 46 would expose ordinary merger activity to Part 2 scrutiny, chilling legitimate commercial activity. We recognise that submitters value a clear and statutory boundary. We therefore recommend deleting clause 8 of the bill, to retain section 46".

Otherwise the proposed changes went through, albeit with some amendments. Here are my personal highlights.

There will be a new statutory notification regime to better support collaboration between businesses, and along similar lines the Commerce Commission will be able to grant class exemptions for categories of low-risk conduct, staring with collective bargaining by small firms (the Committee set $3 million in annual revenue per firm as the 'small' criterion) and retail price maintenance. 

The Bill proposes introducing corrective action orders for contravention of Part 2 of the Act (restrictive trade practices). I couldn't agree more. As I said in my submission (p3), "This is a splendid idea and frankly I’m surprised that we all hadn’t thought of it long ago. Fines (the current penalty) are a deterrent and a punishment, but I’m perfectly sure that what consumers would value most is a putting right of the rort they were exposed to". The Committee clarified that private parties, and not just the Commission, will be able to apply for these orders.

The merger control regime is being beefed up in a number of significant ways. 

While there will still be a voluntary merger notification system, the Commission will (if it hears of one) be able to "call in" a merger that might be of concern, and require the parties to suspend it and to hold the businesses separate for 40 working days. 

The concern over "killer" acquisitions - allegedly buying out prospective competitors before they become a real issue for incumbents - is addressed by expanding the definition of a post-merger "substantial lessening of competition" (SLC) to include "creating, strengthening, or entrenching a substantial degree of market power" (I'd guess the 'strengthening' and, especially, 'entrenching' limbs will be doing the heavy lifting). This new SLC definition is in play only for the merger bits of the Act: the Committee said that "We consider that applying the clarification across the Commerce Act [as a whole] may create uncertainty about legitimate competitive responses, because such conduct could be framed as "strengthening" or "entrenching” a firm’s position".

And the concern about "creeping acquisitions" - allegedly where an incumbent quietly hoovers up market influence in successive bite-sized chunks - is addressed by allowing the Commission to look at a new merger in the context of acquisitions over the past three years, and not just from a standalone perspective. The Committee clarified that they can't be any old acquisitions but must involve "the same, substitutable, or otherwise competitive goods or services".

All of these changes can be seen as a toughening up of the merger regime, to prevent anti-competitive mergers sneaking through the cracks. But there was one recommendation that can be thought of as a liberalisation, and that's the proposal to allow the Commission to accept "behavioural undertakings" as part of a merger approval. 

For those new to it, currently (from my submission, p2), "s69A [of the Commerce Act] allows the Commission to accept only one kind of undertaking from an applicant for a merger clearance or authorisation – an undertaking "to dispose of assets or shares specified in the undertaking", i.e. a promise to divest some assets so that a post-merger competitor can acquire them and act as a more effective competitive constraint on the merged entity. The Commission is specifically forbidden in s69A(2) from accepting any other kind of undertaking, even if some other kind of behavioural, rather than divestment, undertaking would solve any competition issues".

"This", I concluded (and a fair few of the folks in the competition game have the same view), "doesn’t make a lot of sense, and isn’t standard international practice". So behavioural undertakings will now be acceptable in principle, and the scope for the Commission to accept them has been widened a bit. They could kick in where, for example, divestments of the scale needed to address competition concerns are simply not reasonably practicable.

And finally there's predatory pricing. which is proposed as a new s36C of the Act and which involves anyone with market power "(a) pricing below Average Variable Cost or Average Avoidable Cost (b) pricing above Average Variable Cost or Average Avoidable Cost but below Long-run Average Incremental Cost or Average Total Cost if the pricing is for an exclusionary purpose", with all these cost  terms defined in the proposed Act. 

I can see why this has been proposed: I'm still ambivalent about its necessity or practicability. We'll see. In any event it may crop up again: the Labour and Green members of the Committee, in a "differing view" at the end of the report, said that "The proposed use of long run average cost as an objective benchmark was consistent with established international competition practice and would have been a small step forward". I read that as saying they would have preferred a cost test that would have led to more prices being found predatory, but if predatory pricing is your main thing, maybe you should read Russell McVeigh's commentary on the Committee's report as they see it as reflecting some debate within the committee about whether to go with predatory pricing or not. 

Those members would also have liked to have seen industry-specific codes of practice brought in - so would I - and also wanted to see "amendments ... that would have provided contractors initiating collective bargaining with a safe harbour from retaliatory conduct by contractees, despite concerns raised during submissions that without such protections the right to collectively bargain may exist in theory but not in practice". So while we are undoubtedly nearer the end of our lengthy and rather slow competition reform journey, there's probably a bit more change still to come.

The other shoe drops

This week's second batch of competition policy reforms, announced jointly by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson, was welcome from any number of perspectives. The press announcement is here, there's a useful fact sheet here, and if you missed the first batch I wrote about them here. If you're an irremediable policy tragic, you'll find the Cabinet paper supporting the latest reforms here.

For a start, on the substance, they've made almost all the right calls. 

On mergers, the reforms will amend the definition of "substantial lessening of competition" to extend to "conduct that creates, strengthens, or entrenches a substantial degree of power in a market" (I'm quoting para 19 of the Cabinet paper), which not only helps make it explicit that 'killer' acquisitions are in the frame but also harmonises with Australia's approach. 'Creeping' acquisitions - individually apparently insignificant purchases that cumulatively build up to a degree of market power - also got attention. It appears that it wasn't clear that the Commission could look back at the past track record when considering the latest in a series, but in future it will be able to take the evidence of the previous three years into the balancing act, with the proviso (para 24) that "The Commission will not have new powers to unwind past acquisitions, nor will it affect its existing ability to take action where a past acquisition was independently unlawful".

Importantly, the Commission will now be able to accept behavioural undertakings as part of a merger approval. For no obviously compelling reason, "The Commission currently lacks the authority to accept voluntary behavioural undertakings from merging firms (other than in relation to the disposal of assets or shares). These undertakings are commitments proposed by merging firms about their future conduct and are commonly used overseas, including in Australia and the United Kingdom, to resolve competition issues while preserving potential merger benefits. Feedback from public consultation, especially from the business and legal communities, showed strong support for allowing the Commission to accept these undertakings' (para 28). As a result, "The current gap in the merger regime may lead to the rejection of mergers that could otherwise be cleared with appropriate behavioural remedies, resulting in missed opportunities for efficiencies and consumer benefits" (para 29). It will mostly be up to merger applicants to suggest them, and up to the Commission to accept or reject them (or, I'd guess, have a bit of to and fro).

Whether there are swathes of anti-competitive mergers occurring that haven't been voluntarily notified to the Commission is debatable - New Zealand's a small place, word gets round, and the Commission can read the newspapers - but in any event the Commission is getting two new powers to help cope with any that come along. There'll be "a targeted “stay and hold” power to suspend the completion of a potentially anti-competitive merger for up to 40 working days. This would allow time to assess competition risks before the transaction is completed" (para 33) and "a targeted “call-in” power to require parties to seek clearance if the Commission considers the transaction may substantially lessen competition. This notice would pause the transaction until clearance is granted, declined, or the process is terminated" (para 34). Sensibly, the reforms shied away from a mandatory merger reporting regime.

The Cabinet paper also strongly suggests that the current government is deeply averse to any more single-sector regulation. "Previous governments have responded to competition challenges by introducing repeated sector-specific regulation. Strengthening New Zealand’s overall competition framework will better equip the Commission to address markets with high barriers to entry and expansion, reducing the need for repeated sectoral regulation, such as the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023 and the Fuel Industry Act 2020. These interventions involved lengthy policy and legislative development processes and have not always delivered the broader, enduring improvements to market dynamics that a more robust and flexible competition regime could achieve" (para 9). Looking, for example, at the data on petrol importer margins (available here), you'd be tempted to agree.

Making the Commerce Act more effective across the board is one answer: in addition, the Commission will get powers to deploy a local version of Australia's industry codes*. "We propose creating a power to make targeted regulations to guide conduct among market participants to break down barriers to entry and expansion" (para 41). The Commission can only regulate when "the market in question is concentrated, whereby market power is held by only a small number of firms; there are barriers to entry and expansion; the market is not working well for consumers, and the proposed rules are consistent with the purpose of the Act" (para 44, slightly abridged). 

Personally I think the further requirement that Cabinet signs off on any Commission-initiated regulatory codes is a step too far. The stated justification is "To ensure this power is used proportionately and only as a last resort" (para 44), and maybe there is a case that democratically accountable representatives ought to sign off on non-elected technocrats getting too heavyhandedly involved in bossing entire industries around. I've noticed, too, when presenting to Select Committees, that some MPs evidently have a fear that an overzealous Commission might go feral. To me, though, it's another example of successive governments' fetish for costly micromanagement: far too many things already have to go to Ministers or Cabinet, and this doesn't need to be yet another one. MBIE, when preparing the regulatory impact statement for these reforms, looked at an 'Option 3': "Commission-issued pro-competition rules – Allows the Commission to develop and implement rules independently, without separate Cabinet approval each time". That was a path not taken, but should have been, and in the fulness of time I'll likely front up to a Select Committee and argue for it.

And then there's predatory pricing. "Allegations of predatory pricing have arisen in the aviation, grocery and building supplies sectors, but enforcement remains challenging. Part of the challenge is the lack of clarity around the circumstances when prices are so low that they breach competition law" (para 51). So the reforms suggest some pricing tests that could more effectively ping predatory pricing under s36 of the Act: "Pricing below Average Variable Cost (AVC) or Average Avoidable Cost (AAC) over a sustained period is presumptively unlawful", and "Pricing above AVC/AAC but below Long-Run Average Incremental Cost (the average cost of producing an additional unit of output over the long-term**) or Average Total Cost (total costs divided by the number of units produced) over a sustained period is presumptively unlawful only where there is evidence of exclusionary intent" (para 53), with some sensible carve-outs: "short-term promotional pricing, including one-off specials, de minimis discounts, or mistaken pricing, are not captured unless part of a sustained pattern of pricing behaviour" (para 55). I have to say, I'd like to have been a fly on the Cabinet room wall when Ministers were confronted with 'Long-Run Average Incremental Cost' ...

Gibes aside, the reform's heart is in the right place, and maybe it'll reduce the scope for judges to see vigorous incumbent reaction to competition rather than strategic deterrence of rivals (yes, I'm thinking of Pink Batts***), but we'll see. As anyone who has been up close and personal with a s36 case knows, it's hard to magick away the complexities. 

There's other good stuff which I'll leave you to explore, but I'd like to add a few words about process.

By recent New Zealand competition policy standards, this has been a quick and effective exercise. While there was a bit of a gap between consultation closing (early February) and the first package of reforms (mid August), and the contents of the first tranche were distinctly modest compared to the range of topics consulted on, the Minister promised that "Further decisions on the merger regime, potential new industry codes, and other changes will be announced over the coming weeks". He - and Nicola Willis - have very largely delivered, though the odd issue, like 'concerted practices', appears to have fallen into a void. 

And between them they had the heft of being able to get an early slot in the always crowded legislative queue: "We propose that the policy outlined in this paper be given effect through the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which is at priority category 5 (to proceed to Select Committee by the end of 2025)", which likely means enactment in 2026. Good stuff all round: it's nice to see effective competition being given the priority it deserves. And while I'm in a generous mood, a hat tip too to whoever held the pen on the Cabinet paper: these are complicated issues, and whoever wrote them up did a fine job of making them clear. 

*Update (September 30) - I didn't spot it but in the event Cabinet actually decided not to endorse the industry code idea. See today's post.

**I've deleted an apparently superfluous 'costs' here

***Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Limited v Commerce Commission [2004] UKPC 37

CLPINZ 2024

The 35th Annual Workshop of the Competition Law and Policy Institute of New Zealand (CLPINZ) was held last week at the Northern Club in Auckland, and - despite breaching the universally acknowledged convention that every Kiwi conference must at some point offer sausage rolls - was otherwise a well-attended and highly interesting day and a half. Hat tip to the organisers on the Board of CLPINZ and to the indispensable Charlotte Emery at Conference Innovators.

It led off with outgoing CLPINZ chair Anna Ryan introducing the keynote lecture from UCLA's John Asker (UCLA link, personal site, Cornerstone Research site), on 'The Competitive Effects of Information Sharing'. John reminded us that, since at least Hayek, we should think about markets and prices as an immense, efficient, decentralised, information-sharing mechanism for allocating resources, and the integrity of prices really matters for the outcome of the process. But there is a potential tension between the necessary information-sharing in the market, via price signalling, and the possibility of people using the information to collude and undermine the benefit of the free flow of signals. And it's not hard to see real life examples: he cited the case of a Perth-based web-based scheme which had aimed to show each petrol station's prices so that consumers could get the cheapest petrol, but which eventually degenerated into a mechanism enabling the petrol companies to coordinate prices. While some competitive effects can be reasonably obvious, John said that, unlike in areas like mergers where there are known analytical techniques, economics hasn't yet developed the full suite of forensic tools that would enable competition regulators to sort out the sheep from the goats. And when you do apply what tools are available, you don't always get unequivocal answers: his modelling (with coauthors) of timber 'stumpage' auctions, for example, where competitors had information about each others' timber inventories, came up with mixed results: "diagnosing how competition is impacted in non-price information sharing is complicated, and can lead to an outcome where reasonable people might disagree as to whether competition has been adversely impacted".

Keynote speaker John Asker, flanked by session chair Anna Ryan; Fionnghuala Cuncannon as commentator

Commentator Fionnghuala Cuncannon felt that ideally you would like to know when information sharing is harmful, and what is allowed or not under the Commerce Act, and hopefully the Venn diagram of the two ideas would overlap enough to give you a operational basis to act from. On the first point, she agreed with John that deciding on competitive harm is not settled, though in some cases you may well see instances where things look wrong, one example being the price following behaviour based on the 'main port price' that the Commerce Commission noticed in its petrol market study (see for example Figure X3 and paras X35-6). On the second she felt that the Act was "okayish" as it stood, but maybe we could have a think about buttressing it with the likes of the "concerted practices" provisions in s45(1)(c) of Australia's legislation.

Emma Ihaia, the chair of the session on 'Tikanga - is it relevant to Competition Law', introduced it by saying that tikanga is "an area largely unknown to many of us in the room", and that assessment certainly included me: by way of reference for people equally uninformed, Wikipedia says "Tikanga is a Māori term for Māori law, customary law, attitudes and principles, and also for the indigenous legal system which all iwi abided by prior to the colonisation of New Zealand". By the end, we were all a great deal better up with the state of play. Te Aopare Dewes said that use of tikanga is part of a transformational change in Aotearoa New Zealand, that it is now part of our common law post Ellis*, and that it will have relevance for the statutory interpretation of competition law. She also pointed to the Commerce Commission's use of tikanga concepts such as kaitiaki (stewardship, as for example on p13 of the Commission's latest annual report) and its awareness of Māori perspectives in its September 2023 Moana/Sanford merger decision**, although she reckoned the merger would likely have been cleared even without a tikanga lens. The Hon Justice Christian Whata (who headed the Law Commission study which produced the definitive report on the legal dimensions of tikanga) then took us through tikanga as custom, values, and law and talked about "the principles of engagement" which will need to apply as tikanga and European law (if I can call it that) learn to jog along together, including both relevance (tikanga won't affect every matter at issue) and reconciliation (there's no longer a presumption that European law prevails if push comes to shove). And finally Simon Peart took us through some hypothetical case studies the panel had devised to see how the two legal perspectives might or might not play nicely together. One of them (an agreement between otherwise competing Māori fishing companies to place a rāhui on fishing, to conserve the stock, which might amount to output restriction under the cartel provisions of the Commerce Act) didn't look especially problematic: it was fine from the tikanga side and (I'd guess) a strong candidate for authorisation from the Commission's side. The other (one Māori ski operator denying a competitor a licence to operate) was a good deal trickier to reconcile, and reminded us that not all of these issues are going to be a gentle stroll in the park.

The tikanga panel discuss some case studies: L-R, Te Aopare Dewes, Hon Justice Whata, Simon Peart, and session chair (and incoming CLPINZ vice chair) Emma Ihaia

Paul Comrie-Thomson chaired the next one, 'Wellington, we have a problem!', where barrister and incoming CLPINZ chair Ben Hamlin made a convincing case that exemptions from the Commerce Act for "the Crown" are both a legislative mess and poor public policy. Yes, s5 of the Commerce Act binds "the Crown is so far as the Crown engages in trade", but both "the Crown" and "engages in trade" are poorly defined. The Crown (however defined) also has extensive (though nor unfettered) scope to limit competition when not engaged in trade, and as a matter of good public policy it would be better if that scope was subject to some sort of overriding rationale or principle. Ben suggested that "bodies exercising public power should only be able to limit competition where expressly authorised by Parliament, it is reasonably necessary to achieve some public purpose, or it is permitted by a Commission authorisation", and he's drafted a Bill that would legislate along those lines (he's interested in feedback and assistance in polishing it up, so feel free to contact him). In these endeavours Ben was enthusiastically supported by the commentator, Dr Eric Crampton, who pointed to a range of examples of what he regarded as anti-competitive regulation (eg incumbent professionals being allowed to act as the gatekeepers assessing new entrants wanting to ply their trade) and which arise because "The Commerce Act provides broad exceptions for the Crown, particularly in relation to activities that affect commerce but are not considered to be in commerce".

The 2023 workshop had pioneered a new concept, the "Next Generation" session, where rising stars in the competition and regulation world get to strut their stuff, and it worked so well that it was back this year, again chaired by Will Taylor. Russell McVeagh senior solicitor Callum Dickson spoke on 'Privatisation in the space industry': one takeaway was that governments can be quite smart in organising procurement so that they're not at the mercy of a few suppliers or one, in this case suppliers of rocket launching services. Wynn Williams associate Rachael Monkhouse talked about 'The application of competition law to professional sports', where it's evident that sometimes sport gets carved-out treatment that to my eyes at least isn't always defensible. And Houston Kemp economist Nick Twort spoke about 'New analytical tools for understanding retail competition', and in particular the location data that can be cheaply hoovered up from your mobile phone and which can give improved empirical backing for regional market definition, where previously you and I might just have drawn a 5 kilometre circle around an outlet. All good stuff, and while on the topic of up and coming talent, the winner of the inaugural 2024 CLPINZ writing award was Russell McVeagh's Lydia Christensen, with her article, 'Competition Law and the Environment: Climate Change as a Non-Economic Consideration', where she argues that the Commission "has failed to genuinely engage with climate change factors as non-economic considerations that ought to be balanced against other factors".

Will Taylor (L) introduces the Next Gen speakers: L-R, Callum Dickson, Rachael Monkhouse, Nick Twort

Saturday morning brought us 'Settlement of IP disputes', chaired by Otago Professor Ed Willis and presented in case study format by barristers Earl Gray and John Land. Their argument was that since the the expansion of the definition of a cartel in the 2017 changes to the Commerce Act to specifically mention collusive output restriction, agreements in intellectual property disputes to stop producing things that infringe copyright or patents are at risk of being pinged as a cartel, and the risk is all the more real after the Moola*** case. Their solution is an amendment to the Act (which they have drafted and is ready to go) which would exempt good faith settlements in genuine disputes from the ambit of s30 cartel conduct. We need to be wary of anything that might open the door to the rather despicable 'pay for delay' sham patent settlements we've seen in overseas pharmaceutical markets, but that said, I can see the issue that confronts genuine settlements. Part of me wonders about the legal reasoning - how can it be an output restriction if the output allegedly restricted could never have been legally produced in the first place? - but when I asked the question, it didn't seem to cut any ice with my learned friends in the law. I also got the distinct impression that the Commission would be unlikely to bestir itself in cases where, on the facts, like in Earl and John's dairy packaging machinery example, there's clearly no collusive anti-competitive intent.

Finally we got to what Anna Ryan later described as "almost a second keynote address", and it was: Danielle Wood, chair of the Australian Productivity Commission, spoke on 'Competition Policy: Back in Fashion?', in a session chaired by her former colleague Hayden Green. In Australia, the answer to her question is, absolutely yes: they are pressing on with further reform (after two thorough previous goes, the 'Hilmer' and 'Harper' reviews), with their current rolling well-resourced Competition Review and its Expert Advisory Panel (of which Danielle is a member, as is John Asker) and which has already produced draft M&A legislation to address eg 'killer' and 'creeping' acquisitions. It is also tackling other good ideas, including addressing the epidemic of non-compete agreements which is anticompetitively blighting labour market mobility, and working on the next instalment of a National Competition Policy (programmes of reform agreed between the Federal and State governments) which might encompass things like easing parallel import restrictions. The Productivity Commission itself has further useful things on the go, such as liberalising occupational licencing. If you don't have access to the CLPINZ workshop materials, Danielle reprised her presentation in the latest of Treasury's guest lectures, and you'll find both a video and the slides here.

(L) Danielle Wood, chair of the Australian Productivity Commission, and (R) commentator Catherine Montague, manager of competition policy at MBIE

The commentator was Catherine Montague, manager of competition policy at MBIE, speaking in a personal capacity rather than presenting a ministry or government view. She suggested that there was potential impetus for reform in New Zealand, based on the current government's focus on productivity, the example of the Aussies, and the rark-up we got from the OECD in Chapter 3 of their latest economic survey of New Zealand (from the Executive Summary, "Insufficient competition is an important factor underpinning low productivity ... more can and should be done to further improve competition outcomes"). While nothing's yet settled, potential candidates for attention are mergers ('creeping' mergers, amending the SLC test to specify that it would include entrenching market power, and aligning with wherever Aussie gets to), non-competes and other restraints in the labour market, ensuring more attention is given to the competition effect of policy changes, and implementing a Consumer Data Right. 

Fingers crossed that something like this agenda happens, and sooner rather than later: recent experience has unfortunately been that we have been too timid in scope and process, much too slow, and decidedly belated. Either MBIE or our new Ministry for Regulation would be well advised to take a leaf from the Aussie textbook and get on with something similar to their latest Competition Review, and if we're interested in alignment with our friends across the ditch, a couple of cross-appointments (like the ones the ACCC and the Commerce Commission already operate) wouldn't go amiss, either.

*Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114, [2022] 1 NZLR 239

**The final clearance decision doesn't seem to have been loaded into the Commission's online case register

*** Commerce Commission v Moola.co.nz Ltd [2021] NZHC 3423

Competition and the coalition of chaos

Sounds like a Harry Potter movie doesn't it, and I couldn't resist using it as a title even though, for all the critical "coalition of chaos" knocking, there's actually a fair degree of overlap of policy ambition among the coalition troika, at least when it comes to the regulation and competition issues you and I are interested in.

To save you having to read them, I've worked my way through the two coalition agreements, National/NZ First and National/ACT, and picked out where competition and economic regulation might be up for a rethink under the new government. There's the odd regulatory thing I don't know about (for example, both ACT and NZ First want to junk the Therapeutic Products Act 2023, whatever that is) but otherwise this is a reasonably complete listing of what's likely to be in play. It's possible that some of the ideas in National's 100 point economic plan might yet see the light of day, too, so I've covered that as well.

I've included some personal comments: your opinion may vary.

One thing that commentators on the coalition agreement haven't picked up on is that in the 'Preamble' to both coalition agreements there's a reference to "introducing more choice and competition into social service provision". In practical terms the main immediate outcome is likely to be in education - the ACT agreement features "Reintroduce partnership schools and introduce a policy to allow state schools to become partnership schools" and "Explore further options to increase school choice and expand access to integrated and independent schools including reviewing the independent school funding formula to reflect student numbers" - but as a wider pro-competitive principle it's a good policy stance to start with. Monopoly public sector 'take it or leave it' provision is unlikely to be the best option of meeting everyone's needs. Cushy private sector incumbency doesn't work too well either, of course: while I can't see that it's made it into any of the coalition's priority lists, I quite liked National's proposal (number 47 in its 100 point plan) to "Allow KiwiSavers to invest in more than one provider, driving innovation, boosting competition and putting downward pressure on fees".

Stepping through the NZ First agreement:

"Establish a select committee inquiry into banking competition with broad and deep criteria to focus on competitiveness, customer services, and profitability" - I'm not hugely impressed by this, partly because the Commerce Commission is already part-way through its personal banking services market study and I can't see the point of duplication (accepting that the Commission's terms of reference may have been a bit narrow in the first place), but also because I don't think a select committee is the right forum. There's too much opportunity for grandstanding and for ritual oppositionism, while select committees are overwhelmed as it is and I don't see them being resourced well enough to handle a project of this size. Better options would be to either expand the Commission's market study or go the royal commission route: the Aussies made a lot of progress with their 'Hayne Commission'. But in any event bank CEOs and their teams and advisers can expect to be facing the third degree in some forum or other in coming months.

"Explore options to strengthen the powers of the Grocery Commissioner, to improve competitiveness, and to address the lack of a third entrant to remove the market power of a duopoly" - why not, especially in the area of supplier (i.e. grocery manufacturer) conduct. As the Grocery Commissioner recently said, "We are aware that a number of influential suppliers appear to be opting out of the RGRs’ [supermarkets'] wholesale offers and insisting on supplying direct to smaller retailers but at much higher prices, which is having a negative impact on retail competition". Whether the nuclear option of forced divestment to create the launching pad for a third entrant is on the table, who knows.

"Assess and respond to the impact that energy prices have on inflation including consumer led institutional improvements" - no, I don't know what that means, either, and it could be as innocuous as easier ways to switch suppliers to apply stronger competitive pressure (it works, as I experienced myself), or something along the 'New Reg' arrangement Australia has experimented with (described here), but it could also hint at a greater interest in control of retail prices.

"Investigate the threshold at which local lines companies can invest in generation assets" - my days of looking at requests for cross-sector involvements under the Electricity Industry Reform Act are long past, but insofar as I remember any of it, why not.

"Require the electricity regulator to implement regulations such that there is sufficient electricity infrastructure to ensure security of supply and avoid excessive prices" - seems reasonable, especially with the looming challenge of provisioning electric vehicles.

"Examine transmission and connection pricing to facilitate cost effective connection of new renewable generation resources, both on-shore and off-shore" - can't argue with that either, while hoping that it doesn't degenerate into the usual "you pay", "no, you pay" buckpassing.

"Require Medsafe to approve new pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand" (also word for word in the ACT coalition agreement) - as I understand it, a policy win for the New Zealand Initiative and/or its chief economist Eric Crampton, and wholly sensible. One of the bigger impediments across areas as diverse as building materials and medicines is the potentially anti-competitive barrier of unnecessarily high, or expensive, 'health and safety' non-tariff barriers, and we could usefully dismantle quite a few of them. In general we should efficiently free-ride on other respectable countries' testing or experience: I've always liked the idea, for example, of using overseas prices for telco services as a first sighting shot on what the local regulated price should be. Along similar lines National's 100 point plan had as number 32, "Strengthen competition for building materials with automatic approval for appropriately certified building materials from the US, Europe, the UK and Australia".

"Better recognise people with overseas medical qualifications and experience for accreditation in New Zealand" - same again. Unnecessary 'credentialism' and conveniently incumbent professional licencing 'gatekeepers' need to have their wings clipped. Same sentiment in the ACT agreement with its "Better recognise people with overseas medical qualifications and experience for accreditation in New Zealand including consideration of an occupations tribunal".

Turning to the ACT agreement:

"Legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" - applehood and mother pie, and who'd disagree. Whether it would extend as far as a rethink of say Part IV of the Commerce Act, where I've always felt there may be less heavy duty alternatives to our rate of return regulation, we'll have to wait and see. And while it might be implicitly tucked into that "economic efficiency" reference, I'd like to see an explicit criterion in any eventual Act that would require any proposed regulation to be assessed for its impact on competition and consumer choice.

"Establish a new government department, required to assess the quality of new and existing legislation and regulation, funded by disestablishing the Productivity Commission and consolidating some regulatory quality work across the public sector where appropriate" - the country has not gone into mourning over the demise of the Productivity Commission (though as the productivity challenge hasn't gone away I personally would like to see something resurrected along the solid lines of the UK's Productivity Institute), and if the money is used to fund better regulation, why not. 

"In consultation with the relevant Minister, carry out regulation sector reviews, which could include the primary industries, the finance sector, early childhood education, and healthcare occupational licencing, in each case producing an omnibus bill for regulatory reform of laws affecting the sector" - a broad agenda which could encompass not just the benighted CCCFA (coming up next) but also ComCom's payments system regulation. Note too yet another welcome reference to tackling potentially overprotective professional qualification regimes.

"Rewrite the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 to protect vulnerable consumers without unnecessarily limiting access to credit" (which also featured in the National Party's 100 point plan as number 48, "Cut financial red tape that is stifling investment, including significantly reducing the scope of the CCCFA which has restricted access to credit") - pretty much everyone accepts that successive tinkering with the CCCFA hasn't left us in a good place. Well-meaning attempts to protect the vulnerable ended up with lenders emptying people's waste baskets looking for receipts for Netflix subscriptions.

"Amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely" - completely reasonable. We already have one of the more restrictive overseas investment approval regimes by OECD standards, as shown in the graph below, and we need to lighten up if (among other things) we want another supermarket entrant or we want to attract some of the vast global pool of private equity money that's currently sloshing around looking for infrastructure opportunities (in particular for decarbonisation). We don't need any repeats of a Minister telling an overseas pension fund that they can't take a stake in a New Zealand airport. In the National Party's 100 point plan, they had as number 66 a very specific reason for liberalisation, "Amend the Overseas Investment Act and Income Tax Act to give investors certainty to invest in Build-to-Rent projects", which has since made it into the government's 100 day action plan, but hopefully the Overseas Investment Act will be freed up to benefit a wide variety of potential investors.

"Reform market studies introduced by the Commerce Amendment Act 2018 to focus on reducing regulatory barriers to new entrants to drive competition" - I can't say I like the look of this, for various reasons. For one thing, it's too early to be tinkering with a regime that's still new. More importantly, it looks as if it might be intended to limit the scope of future market studies solely to reducing regulatory barriers, which would be a mistake. There will be instances (such as the petrol stations) where the big competition issues are primarily ones of market power, not regulatory barriers, and the Commission shouldn't be barred from looking at them. It's arguable that the threshold test - "in the public interest" - for the Commission in s50 or the Minister in s51 to kick off a market study is too broad, but it's better than a threshold test that would be too narrow. On a more charitable reading, perhaps the "reform" will require the Commission to make sure that it uncovers all regulatory barriers in a study, but on the other hand they've been doing that quite well already (eg the thicket of resource consent, land planning and Overseas Investment Act hurdles to new supermarkets), so unfortunately the more uncharitable reading of an overrestrictive rollback looks the way to bet at the moment.

"Immediately issue stop-work notices on several workstreams, including Three Waters (with assets returned to council ownership)" - the 100 day action plan includes "Repeal Labour’s Three Waters legislation", so that's underway as a first step. What happens after that? National's 100 point plan had included (as number 68) "Restore council ownership and control of water assets, with strict rules for water quality and investment requirements" and (as number 69 in a welcome pinpointing of the current dynamic inefficiency debacle) "Introduce a requirement for water service delivery models to be financially sustainable, so that future generations don’t inherit outdated or failing infrastructure". Perhaps that can all be done under the remit of the current Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Act 2023, which installed ComCom as a sectoral regulator very much along the lines of its role as an electricity lines regulator (and which I'd presciently argued here was likely to be a better plan than Three Waters). Whether that will be timely enough - there's a rather leisurely timeframe in the Act for introducing regulation - or effective enough remains to be seen. ComCom can set investment paths, but with something like $150 billion worth of overdue maintenance to be paid for, it's still (however much you might like to stick it to councils for their previous pusillanimous water mismanagement) not obvious that they're in a financial position to pay for it.

Finally, there was a chance that a more business-friendly, deregulatory government might be minded to roll back some of the features of our existing competition regime. But nothing's been unwound, so that's something. On the other hand nothing's been advanced, either, even though the Commerce Act is now looking a bit shopworn. Understandably the negotiators had bigger things on their minds.

If I've missed anything, let me know and I'll happily update.

Here we go again

On August 23 the Aussie Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers in a joint release with the Assistant Minister for Competition Dr Andrew Leigh announced a new competition review. It's meant to be a rolling rather than a one-off process - "A Competition Taskforce has been established in Treasury to conduct the review, which will be progressed over two years and involve targeted public consultation. It will provide continuous advice rather than a formal report" - assisted by an expert advisory panel including luminaries like the CEO of the Grattan Institute Danielle Wood and ex ACCC chair Rod Sims. Some initial topics have already been identified, including the ACCC's wish list for merger reform (which you can find here) and the prevalence of non-compete clauses in employment contracts.

I'd liked the pro-competition song Andrew Leigh has been singing when I heard him take to the mike at this year's RBB Economics conference: "All good stuff", I'd said, but in a rare moment of prescience I'd added, "whether the rest of the Albanese government shares Andrew's vision of being "pro-growth progressives" remains to be seen".

It's still unclear.  In July Aussie Transport Minister Catherine King decided not to allow Qatar Airways to operate more international flights. The competition review announcement had talked of building on "the Albanese Government’s existing efforts to boost competition" and tackling "cost of living pressures": King's decision, favouring a powerful and highly profitable incumbent, and helping maintain expensive air fares, didn't sit comfortably with either of those aspirations. In slight mitigation, the flight approval system King inherited is a rusty regulatory relic: governments should have been backed out of decision regimes like these years ago.

It didn't help that the ACCC hit the newly protected darling Qantas with a false, misleading or deceptive conduct lawsuit alleging that Qantas had advertised some 8,000 flights for sale that it knew it had already cancelled (press release here, concise statement of claim here). The ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb is gunning for an all-time-record fine of the order of quarter of a billion big ones. It's only allegation at this stage, but the reputational damage has hit home: as Qantas said on September 4, "The ACCC’s allegations come at a time when Qantas’ reputation has already been hit hard on several fronts", and the Qantas CEO decided to leave two months early. The Aussie government wasn't to know what lay down the pike, but with hindsight I'd guess it is now wondering why it risked supporting an unpopular corporate against the interests of the flying public.

We shouldn't gloat too much on this side of the Tasman when Aussie policies don't line up in a neat row: pots and kettles, for starters, and in any event our interests are best served by having a prosperous well-functioning polity next door, so let's get back to the nuts and bolts of competition policy. 

When I saw the announcement, I wondered why the Aussies were having yet another review - they seem to be on a regular 10-year cycle with the Hilmer review in 1993, the Dawson review in 2003, the Harper review in 2013, and now this one. My first reaction was that they risked a makework reinvention of the wheel - Harper seems like it was only yesterday - but on thinking a bit more about it, maybe they're right. A good example - it cropped up several times at this year's CLPINZ conference - is what, if anything, needs to be addressed if collaborative ventures between otherwise competing businesses are needed to transition to decarbonisation, as they might well be. It's become a more urgent issue now than it was back in Harper's day, partly because in the interim, too little has been done, on both sides of the Tasman, to make enough progress towards our international global warming commitments.

The Aussie "let's have another rethink" approach contrasts with our more piecemeal approach to the Commerce Act. We haven't stood still: within the Act itself, off the top of my head I can think of the new prohibition against anti-competitive grocery covenants in s28A, the change to s36, the provisions in ss48 through 51E on market studies, and the introduction of the whole of the Part IV regulatory apparatus, and outside of the Act we've introduced rafts of ancillary competition-relevant legislation (most recently the Fuel Industry Act 2020, the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023, and the Retail Payments Act 2022, on top of earlier dairy, electricity and telco legislation). Put that way, the case pretty much makes itself for a reasoned review in the round of where we've got to, how it all works together (or doesn't), and what remains to be done. 

And if we're minded to have a high altitude rethink, I for one wouldn't be averse to a free ride on the Aussies' coattails if they improve their regime to meet the latest challenges. Yes, we're not them, and they're not us, but a lot of the problems are common. We could have saved ourselves several years of expensive navel-gazing if, day one, we'd simply pirated their post-Harper revision of their competition law to deal better to abuse of market power. If they come up with any more bright ideas in the next couple of years let's steal those, too.

CLPINZ 2023

 After a rapid scramble to reorganise the schedule following the last minute loss of the planned keynote speaker, the 34th annual workshop of the Competition Law and Policy Institute of New Zealand (CLPINZ) successfully got underway in Wellington over the weekend.

Top of the bill - promoted at short notice from the previously planned 'fireside chat' session, and very much appreciated for their willingness to step up and help out - were Commerce Commission chair John Small, on 'The future of antitrust', and Andy Matthews of Matthews Law as commentator. CLPINZ chair Anna Ryan of Lane Neave chaired the session.

John Small and his chosen topics; Andy Matthews commenting

John noted a swing in the intellectual competition policy pendulum, with a strong trend of more regulation for competition which had started twenty years ago with the Telco Act and has more recently extended to petrol, groceries and retail payment systems: on petrol, he noted that there were some retail "issues", a conclusion you'd tend to agree with after reading the latest quarterly petrol market monitoring report. He signalled that there is likely to be more ComCom activity against restrictive practices, an area which he accepted had been underdone to date, with the likes of retail price maintenance, anti-competitive covenants, cartels - the leniency programme is still "ticking away" - and in the fulness of time the revised s36 provisions against abuse of market power likely to see more playtime. He said that the NZ merger guidelines were due for review in any event, and noted that they're also a hot issue in other jurisdictions (notably in the US and Australia). And he put some emphasis on how ComCom plans to engage with its various stakeholders: "efficiency-based playing nice", as he put it, preferably relying on soft power (such as guidelines) and on "direct, respectful engagement", and avoiding litigation if possible, but going there if ultimately necessary.

Andy agreed that there had been a pronounced trend towards regulation for competition since around 2001 when there had been a "Big Bang" away from the previous reliance on light-handed, or no, regulation, and there could be a big payoff from the latest regulatory initiative, on consumer data rights, which could make competition in banking, for example, more effective. He also agreed with John's view that consumer law can be effectively used to complement competition policy, with for example significantly higher Fair Trading Act penalties over time providing a stronger incentive to be more consumer-friendly. And although the zeitgeist has moved to more hands-on interventionist competition policy, Andy reminded us that (a) the new and globally high-profile FTC/DoJ guidelines are just that, guidelines, and don't change the underlying law, and (b) regulation is all very well, but the first best option is always likely to be more effective competition, as we notably saw when a third mobile telco rolled out its gear.

Session 2 was "The most environmentally friendly carbon neutral CLPINZ session ever! Or is it?". In other words, the currently controversial area of "greenwashing", making misleading claims about the greenness of a business's products, activities, positioning or performance. The speaker was Charlotte Turner, senior associate, climate risk governance with MinterEllison in Melbourne, commentator was Kirsten Mannix, acting general manager - fair trading at ComCom, chair Bradley Aburn from Russell McVeagh. Charlotte referenced a web-scraping survey of the increased prevalence of green-focused claims, Kirsten referenced another which found an alarmingly high (~40%) proportion of potentially misleading claims. It's self-evidently an area with the potential to bite careless people: that said, as Charlotte said, the fundamentals haven't changed, and there are still well-established tests for 'deceptive' and 'misleading' even if the field they're being applied in is relatively new. And as Kirsten reminded us, one of the established principles is that 'intention' is not the point: being misleading will always put you on the wrong side of the law. You may well have read ComCom's own 'Environmental Claims Guidelines: a guide for traders', but might also like to follow up on some references Charlotte provided that originated with ASIC, the Aussie financial markets regulator: 'How to avoid greenwashing when offering or promoting sustainability-related products', and 'REP 763 ASIC’s recent greenwashing interventions'.

Session 3, 'Section 36: What can we learn from the Australian experience?', gave us incisive insights into how our s36, now amended to be in line with Australia's equivalent s46, will go in trying to deal to abuse of market power, given that our previous formulation of the law had proved ineffective. Chaired by Jennifer Hambleton,  it featured two very good speakers - Simon Muys from Gilbert + Tobin in Melbourne and Ed Willis from the University of Otago - and even though the 10 cases commenced under the new law in Australia have yet to go the full legal distance, and in some cases are still cantering towards the first fence, we got good ideas on what we might reasonably expect here. While some (including me) had hoped we might have got to a simpler place, compared to the counterfactual complexities of our old s36, both speakers agreed that litigating the new s36 will not be any simpler, just different (though, thankfully, more intellectually coherent). Establishing anti-competitive purpose, and establishing anti-competitive effect, will remain tricky, which is a bit of a disappointment to those of us who had hoped the Australian 'effects based test' would cut through more easily to the chase, and market definition looks to be at least as  crucial as previously. 

Simon Muys (L) and Ed Willis (R) reflect on the jurisprudence around abuse of market power

Session 4 was 'The Next Gen' session, a new CLPINZ idea aimed at showcasing some of the talent coming through the younger ranks of the competition and regulation community, and was chaired by NERA's Will Taylor. Left to right below, we got Sophie Vinicombe, solicitor at Russell McVeagh, talking about Ticketmaster antitrust claims in the US (what looks in retrospect to have been a very poor merger clearance); Sophie Harker, senior solicitor at Chapman Tripp on collaborating with competitors in emergencies like Covid; Luke Archer, principal investigator, Commerce Commission, on competition and sustainability; and Jono Henderson, consultant, NERA, on self-preferencing in digital markets (eg when a Google search throws up Google-associated products ahead of others'). All good topics, all well handled, and (going by people's reactions and the discussion at the CLPINZ AGM) I'd guess a 'Next Gen' session is going to be an ongoing feature of future workshops.

Session 5, 'AI and Collusion: Unveiling the Challenges of Tomorrow', featured a bright idea by chair Ben Hamlin: have AI (in the form of ChatGPT) write both the blurb for the session and the biography of the speaker, James Every-Palmer, which ended up crediting James with everything short of the Nobel Prize in Economics (not to downplay his real achievements: let's hat-tip his involvement in the Lawyers for Climate Action NZ win in the High Court, forcing the government to roll back its poor plan to paper the country with cheap emission trading scheme credits). James was surely right to argue that there is a long list of potentially anti-competitive concerns, not only over facilitated collusive conduct, such as tacit algorithmic price-formation, but also over unilateral conduct (including predatory conduct, and anti-competitive tying and bundling) and further issues across a variety of non-price dimensions including quality and privacy. Me, I'm a tech optimist, and inclined to believe the benefits of modern platforms in aggregate far outweigh their downsides, but you have to expect that some of the powerful incumbents will from time to time push their luck too far.

And finally Session 6, 'Aotearoa New Zealand's Turning Point - Competition and Consumer Policy Implications', chaired by moi, featured Mayuresh Prasad from Deloitte Access Economics in Wellington. Mayuresh gets a big thank-you for stepping in at literally days' notice to fill the gap in the programme after John Small and Andy Matthews moved to the keynote slot. He showed us, first, some modelling of the costs and benefits of what we need to do to keep temperatures rising by no more than 1.5 degrees. In the graph below there's a period where we incur costs to put in place policies like carbon taxes and spend on new renewable energy (and hence our GDP on the green 'do something' track falls below our GDP on the orange 'do nothing' track). After a period - the 'turning point' of his title - we pull ahead of where we would have been otherwise, and Mayuresh put numbers on the initial costs and ultimate payoffs. The costs, for mine, looked a bit on the low side, but otherwise his modelling fits with other attempts along these lines which also show that we can indeed have our cake (a greener sustainable world) and eat it (have a higher standard of living). And secondly Mayuresh explored some of the competition and regulation policy implications, notably around facilitating the necessary collaboration for good stuff to happen, and in particular giving certainty early in the piece as to what is or is not permissible, as we don't have a lot of time to waste.

The RBB Economics conference is back

After the Covid-induced hiatus since its 2019 conference, RBB Economics got back on track last week with its traditional face to face conference in Sydney. It was good to be able to schmooze again, and you never know who you'll meet: this time round I bumped into Lilla Csorgo, who's back in our part of the world as the about-to-be ACCC chief economist.

The first panel session was 'Reflections from the agency, judiciary, and private practice'. It featured the CEO of the ACCC, Scott Gregson (somewhat oddly, the ACCC doesn't list bios of its senior staff on its website but here's the 2020 media release about his appointment as COO, upgraded to CEO in February '22) on 'Pursuit of a strategic enforcement model – the ACCC’s journey'; King & Wood Mallesons partner Peta Stevenson on 'Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it – is the ACCC doomed?'; and the Hon Justice John E Middleton AM KC on 'A more demanding judiciary emerging?', all moderated by RBB Economics partner George Siolis.

Scott took us through a history of the evolution of the ACCC from an essentially reactive complaints-driven collection of regional offices to an integrated national outfit with a more purposive agenda. Looking ahead, and he said these would be modest rather than massive moves, he expects that while a penalty-based regime will still be central, there's likely to be more focus on remediation and redress (good); that the ACCC will be driven more by market data and intelligence (as is everybody else these days); and that it will aim for better measurement of performance (always a tough job for anyone in the services game).

(Left) George Siolis kicks things off; (right) the panel for the first session, Scott Gregson, Peta Stevenson, Hon Justice John Middleton

Peta walked back a bit from what she called her "click bait" title - no, the ACCC is not doomed - and focused on the performance-measurement element. Some purported measures based on levels of ACCC outputs or activities may well be problematic: higher numbers of cartel prosecutions, for example, could easily be a result of more cartels operating rather than less, and could well mislead people into thinking that the actual desired outcome (cartel deterrence) had been achieved. Better measures might be found by rerunning the likes of the University of Melbourne 2011 survey of public awareness of cartels. And John explored some of the remediation and redress issues: the "demanding" bit of his address referred to judges demanding clearer and more convincing reasons why they should go along with agreed penalties, especially around whether they are appropriate to the degree of harm involved.

The second session, 'Reflections on policy (1)', was a pre-taped address by Dr Andrew Leigh, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury (and incidentally a Harvard PhD and ex economics professor at ANU), on 'No Competition, No Progress'. He pointed to evidence of rising market concentration, higher company markups, declining job switching, and declining start-ups as a percentage of total firms (when you look at firms with employees, and not just ex-employees going out as one-man-band consultants, not that, ahem, there's anything wrong with that). He made a good case that effective competition policy can combat these productivity-sapping developments, and that the post- Hilmer-report competition reforms had been one of the reasons supporting an Australian productivity boom in the 1990s. All good stuff: whether the rest of the Albanese government shares Andrew's vision of being "pro-growth progressives" remains to be seen, but it's a good thing to aim for.

Then came 'Reflections on policy (2)' on the broad theme of 'The shifting mandate of competition policy in Australia and globally'. We heard from Tom Leuner, Executive General Manager, Mergers, Exemptions and Digital at the ACCC (sorry, no web link or bio obviously available), White & Case partner Belinda Harvey, and Minter Ellison partner Katrina Groshinski, moderated by RBB principal Chris Hart.

Tom (disclaimer - his views, not necessarily ACCC's) referenced the debate about whether merger enforcement globally had become too lax (he pointed to this joint report from the CMA, the Bundeskartellamt and the ACCC). Looking forward he expected that merger policing would need to involve more focus on: non-price effects (such as on quality or privacy); effects on potential competition (the whole 'killer acquisition' thing); upstream markets facing downstream monopsonists; vertical mergers and potential foreclosure problems (very few challenged in the US recently, but more a live issue in Australia); and the process of dynamic competition, even if the analysis is necessarily qualitative. People tend to make a song and dance about how hard it is to judge whether some currently fringe start-up has the potential to be the Next Big Thing. My feeling (which I put to Tom) is that there are private equity and venture capital types who are 24/7 all over these start-ups and could well (given their skin in the game) have a pretty good sighting view of a start-up's eventual evolution. Don said that they do pick up on the valuations being paid for start-ups as an indicator of how big their idea is, which is fair enough, but I still wonder if there is some further information lurking unused.

Belinda endorsed what Tom said, in particular picking up on the importance of protecting dynamic and potential competition, but she also wondered whether in a newfound tougher global merger approach, there weren't risks of 'big' being regarded as 'bad' irrespective of the efficiencies a merger might bring or of a big company's success in meeting customer needs. She also wondered how protecting nascent competitors from incumbent acquirers would play out: it could reduce the incentives for start-ups to form in the first place if their most likely cash-out, to one of the big guys, gets taken off the table.

Katrina accepted that there is a global move of scepticism about big companies and where we've ended up - she instanced Bernie Sanders' book It's OK to be Angry about Capitalism - and that there's a view that ever bigger companies are a standing reproach to merger underenforcement. But she too wondered about going too adventurously down that road: big can be beautiful (the indirect reference was to E F Schumacher's Small is Beautiful) if efficient. On a separate topic, she said that competition policy needs to be at the centre of Australian decarbonisation: it might yet get sidelined (e.g. to allow room for government acquisitions of energy assets), but the risk would be that you end up with an economically inefficient greening transition.

And finally we came to 'Reflections on NSW Ports', a recent Full Federal Court decision. Speakers were Sarah Lynch, Special Counsel at Gilbert+Tobin, RBB principal Chris Whelan, and Michael Borsky KC, Ninian Stephen Chambers, List A Barristers. Sarah took us through the factual matrix of the case and Chris took us through some of the economic issues.

The genesis of the case was interesting. I think it would be fair to say that the then chair of the ACCC, Rod Sims, had got so exasperated at Australian states maximising the value of their privatisations, by means of arrangements (in his view) providing anti-competitive protection for the assets being sold, that he'd had a gutsful (an earlier example had got on my wick, too). The ACCC duly took on provisions that it said protected the container depot monopoly of Ports of New South Wales: their privatisation had included a clause whereby Port of Newcastle, if it entered the container port game, would have to compensate the incumbent New South Wales ports (Port Botany and Port Kembla) for business lost to the upstart Newcastle challenger. The arrangement, the ACCC argued, acted as an anti-competitive barrier to Newcastle giving the container business a go.

Unfortunately once the ACCC had clambered out of the trenches, it ran into the barbed wire of Crown immunity (the state of New South Wales could do what it liked, as its privatisation decisions were outside the purview of the Competition and Consumer Act, and the immunity also extended derivatively to Ports of NSW).  While still tangled in the wire it was mortar bombed by failing to establish anti-competitive purpose (the court preferring the simple story of a financial purpose, namely an arrangement that the buyers would get the value of the monopoly they were paying good money for). And it got raked by the judges' machine gun fire on effect: they reckoned that the provisions made no difference, as it was very unlikely that Port of Newcastle would in fact get into the container trade. Chris had wondered, given the 50 year term of the lease the purchasers were buying, how confident you could be that Port of Newcastle would stay out of the game for such a long period: on the other hand, the state of New South Wales (likely for solid economic efficiency reasons) had made it clear that it was only interested in allowing sequential container port development, with Port Kembla second in the queue when Port Botany eventually reached capacity.

The ACCC's reaction is here. The good news is that despite the lengthy and expensive defeat, the ACCC's intervention probably helped to get to a better place: the compensation arrangement was eventually rescinded. The bad news, for mine, and accepting that the courts cleared Ports of New South Wales in this case, is that Crown immunity could leave too much scope for future anti-competitive rorts. Michael Borsky usefully reminded us that the Harper report recommended that competition law ought to be extended to cover more of the activities of various levels of Australian government: at p282 it said that "Through its commercial transactions entered into with market participants, the Crown (whether in right of the Commonwealth or the States and Territories, including local government) has the potential to harm competition. The Panel considers that the NCP [National Competition Policy] reforms should be carried a step further and that the Crown should be subject to the competition laws insofar as it undertakes activity in trade or commerce". That looks a sensible view.

Stick it to them

Our Commerce Commission has just hosted the International Competition Network's annual cartel workshop, on the nowadays typical hybrid online-plus-in-person basis, and it has been a fascinating meeting.

If you're not a competition policy tragic, sticking it to cartels may not ring your bell. You wouldn't be alone. People don't always appreciate the harm they do, and indeed it's not so long ago that cartels were seen as potentially a good idea. In FDR's depression-ravaged America, for example, cartels were actively encouraged: they were thought to be useful as a way of holding up prices when deflation was a macroeconomic problem. Some folks still think that cartels can help businesses through tough times by parceling out the available jobs so that everyone has some sort of income stream to help keep them going.

But these days, competition agencies, rightly, see cartels as an unmitigated evil. Cartels raise prices, ripping everyone off for illicit private commercial gain. They reduce output: think OPEC, which rorts the oil price by agreeing to curb production. And at least one of the four activities that fall under the general heading of 'cartel' - price fixing, market allocation, bid rigging, collective output control - is nothing short of outright commercial fraud. Crooked collusive bidding on tenders is a crime - and a particularly nasty one when it stitches up the likes of medical supplies or essential infrastructure - and the conspirators ought to face the prospect of being banged up with the other fraudsters, as they will when our cartel criminalisation regime goes live next April.

So there are good reasons why competition agencies everywhere want to discover and punish any existing cartels, and hence or otherwise deter new ones from forming.

Trouble is, one of their best weapons may be losing its oomph.

'Leniency', as it's known in the trade, was a Cunning Plan. It destabilised cartels by encouraging cartel members to rat on their mates. The first - and, importantly, only the first - cartelist to dob in the others got 'immunity': the Commerce Commissions of this world wouldn't take any proceedings against them, but would prosecute the rest of the gang. There is other stuff - the initial dobber-in had to continue cooperating with the investigation, for example - but that's the guts. 

The importance of 'only the first' is right out of game theory. If a bit of mistrust starts to bubble up in a cartel - and let's face it, it tends to, as cartelists are always worried that someone will renege and sneak a commercial advantage by undercutting the high price they are supposed to quote - then the 'first in' element sets up a payoff matrix where the first in gets a positive payoff at the others' expense. And there have indeed been real world instances of cartelists racing to be first in the regulators' door. Overall, it's been good at unearthing cartels that mightn't have been found otherwise.

But there is a growing suspicion that cartelists may be opting to stay away from looking for leniency. It doesn't seem to apply to New Zealand - apparently the Commerce Commission has at least 17 leniency applications in, and at the conference we heard that Portugal's authority has eight, which the local folks think is a lot for an economy Portugal's size - but at least in some jurisdictions, notably the EU, the number of leniency applications has dropped off. 

Why? Probably three things most of all. 

One is that the EU has made it easier for private parties to swing in behind the competition regulator and sue for damages: the prospect of megabuck claims across multiple jurisdictions to recover the cartels' overcharging has made cartelists reconsider the leniency matrix of payoffs. Personally I'm all for facilitating people getting back their ill-lost costs, and multiple expensive court cases are exactly what the conspirators deserve (and should have thought of before they started), but realistically you've also got to wonder about the cost to competition enforcement of leniency becoming ineffective. 

The second thing is that it's good to get immunity from a competition authority's civil proceedings and the risk of a big fine, but it's not always as clean a process as it might be for applicants to get immunity from criminal proceedings, where employees risk going to jail (as they have in Australia since 2009, and as they will here from next year). People really worry about that - you would, too - and if the deal doesn't come as a guaranteed combo, people won't buy it.

The third thing is that it's plausible that at least some competition authorities rested on their oars and let leniency do all the cartel detection work. Understandable: leniency was the gift that kept on giving. But, again, it upset the payoff matrix. Now, cartelists started to reckon that if they didn't dob a cartel in, there was sod-all chance that the competition authorities would find it by themselves. The calculus shifted to staying shtum. 

How to turn the tables back in the competition authorities' favour?

You don't have to be a professional game theorist to get to the answer, which is to re-stack the payoff calculus.

One leg is to make the payoff from leniency and immunity more attractive. There's some swallowing of dead rats involved, but there you go. The main moving parts are ironclad civil plus criminal immunity, and probably some form of protection against private claims.

The other leg is to increase competition authorities' independent capability to find cartels. The Commerce Commission's Grant Chamberlain (below) chaired the plenary session on 'Widening the enforcement toolkit - how do we detect cartels going forward without relying on leniency?', and the big takeaway for me was that outreach programmes have a lot of cartel-detecting potential. Go out and about in the community on competition advocacy tours, and you'll find (as one panelist said) that if you talk to people, they tell you things. Funny, that.

Another very promising line of attack is Big Data. Everyone says Big Data will mean this, that or the other for society as a whole: not everyone has connected the dots and realised that in the right hands it could be a powerful anti-cartel tool. I was impressed by Spain's efforts. There is a nationwide Spanish e-platform used for public procurement tenders: their authority cloned it, and devised software to interrogate it for patterns suggestive of bid-rigging. Way to go. 

And one last tool is encouraging whistleblowers, which has had some good results. Me, I'd stack the strategic deck a bit more, and as well as protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, I'd give them a share of the takings from any eventual fines. 

Not that some need much extra motivation. One of the speakers told us of a French example, which involved bid-rigging contracts for upgrading school buildings. The cartelists had an IT guy set up the software to keep track of who got what. Later, almost incredibly, they made him redundant.

His wife dobbed them in.