Commerce Commission eye fresh data on ferries case

By PAM GRAHAM, and ADAM BENNETT of NZPA

The Commerce Commission may reopen its probe into possible anti-competitive tactics at Tranz Rail during a Cook Strait ferry service price war.

The competition watchdog has received new information relating to allegations of a deal between Tranz Rail and Incat, the Australian company that provided ferries to Tranz Rail and its rival Fast Cat Ferries.

Spokeswoman Jackie Maitland said the information was being examined but it was too early to say if the case would be reopened.

The commission closed an investigation into Tranz Rail on May 28 after finding no evidence to support allegations that Incat withdrew Fast Cat's ferry because Tranz Rail had agreed to lease one from it.

It also found no evidence that price-cutting by Tranz Rail, now owned by Australia's Toll, contravened the Commerce Act.

Last week, the commission provoked a storm after it accused Tranz Rail of an Enron-like destruction of documents, referring to the scandal at the collapsed United States energy group.

A decision is pending on whether the police will take up that matter.

Mark Bloomer, the former Tranz Rail executive fingered in the commission's report, said he ordered a deletion of an email because it was tasteless. He said any comparison with the Enron scandal was ridiculous and damaging to his reputation.

He would not comment on whether he would seek a retraction from the commission or take legal action.

Commission general manager Geoff Thorn said Tranz Rail had been asked to explain the destroyed emails. "We've asked for an explanation and that wasn't provided to us."

Bloomer said the emails he ordered deleted were those of executives "joking" about the poor trading performance of Fast Cat.

But the founder of the service, Brooke McKenzie, said he believed the emails were no joke.

Commission lawyer Peter Taylor said the question was whether Tranz Rail or any employees acted illegally in destroying company information during the investigation.

If documents were destroyed to remove evidence to hamper an investigation, that could be perverting the course of justice, he said.

"It is not a straightforward issue at all as to whether what happened in this case amounts to that. We will discuss the matter with the police to see if they are interested."