Transtasman regulator: the verdict

The regulators

* Australian Competition Consumer Commission

Graeme Samuel

Chairman

The ACCC considers Australian and New Zealand competition laws very similar. Given the "relatively small number of matters involving a transtasman aspect", it says the case is not sufficiently strong for complete harmonisation or mutual recognition of laws at this stage.

In the short term it wants more harmonisation of enforcement remedies and closer co-operation on investigations.

* NZ Commerce Commission

Paula Rebstock

Chairwoman

The Commerce Commission says the objective should be to establish joint processes to address behavioural or structural change that has an impact in both countries. If adopted in the recent Qantas-Air New Zealand alliance proposal, including a single appeal process, there would have been significant cost savings. It wants greater information sharing between the two commissions but stops short of recommending a single transtasman regulator.

What business wants

* Telstra

Ziggy Switkowski

Chief executive

Telstra wants harmonised telecommunications regulation and competition laws. It argues the NZ Commerce Commission is underfunded and wants greater institutional amalgamation with the ACCC.

* Telecom

Theresa Gattung

Chief executive

Telecom does not want the Productivity Commission's study to be used as a "Trojan horse" for harmonising transtasman telecommunications regulation. It is against a single transtasman competition regulator but sees virtue in harmonising some aspects of the competition laws. Its Australian subsidiary AAPT suggests a joint administration body comprising members of the ACCC and NZ Commerce Commission to determine matters that have transtasman applications.

* Vodafone NZ

Tim Miles

Chief executive

Vodafone is against "Government-owned enterprises" being exempt from certain provisions of competition legislation. "Given the Government ownership of Telstra and single [Kiwi share] owned by the Government in Telecom NZ - this may allow companies that already enjoy a strong market position to further entrench their position."

* Qantas

Geoff Dixon

Chief executive

Qantas - which failed to get NZ Commerce Commission approval for its Air NZ alliance - wants the competition laws integrated. The airline also wants a single regulator incorporating both commissions and recognition that the "public benefit" means a "net benefit to Australasia".

* Air New Zealand

Ralph Norris

Chief executive

Air NZ pumped $23 million into its unsuccessful bid to form an alliance with Qantas. Like Qantas, it argues there is a very strong case to consider competition implications in an Australasian market - rather than each market in isolation. It says when a New Zealand business can point only to public benefits here it will be unduly constrained in pursuing growth as an international business.

* Infratil - Investor, Wellington Airport

Lloyd Morrison

Chairman

Lloyd Morrison - through his private company - opposes "substantially all policy options" in front of the Productivity Commission. "Harmonisation is a synonym for takeover and loss of sovereignty." He says adopting similar competition laws would adversely affect New Zealand's ability to be an early adopter or leader in international trends and contribute to hollowing out our intellectual base.