Cosgrove Clayton: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4716] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Along with John Tamihere and others on this side of the House I rise to support the bill. The essence of the bill is the introduction of a range of protective measures for consumers. One of the amendments updates the definition of pyramid selling to more accurately reflect the modern versions of those schemes. I have some interest as does Mr Tamihere in trying to advocate for New Zealanders who were victims of a particular scheme referred to by Mr Catchpole—the Investors International pyramid-selling scheme. Members will recall from before the last election that a member of this House—I do not infringe on the member’s personal explanation—attended a conference the purpose of which was to promote a pyramid-selling scheme. That member then spoke at that conference and the result of the conference itself was that many New Zealanders lost millions and millions of dollars. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who was it? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague asks who the member was who spoke at that conference of Investors International in Fiji. It was one Rodney Hide and that is not a challenge. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As has already been pointed out Rodney Hide made a personal explanation to the House and under the Standing Orders that cannot be debated further. I ask you to bring the member back to the bill. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that it has been ruled in a previous ruling that one can question the judgment of a member but not his word. I am not challenging the member’s personal explanation. I did not say that he promoted a scheme. I am simply relaying the fact—which does not challenge his explanation—that he attended and spoke at that conference. I put it to you that that is perfectly in order. It is a matter of public record. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct as long as there is no implication whatsoever—as there was in the previous reference—of anything to do with the explanation that the member subsequently made. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would never challenge Mr Hide’s judgment—Mr Hide of course being the only honest man in Parliament. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What happened at Waiheke? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We will not get into Waiheke and that sort of stuff. But I am sure Mr Hide will want to take a call—being an expert in those sorts of matters and the only trained economist in Parliament who would be able to identify a pyramid scheme from a million miles away and therefore choose not to participate in one. 
I want to take this opportunity to put to Mr Hide again the question why when he came back from speaking at that conference the great scam-buster—by his own admission the only trained economist here—did not stand up to defend and try to assist the many New Zealanders who lost millions of dollars as a result of that Investors International scheme. It has been over a year and to this day Mr Hide has never explained his silence. What has he got to “hide” if the House will excuse the pun? I would have thought the great scam-buster would be itching would be running—or at least rolling or crawling—to try to bust the scam and defend and protect the many New Zealanders who lost hundreds of millions of dollars. 
I applaud this bill because it will shut down that sort of activity or go some way at least towards protecting those Kiwis who to this day have been given no protection at all by Mr Hide. The great scam-buster the great defender of the faith and the taxpayer has never to this day stood up and explained how he got involved and why he will not defend ordinary Kiwis. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Prior to the dinner break I was speaking about two things. I was speaking about the nature of the bill and how it provides protections for our consumers through a variety of measures but especially in relation to shonky disreputable and grotesque investment schemes like pyramid schemes. I was also talking about the rorts that this bill will protect consumers from. 
As I said before the dinner break I have some experience as does my colleague Mr Tamihere in advocating for the victims of such schemes—those in New Zealand whom the  
Consumer 
 magazine identified as having lost millions of dollars as a result of schemes like those run by Investors International. It was a disreputable and shonky investment scheme run out of Fiji by a convicted felon Rudolf van Lin. It was that organisation that invited one Rodney Hide of the ACT party to speak at that conference. He did speak at the conference and they paid for his airfares accommodation food drink and so on—as he has acknowledged. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Let us not go into that. The member can mention that he went there and can criticise the fact of his going there but there is to be no detail please. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I do mention that he went there and I do criticise him for going there. 
What I am pleased about is that this bill will provide substantial protection against those shonky schemes. I am also interested in an amendment that extends the definition to include schemes that for many participants primarily involves an opportunity to buy or sell an investment opportunity—whether personally or through an agent—rather than an opportunity to buy or supply goods or services. The agency issue is very very important. I think that this bill will cater very well for a case where a person acts as an agent and actively promotes a shonky scheme. This bill will hammer that person and rightly so. I have seen the financial carnage of families ripped apart by schemes that this bill seeks to put the boot into. Disreputable agents have misrepresented the so-called investment position to those people. They have said that families and other people can invest a small amount of money and get a huge return. The organisers have got experts—economists and others—to lend credibility to those schemes by for instance participating as speakers at conferences. 
I finish by repeating my request to Mr Hide and I make it in all sincerity: he has some expertise and in respect of this legislation can help victims of those schemes. I invite him as I did 8 months ago to come forward and talk about his experiences. I invite the great scam-buster to tell us why he has never at any stage explained why he did not assist those New Zealanders who lost money by breaking the scam—the conference that he attended—and trying to protect Kiwis from investing. As members of Parliament we have a duty and a huge opportunity. We have the ability to broadcast to New Zealand and use our profile to protect ordinary Kiwis. I ask why the scam-buster—the great man the trained economist who would recognise a scam as he would recognise a side of mutton—did not do his duty and do that. I commend the bill to the House.