Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call. I am surprised that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce after that erudite dissertation from David Parker who is after all a member of the legal profession did not choose to address the questions Mr Parker put to him in respect of fees. Could I take the opportunity perhaps to get an indication from the Minister given that the Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Amendment Bill is a serious bill as to whether he will presumably before a closure motion is upon us actually answer those questions. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: In the next part. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Minister says “In the next part.” Well I think it might be appropriate Minister that these questions are addressed in their relevant part because it aids obviously the debate if the questions are answered in an appropriate way. We can move on if they are not. Then we may have further questions because this bill also does support other legislation in terms of preserving the integrity and credibility of business both domestically and internationally. 
We know of course as we address Part 2 in respect of fees that this bill was originally introduced—and then the baton was passed—by the then Labour Cabinet Minister and Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel to be followed by Simon Power and that it is somewhat unfinished business that this Minister has taken on. It would be fair to say that there is like with most of these bills bipartisan support in respect of the bill—and I note that the chair of the Commerce Committee is nodding—and it was dealt with in a good-natured way. But I say this: I think the Minister should address those technical questions. I would hope that he is not going to wait till the end—till speakers have had their go—and then sort of rattle through a whole lot of answers without giving subsequent speakers the opportunity to then perhaps pick away in a positive way but also ask other substantially technical questions in respect of this. 
We know that Part 2 sets out the fees framework for this regime and there are some issues as Mr Parker outlined in terms of you know business to business arrangements which I think the Minister should allude to at the very least and give us some assurances because this bill is about of course aligning us with Australia. Australia passed similar legislation in 2007 which of course does raise the question that I put to the Minister some nights ago about other legislation—which Mr Chair obviously if I went down that track you would call me to order—as to why a series of commerce bills that are critical to the credibility and integrity of our business community have sat around. We know that Simon Power had a pretty good ability to punch legislation through and he did so quite prolifically actually in many of his portfolios but it has sort of ground to a halt with this Minister. 
Again as I said to him last week I think in respect of other legislation I would be grateful for an indication from the Minister as to where he believes the priorities lie in respect of this sort of legislation. You know Australia has had it since 2007. We kicked the ball off on exit from Government. The Minister’s predecessor Simon Power then did I think a pretty admirable job of trying to progress it amongst all the other legislative priorities that were there both in commerce and others—I think he was the Minister of Justice and Leader of the House at the time—and now we come to this Minister. 
I would be grateful to know where he sees in a general sense the commerce legislation lying in respect of the priorities of the Government framework. As a sort of show of good faith to that point I think he should address immediately not in a subsequent debate or down the track the issues that David Parker raised. They are quite critical; they are of a technical nature. I do not know whether the Minister is a lawyer; I certainly know I am not and I am reliant on the eminence of the arguments put forward by Mr Parker and others. But I am sure given the high level of expertise that is at the Minister’s disposal—and I paid tribute to the officials as we went through the select committee process and I am sure my opposite number would have as well—the Minister has the ability to turn round turn to his right lean back and ask for further information.