Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10952] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the Minister of Commerce Simon Power and to indicate that Labour will support the referral of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill to the Commerce Committee where I am sure we will enjoy the opportunity to take up the challenges that the Minister has recommended to us tonight. It is interesting because of course I think it was back in 2006 that I signed a memorandum of understanding with Peter Costello the then Treasurer of Australia that was the background to the introduction of this particular measure. 
The bill was introduced into the House just prior to the 2008 general election. Although I have expressed some disappointment that it has taken a while for the bill to get to its first reading prior to referral to the select committee I will acknowledge the Minister for perhaps adding some value in the time that he has had— 
Hon Member 
: Greaser! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —no no—to look at this bill. That added value comprises the two specific issues that the Minister has asked the select committee to look at. When I was a Minister I always enjoyed inviting a select committee to look at an issue on which I did not have a particularly strong view one way or the other and I appreciate it when that invitation is reciprocated. 
One of the two issues I understand relates to whether it ought to be a requirement to have a full cooperation arrangement Government to Government as the basis for the sharing of information and investigative assistance with the overseas regulator. The issue is whether it is necessary for such an arrangement to be in place or whether something that does not require a Government to Government arrangement—a lesser form of arrangement—might be looked at. I will be really interested as we go through this process to perhaps hear a little more about why that might be a better approach. I certainly do not have a closed mind to it and it is certainly something that we look forward to considering. 
The other issue that I think I heard the Minister refer to was an alternative to exempting a class or classes of persons from the requirement to pay any fee prescribed for an application. That provision is under Part 2 “Fees” where clause 13 of the bill amends section 108 of the Commerce Act 1986 by inserting paragraph (cd). That is interesting because when I was working on this issue I was still the Minister for Small Business and at every opportunity I could take I was looking for ways to make compliance costs more manageable for the small to medium sized enterprise sector while also recognising that sometimes compliance costs could be disproportionate when dealing with a smaller entity that simply did not have the economies of scale of some of the larger entities. So the idea of having an exemption by regulation written into the legislation seemed to be a fair way of allowing for that to occur but also of allowing for adjustments to be made over time. The concept of having a tiered approach may perhaps be a better way of doing that. Again I do not have a closed mind to that; I do not have a strong view one way or the other. It was probably not a defining feature of the legislation as introduced to the House but it is certainly something that we will look at in the select committee. 
The Minister said that the Australian Government passed legislation in 2007 to enhance the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s ability to provide assistance to overseas regulators so Australia is ahead of the game. I know that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reinforce the fact that the single economic market is totally the current Government’s idea but I tell the House that we were working on the single economic market agenda prior to the 2008 general election. I worked very closely with Michael Cullen on it which is why I as the then Minister of Commerce signed a memorandum of understanding with the Australian Treasurer as part of the discussions about the single economic market agenda. It necessarily involved me in my role as the then Minister of Commerce on this side of the Tasman. 
As I think the Minister has already pointed out the idea of the bill is to provide for the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers to assist an overseas competition or consumer regulator with an investigation. It also sets out how the commission can share compulsorily acquired information in order to assist overseas competition and consumer regulators. It is obvious why we want to go down that track. The harm that anti-competitive and unfair trading practices can inflict not just on an economy but also on individuals is significant. I think that when we recognise that businesses today increasingly operate in multiple jurisdictions and that parallel investigations or proceedings in relation to a particular company are becoming increasingly common and complex it makes very good sense to open up the regulators. As long as there is trust regarding the quality of the treatment of the information that is provided I think that can only strengthen the work that we want to do internationally in the areas of anti-competitive and unfair trading practices. 
I note in the merger context that over the 2 years immediately preceding the introduction of this bill of the 43 clearance decisions made by the Commerce Commission 29 of them involved proposals where at least one of the parties was an overseas company. In the fair trading area many cases have also had an international dimension. One example that I was given at the time included suppliers that were based abroad making false and misleading claims for goods or services offered over the Internet. We have seen real growth in that industry and enhancing the capacity of our regulator to engage in a collaborative way with international regulators in terms of some of these international suppliers would strengthen the protection available to New Zealand consumers and consumers in other countries as well. 
I have noted that the New Zealand Commerce Commission has a pretty good track record in terms of hunting down some of the cartel behaviour that has unfortunately flourished. Particularly at times when finance is tight we see a greater incidence of cartel behaviour. If we recognise that New Zealand cannot do it on its own when it is dealing with cartels that operate internationally then it is very important to see those tools strengthened for our regulator and for international regulators as well. 
I support the Minister’s comments. He essentially said he was confident that the provisions in the bill would provide a mechanism to enable genuine in-depth cooperation between the Commerce Commission and equivalent overseas regulators. It does this whilst ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the New Zealand public interest. I think that is a strong message to give to Parliament in relation to this important legislation and I can see how excited everyone in the House is to finally see it being debated for the first time. I look forward to receiving the bill at the select committee and to hearing submissions on it particularly on the points that the Minister has raised. We will support the bill.