Cunliffe David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1983. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. In doing so can I acknowledge the Commerce Committee and its chair Jonathan Young who is with us in the House and acknowledge the work that he is doing as chairman of that committee through a very busy programme. I acknowledge that contribution.  
I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. I would however like to observe that there was a very important debate on the previous bill in relation to migration and I noted that he did not take a call. I could not possibly comment on whether he was in the House or not but it was only half an hour ago. It was unusual that we did not hear from him on that as the Government is taking Draconian measures to abrogate proper process in respect of asylum seekers. I am disappointed for him and his community that as he was sent to Wellington to convey a message he seems to have forgotten what the message was.  
I go back to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. Labour is supporting the bill. It was a bill originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by the Hon Simon Power and is now in the hands of the Hon Craig Foss. It was reported back from the select committee in November 2010. It has unfortunately been languishing on the Order Paper.  
So what does the bill do? Well this is firstly part of the work programme on a memorandum of understanding between Australia and New Zealand on business law coordination. It is a part of the single economic market programme which is designed to harmonise business law between New Zealand and Australia. It is important before we dive down into the substantive provisions of the bill that we set the context for it. The first point is that of all foreign direct investment into New Zealand about 80 percent—$4 in every $5—is sourced from Australian investors and parent companies including 95 percent of our banking system a fair bit of our agricultural service companies and the parent ownership of a large part of our manufacturing sector. Implicit in this debate is that New Zealand needs to find the best legal framework to get the best it can out of its relationship with Australia.  
Labour has been broadly supportive across the previous Government and still is of the broad outline of the SEM—the single economic market process—but with some important provisos. The first point we note is that the Government has changed the objective for New Zealand from doing what is in New Zealand’s national interests which one would have thought was its day job to doing what is in the joint interests of Australia and New Zealand. The trouble with that is that when you try to work out or calculate what is in the joint interests of the two countries New Zealand’s interests tend to get a bit swamped by the big fella over the Ditch. Therefore the potential is heightened for New Zealand’s interests to be subsumed. So it is with that cautionary note that we acknowledge the role of the single economic market in this bill and encourage the Government always to focus on New Zealand’s national interest and on the quality not the quantity of the investment flows. I see that Dr Huo is here and I would like to just acknowledge that our investment law is and should be non-country specific and should not differentiate between source countries. We ought to have a set of rules that are applied without prejudice and that serve our national interests.  
Let me turn to some of the substantive provisions. This bill is designed to allow regulators on both sides of the Tasman and more broadly to ensure that they can swap information and swap best practice. They need to do that because multinational business—often the poachers in the language of the regulators—do not respect borders because they are multinational. So the gamekeepers need to be able to catch up with them across the borders too. That means they need a memorandum of understanding for cooperation and for protecting information that has legal consequences when they are involved in joint operations.  
There are some important examples—which we support—that have been given by the Government around cross-border cooperation in the telecommunications aspect and in particular on mobile termination rates between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian competition authorities. In doing so can I say that we think that is a very good thing. The powers that our Commerce Commission is using are powers that were conferred by the previous Government following a stocktake review in 2006. They have led to a more robust and rigorous regulatory framework for the sector that has interestingly enough led to a rough doubling of investment a drop in the price of broadband and a massive lift in the uptake. Likewise there has been a drop in the price of mobile phones and a lift in uptake and this is another part of that.  
Can I acknowledge in doing so the work of the regulator the ACCC—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—which is of a high quality and also acknowledge the work of Dr Ross Patterson the Telecommunications Commissioner in New Zealand. He has held that job for some time. He was the commissioner in the mid-2000s when I was the Minister and he has always done an extremely professional job. I wish to acknowledge that he has been a senior practitioner on both sides of the Tasman. He knows the markets on both sides and the practices of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so no doubt under his leadership the Commerce Commission will make extremely good use of the provisions in this bill.  
All has not always been good in the area of telecommunications regulation. It was a sad day when the current Government decided to sell the law down with a 10-year regulatory holiday in order to facilitate the structural separation of Telecom. No problem with structural separation—that is a good thing—but selling the law with a 10-year holiday is not and I am pleased to say that pressure brought to bear by the industry and the Labour Opposition forced it to think better of that idea. We have a slightly watered-down law but it is not as bad as it could have been. But it does show that that Minister Mr Joyce has a habit of cutting deals—like his boss Mr Key—that threaten our legal framework.  
The same Minister Mr Joyce was responsible for a deferral of the spectrum licence fees totalling about $45 million to the company that he used to personally own and I wonder what provisions were in place under the  
Cabinet Manual  
to avoid any possible perception of conflict of interest. I assume that he has used some—[ 
Interruption 
] No I assume that he has used some but it is not a good look none the less. Not a good look. The same Minister has been involved in yet another deal with Skycity to build a casino convention centre with another 500-odd pokie machines and a very important but little-known provision that is called ticket-to-ticket betting. I want to put that name up in lights: ticket-to-ticket betting. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that we are on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and the member is departing from that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Only very very briefly under your guidance. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No not at all—not any more. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Not any more because I was about to mention that in line with the terms of this legislation the South Australian Government and its regulator when confronted with exactly the same proposal from the same company said: “They must be dreaming.”—they must be dreaming. No new pokies for them in Adelaide and no ticket-to-ticket betting— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —which is illegal under the Australian authorities but which Skycity I understand is seeking to make legal in New Zealand and apparently that is worth more to it than the additional pokie machines. So I just want to have that on the record as we look at trans-Tasman regulation.  
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission however has historically been more robust than our Commerce Commission. It did not fall into the hole that was known as “Ruthanasia” or neo-liberalism here in New Zealand. It never went as light-handed. It never had a wasted decade. It managed to have reform that was more balanced than what occurred here under the National Government previous to this one and therefore there has been less need to wind back that ill-fated experiment than there has been in New Zealand. So we are pleased that New Zealand having fought its way back to the international mainstream is now able to cooperate with our Australian cousins where it is in our interests to do so.  
Andrew Little 
: A tenuous grip. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a tenuous grip under the current Government as my colleague Mr Little has said. You have always got to wonder with the current Government whether it is really New Zealand’s interest as a whole that it is seeking to serve or whether it is some corporate in the big end of town that might have had dinner with the Prime Minister in the last month or so.