Cunliffe David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Labour supports the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. It is a bill that was originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was then adopted by the Hon Simon Power—who it might be said was a great loss to the National Cabinet—and it has now been taken over by Craig Foss my former colleague on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But since 2010 it has unfortunately been languishing on the Order Paper.  
The proposals in this bill are part of the work programme supporting the memorandum of understanding with Australia on business law cooperation and on that I would like to make a couple of introductory comments. The bill aligns us with Australia which passed similar legislation in 2007. It is not a matter of enormous pride for this House that it has taken us until 2012 to return the favour. 
There are a couple of general comments that might be made about the progress of business law and competition policy in the two countries. The first comment is that Australia because it has a larger more complex and perhaps more nuanced political system than our own did not embrace what we call Rogernomics with quite the same fervour or gusto. If I recall correctly in about 1987 when I was offered a job at Treasury I turned it down because I did not want to enter a monastic institution where the religion of the land was something called neo-liberalism or as we called it Rogernomics. I am very glad that I made the right decision in turning that job offer down. I went to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade before Murray McCully was the Minister. I guess those were the golden days.  
Since those days the way that New Zealand approaches the closer economic relations arrangements—which of course were the brainchild of Tim Groser in his own mind but that is another story—has changed. Back in the 2000s CER was designed to pursue the interests of Australia and to pursue the interests of New Zealand and to do so where those two interests mutually overlapped. What has changed under this Government is very very significant. It has changed the purpose clause so that the memorandum of understanding supports the joint—the joint—increase in business well-being across both economies. One might very well suggest that that change is in the language of economic geography usually going to be in the nature of the interests of the stronger larger partner. We all know that if we were perfectly open to a single labour and capital market more of the smart money the research and development and the big-end capital would migrate towards Australia. So it is important that we do at least incorporate into New Zealand law the sometimes greater protections that have been developed in Australia’s larger and more complex system.  
For example in the area of telecommunications a portfolio that I used to hold we learnt a great deal from the ACCC—that is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—and its approach in relation to the regulation of telecommunications in Australia. That was one of the things that became instructive in the way we approached the then virtual monopoly the vertically integrated monopoly of Telecom New Zealand. It was also one of the reasons why we were able to benchmark the changes of 2006 that led to the unbundling of the local loop the strengthening of the Commerce Commission and interestingly the resulting doubling of investment in that sector along with lower broadband prices and higher uptake. That was partly because we were able to benefit from the experience of our Australian cousins.  
Much has been made of the international nature of transactions and the territorial limits of regulators being a reason why it is very desirable for regulators to be able to cooperate to manage competition and consumer effects of transactions across various domestic markets. It is important for the Committee to recognise that the Commerce Commission is currently constrained from providing the investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information that it holds to overseas regulators. If it is the case as is too often the case that the head office of a New Zealand company that has been bought up by an Australian or maybe another parent moves across the Ditch and the big strategic decisions are made there—and there might be a bit of transfer pricing going on so that it does not pay too much tax in the New Zealand market hypothetically speaking—it is very very important that when that company is caught out by the New Zealand regulator it can share that information with the Australian regulator. [ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman I probably will not take the whole of the next five minutes but I do want to touch on several of the important— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Yes you will. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh well my whips are saying that I will. Normally I am one of those who are quite challenged to find the words to fill a whole speech but I will force myself because the whips have asked for that. Such is the life of a parliamentarian these days I guess. As they say the whips own my body so I am here to do their bidding. There we go.  
So let us just dig down in all seriousness for a moment and look at some circumstances where that information-sharing power might be important. For example the New Zealand Commerce Commission’s statutory powers of compulsion can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within New Zealand. Well that is not very useful if it is a trans-Tasman business and if the naughtiness happens to be going on at the head office across the Ditch and it gets the evidence here. It needs to send the evidence to Sydney so we can catch the bad guys. There is no point in having the sheriff with the posse stop at the gate of the neighbouring ranch. Well that is what we have got until we pass this law.  
 There are also legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information that is already held by the commission. This in turn limits the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission such as cross-jurisdictional assistance that might be mutual. Another example in a different sphere is the way our officials and Australian officials have developed protocols on an immigration policy in order to swap sensitive information on cases that cross the Tasman. There is no such similar power until we pass this bill in the area of commercial and competition regulation.  
I will say just a couple of words on the main provisions of the bill. There are two parts. Part 1 amends three Acts. Part 1 includes Subpart 1 which amends the Commerce Act and which is the substantial part of the bill. It sets out the cooperation provisions with overseas regulators and provides for Government to Government cooperation and there are also new sections on procedural arrangements with regard to reporting on the use of cooperation arrangements conditions on providing information and the sharing and maintenance of privilege which is also very important in the legal world. Subpart 2 amends the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act ensuring that the changes to the Commerce Act apply to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act where references are made to consumer credit law and the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Subpart 3 amends the Fair Trading Act to ensure that changes to the Commerce Act apply to the Fair Trading Act.  
Part 2 covers the fees that will be charged and we have two SOPs. For the benefit of the public out there these are Supplementary Order Papers. These are the last-minute changes the Government brings to the Committee to keep the Opposition guessing or because officials did not do their homework in time. We have two of them today. Supplementary Order Paper 274 introduces a new subpart because the original bill did not amend the Telecommunications Act to bring it into line with the legislation. This Supplementary Order Paper is in breach of Standing Order 299(1). No? No it is not now. That is good; the super-Minister the Hon Craig Foss has sorted it out. That is very good. We are very pleased about that. Perhaps he is the next budding super-Minister. 
Hon David Parker 
: Maybe he’ll get education. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Maybe he will because apparently it is going to be vacant soon I hear. Or he may get one of those uniforms like Steven Joyce has with the underpants on the outside and the long flowing cape. I am always confused: if he is Superman why have they given him a department called “MoBIE”? That’s a different fairytale. 
Hon Member 
: Because he’s a dick. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: “MoBIE Dick”—perhaps that might be what the underpants are about but anyway that is another matter.  
Supplementary Order Paper 26 divides this bill into four bills and there pretty much we have it. It is a sensible bill—a sensible bill. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would argue that this is not a sensible bill. It is one might say a trifle more sensible than the recent Budget. Thank you.