Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This is one of those rare occasions in the House when there is unanimity in respect of legislation. This bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is a common-sense piece of legislation and I simply reiterate the sentiments of the Minister of Commerce. We have for some time over many years going right back to the initiation of CER attempted to get closer to our Australian cousins. A predecessor of mine Mike Moore once said that Australians are our best mates whether we like them or not and there is a bit of truth in that I suspect. But any measure that brings us closer together economically deals with monopolistic behaviour and anti-competitive behaviour and deals with unfair trading practices has got to be mutually beneficial and agreeable to both partners to the deal—that is obviously our Australian counterparts others and us.  
It is often because we are a small country. I believe 97.2 percent—according to a question that I posed to the Hon John Banks that venerable Minister for Small Business—of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium enterprises going by the Government or the Inland Revenue Department definition of 20 staff or fewer. It is often those entities that struggle if they are engaged in exporting to come to terms with intercountry trading practices in respect of monopolistic behaviour anti-competitive behaviour and unfair trading practices. Anything that this House can do to bring the jurisdictions closer to alleviate those sorts of issues or to deal with them in terms of enforcement and in terms of consumer law and competition law and effectively to implement that has got to be good for both sides of the Tasman but particularly for our own businesses and commercial enterprises in New Zealand.  
The Minister did note quite rightly that when this legislation was in the embryonic stage it was a product originally introduced by the then Minister of Commerce from our team Lianne Dalziel and it was adopted by the Minister Simon Power and now by Mr Foss. It is beneficial for what we are trying to do in terms of harmonisation and there has been a great history of harmonisation in commercial banking terms to some extent in our law and in other areas. All these harmonisation moves make it easier for business to be transacted internationally.  
We expect this bill to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from equivalent overseas regulators. It is increasingly important for a number of jurisdictions and as the Minister said it will allow either Government to Government cooperation arrangements or regulator to regulator arrangements subject to ministerial approval which is a provision that has been inserted by the Commerce Committee.  
If you look at some of the rationales behind this legislation the international nature of transactions and territorial limits on regulators make it increasingly desirable for regulators to cooperate to manage competition as we have said and consumer effects of transactions on domestic markets. The Commerce Commission of course is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information it holds to overseas regulators. The commission’s statutory powers of compulsion can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within the New Zealand jurisdiction. That of course is a major limiting power. There are also legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information already held by the commission. This in turn limits the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on mutual assistance. Most overseas regulators of course consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. This is going to create increased flexibility this is going to create enhanced cooperation between the commission and overseas regulators in a number of jurisdictions and it seeks to do this while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to address public interest considerations.  
I think the select committee gave this incredibly detailed scrutiny. There were a number of concerns raised in respect of telecommunications. It was the submission of the Commerce Commission and its request that this bill also apply to information gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. I note that Telecom and Vodafone were opposed to the inclusion which is included in the Australian legislation and this has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper. The select committee has recommended a consultative procedure where the commission is concerned that requests for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission may consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement from the trade Minister as to whether providing the information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trading interests. Before providing such information the commission would have to be satisfied that the information would not significantly prejudice those trading interests in respect of New Zealand.  
There will be a need I think for the Government to provide some support to commercial entities as it should do when new legislation is brought in particularly legislation of this kind—education support as it were. The big end of town of course will always come to grips with legislative change far easier than small to medium sized enterprises for instance that may be engaged in export and products and services. The big end of town tends to have far more resources far more expertise and a far bigger budget to call on resources to change systems and to come to grips with legislative change. The smaller end of town small to medium sized enterprises do need support I think to deal with this. I do not think this bill makes reference to that. As we go through this process in the House we will be seeking some advice from the Government as to what sort of ancillary supports would be put round to ensure that small to medium sized enterprises are supported and can come to grips with this legislation and with how to deal with it in their day-to-day practices.  
As I said at the start this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation but a necessary and important piece of legislation. It does have the support of the Labour Party. I believe the select committee worked very diligently and collegially to produce a high-quality piece of legislation. I am sure this will not turn the lights off and on too often in media circles and other places but it is one of those mechanical pieces of legislation that is necessary to grease the wheels and to mow down some roadblocks for—being selfish for a moment—New Zealand enterprises as they try to battle it out internationally and battle it out in jurisdictions where commercial entities from time to time do engage in anti-competitive behaviour and unfair trade practices. There are environments where there is monopoly behaviour. There is a need to have rules there is a need to have a rule-based system and there is a need to have mechanisms whereby regulators can cooperate to deal with those commercial evils if you will so that we can facilitate enterprise innovation and entrepreneurship in our country across our borders and in the jurisdictions overseas. So it is with some degree of pleasure that we simply add our words to the Minister’s. It has been a cooperative process. We look forward to this being expedited relatively swiftly and we support the bill as it stands.