Huo Raymond: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2653. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Like some of my colleagues my mind was full of the Budget debate because I was due to take a call on the Budget right after my colleague David Clark. But suddenly everything has been reprogrammed or rescheduled. It appears that we were ambushed in this manner like the senior citizens in New Zealand were ambushed by way of the rest home legislation that was rammed through the House last Friday under urgency.  
I would like to touch on two main issues and the very first one is in relation to the explanation given by the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce. Before I give the details I would like to say that Labour does support this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill which was originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel a wonderful Minister. It was later adopted by the Hon Simon Power and now by the rising star Minister in the chair Craig Foss. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A falling star. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: No a rising star. He is one of the very good Ministers. The first issue is in relation to confidentiality or the protection of confidentiality. I believe in my submission that the Minister in the chair’s explanation is not sufficient enough to address some concerns as expressed by submitters—for instance Vodafone Telecom and also Russell McVeagh as mentioned by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. In general allowing the Commerce Commission to share information with overseas regulators would generate greater risk of disclosure to third parties. Russell McVeagh is of the view that the bill as currently drafted goes significantly further than the cooperation agreements that are currently in place.  
The safeguards provided in this bill may not be sufficient to adequately protect sensitive information exchanged between a corporate or an individual and the Commerce Commission from disclosure to overseas regulators. Common sense would say that once information leaves its hands our Commerce Commission may well lose its ability and power to control the end-user of that piece of information. Therefore a greater clarity is required in respect of the circumstances in which our Commerce Commission can make use of its statutory information-gathering powers.  
Further greater ex ante controls on the provision of information to foreign regulators are necessary. Why ex ante? Ex ante means before the event because unless there are control mechanisms in place prior to the event it will be too late. If it is too late—in other words where a breach of confidentiality by an overseas regulator occurs—are there any remedies available to the victim or victims? Practically there would be very few if any according to Vodafone.  
I agree with Vodafone’s submission that once information is disclosed to overseas regulators the New Zealand Commerce Commission itself has very little ability to ensure its continued protection. Also there is no ability for a party to appeal against the commission’s decision to make disclosure to the overseas regulator in the first place.  
In its current form the bill provides that the Commerce Commission may impose conditions on the provision of information to overseas regulators. Vodafone in its submission requested that if information is given to the commission in confidence the bill should require the commission to protect that confidentiality to the greatest extent possible.  
That brings us to the next question concerning the use of existing or historical information by the New Zealand Commerce Commission. It is not clear whether the information-sharing powers under this bill are intended to have retrospective effect. In its current form it is not clear so that is why I wish the Minister in the chair would take a call to give us further explanation as to the retrospective effect of this particular bill. 
 The submitters’ view is that the bill needs to be amended to provide that information that has been compulsorily acquired by the New Zealand Commerce Commission prior to the date of enactment may not be shared with an overseas regulator. Without this clarity the bill poses a risk that the New Zealand Commerce Commission could apply the bill with retrospective effect. Russell McVeagh’s view is valid that firstly historical information should be defined in the bill and the New Zealand Commerce Commission prevented from making use of that piece of information; and second the bill should provide more clarity although the issue can be resolved with reference to the Interpretation Act 1999 which requires that an Act is presumed to not have retrospective effect. Thank you.