Franks Stephen: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6842] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: I am not at all surprised that the Hon John Tamihere tried to close this debate down. He knows all about scams if anyone does. When this bill came in it was described as being about fair trading. It was described as a bill to amend the Fair Trading Act and it was described in extremely flowery language. I would like to read here from the Government Minister Rick Barker who described the issues involved but first perhaps I will have a look at what Mr John Tamihere who is here in the House said: “The true issue in the Fair Trading Act is the clause defining misleading or deceptive conduct which states: ‘No person shall in trade engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive’ ”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I need to bring the member back to the title. The bill has been to the select committee. It is a narrow debate. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am discussing the title. I believe that this is a misleading title. There was a claim that it was about fair trading. There was a claim that it was about pyramid selling. There is an amendment before the Committee that suggests that the title refer in particular to pyramid selling. I am concerned that that amendment might be adopted and I want to argue that in fact the bill’s title should remain as it is because it is innocuous. It does not tell us anything and it does match in effect what the bill does. This bill was introduced as part of a Labour Party scheme to throw mud. This was part of an attempt to legitimise to use the time of the House to legitimise an attempt to go behind the Standing Orders and throw mud. 
The person doing it Mr John Tamihere made a great point of integrity. He spoke on 2 May 2002 about the integrity credibility and ethics to stand up and publicise scams. This bill was promoted. It involved officials it took the time of the Ministry of Economic Development people it took the time of Securities Commission people and they came along to speak to a bill called the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) when in fact the whole discussion they had to endure was about a non-existent pyramid-selling scheme. The National Party’s amendment to change the title so that it refers specifically to pyramid selling would play into its hands. Because the bill actually has next to nothing to do with pyramid selling. Even the clause that refers to pyramid selling does not deal with pyramid selling. 
The true effort that went into this bill was disclosed in the report of the select committee in the very last two sentences when we see that hearing evidence took 30 minutes and consideration took 55 minutes. So hearing evidence took 30 minutes and consideration took 55 minutes. This is a committee that according to Rick Barker was “going to make many investigations of the issues it raises and the issues concerning fair trading. I want to see a very rigorous investigation of those issues and I am absolutely confident that the Labour members on the committee will dig deep on that investigation. They will drill all over the place and many things will be flushed out for the benefit of the whole community.” 
I do ask the National Party to consider when it votes on the title and on its own amendments not to be taken in by the references that were made to pyramid selling. There was absolutely no intention ever to look into pyramid selling. There was in fact no looking into pyramid selling. One of the National Party amendments urges the change to refer to pyramid selling. I suggest that there is a far better amendment in the name of the National Party that one could easily vote for—that is that the title simply read “Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill”. Certainly ACT will support the National Party’s motion in that regard but should not support the earlier one because this bill I will go so far as to say is a fraudulent waste of Parliament’s time.