Flavell Te Ururoa: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11273] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou katoa. Just as an opening comment I say that the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is entirely consistent with the range of legislation that has been introduced into this House over the last 3 years as we attempt to respond to the perceived increase in white-collar crime—in other words the internationalisation of hard-core cartels—within the Government’s responsibility to monitor and manage activity. It takes place of course in the context in which the Minister of Finance is borrowing a massive $250 million a week—a billion dollars a month—just to keep the country afloat. So from the Maori Party’s perspective it is crucial that we do everything we can to bring the highest standards to all levels of money management. 
The Maori Party is pretty keen on kicking the loan sharks out of town and we are just as fierce about the need to deter dodgy business dealings between respective nations’ commercial activity. In this sense it is hard to argue with the logic of legislation that seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour. It has in addition been an idea that has taken some time to get to the debating chamber; I am told that Bell Gully made submissions on a discussion paper on the issues some 4 years ago. Be that is it may we are happy to have the bill before the House for its first reading tonight. 
The added dimension of this bill over and above others that also try to deal with corrupt and fraudulent behaviour is that this one focuses on international cooperation. It is not as though the issue of cooperation agreements has not already been explored. I am told that the commission already has four existing agreements in place with Australia Canada the United Kingdom and Taiwan. However this bill is an acknowledgment that without compulsorily acquired information being able to be shared mutual cooperation is somewhat limited. 
The Maori Party believes that the intent is positive in that it attempts to form relationships with other nations to bring a high level of scrutiny and transparency to all dealings related to the commercial activities between nations. Basically the bill amends the Commerce Act 1986 to allow the Commerce Commission to seek a place under warrant to establish whether a person is breaching the Act. Having a reputation for effective competition laws and enforcement is considered to be vital in obtaining the confidence of potential foreign investors and in attracting finance for development. It is also a requirement that is often raised by other jurisdictions when negotiating free-trade agreements. 
Just on that point the Maori Party has always considered that the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of our own local regional and national social progress and environmental enhancement. The House will be well aware that in brief the Maori Party supports fair-trade agreements as opposed to free-trade agreements. Throughout the debates that have taken place in the House about free-trade agreements we have constantly raised the view that we also consider it to be fundamental to best practice that first we should establish trade relationships with other first-nations peoples and second that we would expect to see tangata whenua involvement in all decision making on international trade agreements. 
There is only one other aspect to our position on this bill and it is one that we hope the select committee consideration will provide an opportunity to respond to. We are aware that New Zealand firms already comment on the length of time it takes the commission to reach decisions on matters such as mergers and other investigations. For them a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core functions would be unwelcome. As we understand the case to be when cooperation arrangements are entered into by the Minister of Commerce that Minister must consider the potential consequences for New Zealand consumers and businesses of providing compulsorily acquired information or investigative assistance to the overseas regulator. The bill also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator of any costs it incurs in providing assistance. If the commission does that it may help to allay concerns about it diverting scarce resources but we would hope that the select committee consideration would enable a specific focus on this aspect of the bill. To this end we await the response to the bill and we support its first reading to ensure that the bigger debate is able to occur. Kia ora tatou.