Parker David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4092. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It is fair to say that Part 2 of this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is not very long. The major part of this debate I will concede to the chair has already occurred in respect of Part 1. But adding to the erudite comments of my colleague Damien O’Connor I am interested to inquire of the Minister for Primary Industries what it means in Part 2 where we amend the regulations in respect of fee setting to prescribe a class or classes of persons who are exempt from the requirement to pay any fee for an application under section 58 or for a notice under section 66(1) or 67(1). I see in the commentary from the Commerce Committee—and I did not have the advantage of sitting on this select committee—that consideration was given to “removing the regulation-making power to prescribe a class or classes of persons who would be exempt from the requirement to pay any fee.” But despite that consideration being given to removing the regulation-making power it was kept. The reason seems to be that the provision was targeted to the small to medium sized enterprises sector and the committee decided it was important to retain it. 
So my question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Craig Foss is about the relationship between Part 1 and this part this regulation—the amendments to section 108 which is amended by inserting the two paragraphs referred to in clause 13 of the bill before us. What is the relationship between those changes and Part 1 of the bill which has already been discussed at some length in this House? Do these fees all relate to instances where now the Commerce Commission is able to cooperate with commerce commissions in international jurisdictions whereas previously they could not cooperate? 
I think that those who were here for earlier parts of the debate would recall that the first part of the bill relates to empowering the Commerce Commission to cooperate with international inquiries that might be going on as to price fixing or cooperative agreements or whether there are competition concerns arising in particular industries. Until now the Commerce Commission has lacked the jurisdiction to do that because it is a body of statutory jurisdiction and therefore can only do what the statue allows it to do. Until the bill amends that the commission has not had the power to cooperate in those international inquiries but through this bill it obtains that power. My question is whether these Part 2 changes in respect of fees are dealing only with fees that arise as a consequence of the new international cooperation that the Commerce Commission will be able to participate in. I do not know the answer to that and that is why I am asking the Minister to clarify that point. 
In terms of the period within which it is envisaged that any fee could be refunded I am not clear as to whether there is any limit on the prescribed period because the bill says “requiring the Commission to refund within a prescribed time”. Does that “prescribed time” get set out in regulations or is there some limit to that set out in the principal Act the Commerce Act 1986? I am not clear from my reading of this and it is of course some time since this was considered by the Commerce Committee. 
I note that the membership of the select committee included a number of former members of this House who are no longer with us: John Boscawen Hilary Calvert and the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. You know none of these people are now with us and indeed the only ACT member of Parliament left with us is the Hon John Banks. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? The walking dead? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes that is the man. His experience with international cooperation and fees includes dealing with multinationals soliciting donations receiving them in an envelope given to him but then denying that he had any knowledge that there was a donation and filing expense returns with the Electoral Commission saying that he received no donations except for anonymous ones.