Foss Craig: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2650. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I acknowledge that this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill has been in gestation for quite some time and members have acknowledged that it was introduced by the previous Labour Government and the previous Minister of Commerce. In defence I guess this new Minister of Commerce is making good progress having had this bill for only 6 months. A few points have been raised by members and the member Lianne Dalziel did well to find that on her iPhone. 
 There are safeguards in place for the use of information-gathering powers in the bill. Of course there is a judicial review available in reference to this and I will go through some of this in a bit more detail in a moment. There are existing incentives on the commission to protect the confidential information received and the leniency provisions as this is standard practice around the future supply of information.  
Let me explain it a bit further because others have raised similar issues. The cooperation arrangements which members have started asking questions on are set out in sections 99D etc. in Subpart 1 inserted by clause 6 for the various parts of the different Acts where this eventually with the permission of the House will get split out to. The commission can assist overseas regulators in the first instance with its statutory powers or through passing on compulsorily acquired information only if a Government to Government cooperation arrangement is already in place. This ensures reciprocity of the intent from the start. So as I said in my earlier speech the hard work here is done up front—the rules the terms and conditions of the pre-existing arrangement for Government to Government or the regulator thereafter to share information.  
Before entering into a cooperation arrangement the responsible Minister must take into consideration public interest matters such as the legal framework of the overseas jurisdiction and the potential consequences for New Zealand businesses and consumers of the proposed arrangement. The Minister must also consult with the Privacy Commission on any privacy issues. The content of the arrangement must be set out as to how any compulsorily acquired information may be used and kept secure. To provide transparency cooperation arrangements must be gazetted and a copy should be posted on the commission’s website. So I hope that provides a little bit of information to those who were concerned about some of those issues. 
A member Mr Williams earlier had concerns that sometimes requests may be deferred or asked of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He shared with us some of his thoughts about those issues. I would just like to point out that that came from a recommendation from the select committee process but it is fair enough that he brought the issue up. I want to highlight that the Commerce Committee recommended changes to require the commission to be satisfied that the provision of assistance under the bill will not prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. If after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the commission considers a request for assistance or information has significant trade consequences for New Zealand then the commission must refer the matter to the Minister of Trade. The Minister of Trade then decides whether the request for assistance should be accepted. So hopefully that alleviates some of the concerns that the previous speaker a few speeches ago raised.  
There have also been some questions asked about the protecting of privileged information. Just quickly I say that to encourage sharing of privileged information the bill strengthens its protection. It does this by providing that information that is privileged in the hands of the commission will continue to be privileged even if the commission provides the information to an overseas regulator. Also if privileged information is received from an overseas regulator it remains privileged in New Zealand. To protect information provided in confidence to the commission in relation to settlement negotiations this will not be able to be provided to overseas regulators without the consent of the parties.  
So I acknowledge the concerns and the issues that submitters obviously raised—and it is fair enough if the member cannot remember if they appeared or if they were written submissions; I do not know either—but again the intent about the sharing and the intent of this bill and the good consideration that the committee and this House are giving to it should ensure and alleviate those concerns around the House.