McClay ToddFAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 19 May.Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Point of order. I seek leave for this Fair Trading Amendment Bill to be referred back to the select committee for it to deliberate produce a report and forward it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'll just take some advice on that. [Pause in proceedings] Leave is sought for that purpose. All those in favour say Aye. There is objection. I call the Hon Todd McClay.Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): A travesty of justice right there and of democracy. You see the problem is—and I have an email here that says the following—The Fair Trading Amendment Bill has been discharged from the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. This is because although the original schedule for the dissolution of Parliament meant that the bill would be eligible for reinstatement in the 53rd Parliament the postponement has meant the report-back date of 12 August has now passed."This is a piece of legislation that is important. The Government members will stand up in a moment as the Minister did a few weeks ago and talk about protecting consumers. They won't talk about getting the balance right so that those businesses that this legislation should focus on are targeted and affected. They will talk about the things that mean that businesses in New Zealand that function properly that are running their businesses well and are caring for consumers will be impacted and there will be a cost upon them. And what we will see from the Minister I believe is a significant number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) of amendments to the legislation because the committee was not allowed to finish its work.Now I know the Government is in a rush to get things through. That's why lots of pieces of legislation have come to the House and been rushed through in urgency in a day or two when there was absolutely no urgency at all. But a question to members opposite and to the Minister is: why will he not allow the select committee or why will Government members not allow the select committee to do its job properly to improve the legislation and get it right if this is so very very important?Now there could be a reason and that reason could well be because the Government wants to get this into law so very quickly. But we have now had six months since the election six months of House time where the committee could have done its job. The committee could have done its job and finished hearing submissions and deliberated and talked to officials and got it right and produced a report perhaps with amendments—some of the SOPs the Minister will dump in the House so that submitters and members of the public and others won't have a chance to consider and inform us on. And this again therefore I suppose will be rushed through. That's just not good enough because there isn't urgency with this. We've had six months. It could go back to the committee for just a month to finish the work that would have been done if the last committee and the chair of the last committee had been able to get it back but that hasn't happened.Herein lies the problem because we are going to see significant SOPs. That means the Government knows the legislation as it stands is not going to do the job it needs or it's changed its mind or actually a significant number of submitters from the business sector have been engaged with the Minister meeting in his office or going to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Government realises that actually in its current state it will not do what it wants and it will burden businesses in a way that it shouldn't create costs that inevitably will be passed on to consumers. Because inevitably every time this Government comes up with a bright idea and they don't allow a committee to do its job properly it means costs upon businesses that end up being passed on to consumers. And that's just not good enough because this is a Minister who in essence hasn't got this legislation right. He won't allow it to go back to the committee; so he hasn't got that right. He's going to dump significant SOPs on the Table which means so far that it has not been right. And when I saw him earlier he hasn't even got his hair cut right! This is quite important and the reason for that is it's going to make significant changes.National supports sensible transparent straight-forward regulation that prevents the exploitation of consumers. This legislation doesn't do that. It's going to create significant burden upon some businesses where it doesn't intend to that'll make it harder for consumers and will pass on frustration and cost. We don't support imposing the poorly crafted or ill-defined regulation that is in this bill. I hope when the Minister comes here and dumps a huge number a large number of SOPs that actually they fix some of these things. But who would know? Because the experts haven't been able to advise the House because there isn't a report from a committee—and I'm not meaning the members of the committee; the experts. We're the ones that take advice hear from the public hear from businesses and get to question the Minister's officials to make sure that he is not captured by them. I don't believe he is but I can't see the reason why he won't allow this to go back to the committee.You know one of the biggest challenges with the legislation is that it fails to specify which behaviours would constitute unconscionable conduct. He mentioned this in his speech two weeks ago; this is what the bill is trying to achieve. But by not actually defining "unconscionable conduct" what it does is create uncertainty. Businesses won't know. There will need to be regulation. Whenever there is uncertainty there is cost. So this isn't about deciding that there shouldn't be legislation; it's that the Government and the Minister haven't done their job properly.Much of what the Minister has said he's trying to achieve is already covered by legislation that's gone through this House the majority of which was when National was in Government. You see we did a number of things that would ensure that consumers were protected and sadly some of what this Minister is doing he says will protect consumers more but indeed it won't. What it will do is merely make them feel better but won't provide any additional support to them. As an example the Minister said it strengthens the ability for consumers to dismiss or prevent door-to-door salesmen from entering their property. They already have the ability to do that under existing law when it comes to consumer rights and equally around anybody that comes on to your property if you do not want them there. So I don't know what extra ability this gives consumers they don't already have but if the Minister had waited or asked for a report from the committee he might have known that the committee looked at that in some detail. National will not be supporting this legislation not because we don't support consumers—we do—but this legislation won't achieve what the Minister wants. It won't protect consumers more. It is window dressing.There is one very important point in it though that actually needs to be looked at and if the Minister doesn't have an SOP drafted on this he must because it actually is going to be of great challenge. One of the things he said in the legislation is that it's not to focus on smaller businesses and he's defined this by way of contract. But one of the challenges that he has is looking at the value of smaller contracts. If you look at the insurance industry actually there can be a contract for underwriting insurance companies which is a very large amount that has no impact on the consumer because actually it's not the value in the same way as it would be if somebody purchases something from somebody else. It is just a contract in the case there would be a problem and the entire insurance industry will have to go and have a look at what it is they're doing and they're considering what the rules are and how this will affect them. There will be great uncertainty which adds to cost.More than that though I understand the same Minister has another piece of work around reform of the insurance industry because there is legislation there that certainly needs updating; there is no question on this. So why is he putting his toe in the water to have a little crack at the insurance companies here which will create uncertainty won't provide any more support or protection for the consumer and as soon as this is through later on come back and actually do the whole insurance industry? It is because the Minister isn't in charge of this portfolio. He's not focusing on the things that are important and what he is not doing is thinking about legislation that actually will have the effect intended as opposed to just window dressing that creates cost through regulation and uncertainty on business. Because every time you do that for a business large or small someone has to pay and sadly it's always the consumer the very man the very woman that this Minister says he is trying to help and protect with this legislation. We won't be supporting it in its current form."