Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2648. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Like many of my colleagues I was not prepared for the debate on this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill to proceed at this particular time. I have all of the submissions that the Commerce Committee received sitting upstairs in my office and I did not have time to go and get those. But of course I will be able to bring them down for my second call after other colleagues have had their go on this particular matter. 
 I just want to comment on a point though that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga made in his contribution to the debate which was to reflect on how this bill ties in with the Budget. I just want to remind the Committee that this bill was introduced actually when I was the Minister of Commerce on 9 September 2008 and it did not get its first reading until 25 May 2010!  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So why the rush now? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: So why the rush now? I think that starts to expose a little bit of what has really been going on here tonight. Why did the Government suddenly call an adjournment to the Budget debate and hold it over so that this “urgent” piece of business could be dealt with? We have had the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce take one very brief call and we have had the deputy chair of the select committee as he was then take another call. It does not seem to me like the Government is really getting in behind this legislation.  
I do want to call to account though one of my own colleagues—not the spokesperson on commerce of course who is a very good spokesperson indeed; much better than the last one. The person I want to pull up is the person who said that it sat at the select committee for a long time. It did not. It was referred to us as I say on 25 May 2010 and we reported it back on 22 November 2010. That was before the last election and now we are dealing with the Committee stage in May—and actually it is June at the end of the week. It seems to me that if this was such an urgent piece of business for the Government it would have gotten on to it well before now. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gerry sat on it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not think the thought of Gerry Brownlee sitting on anything is quite the appropriate mind’s eye that I want to bring to this particular piece of legislation. 
The bill has an interesting history though. It goes back even further. The original discussion document was put out in 2004 and in fact as a result of the discussion paper that went out and a good deal more consultation with affected parties and those who had an interest in these matters—with feedback going back to Cabinet in 2005 and then indeed further decisions in 2007—it was decided that there would be this new legislation which we introduced in 2008. But what is really interesting—flowing on from the comments that the member made about engagement with the Australians on this matter and why this is suddenly so imperative—is this: do you know when Australia introduced its amendments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so that the New Zealand Commerce Commission could have a cooperation agreement with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission? Australia did it in 2007 which was when we made the decision to do precisely the same thing and that was why we introduced the legislation in 2008. 
But it is now 2012. We have had this slippage and all we have had from the other side is a sort of attack from the previous speaker that did not seem to be very well directed because I think there is a degree of looking in the mirror that is required when considering how we have progressed this bill since it has come to the House. 
It has also been several months since it was at the select committee so I have had to use my iPhone—new technology—to find the relevant submission I have been looking for. I think Russell McVeagh made a very interesting point. It talked about how the bill talks about only compulsorily acquired information. That is the area that I think the Minister should give a little bit of feedback on to the House so that we have got it on the record here. The concern was that the commission would in fact use section 98 notices at a time when it already knew that information could be disclosed under a section 98 notice. Of course you can see from the legislation itself that in fact you can provide compulsorily acquired information and investigative assistance only in accordance with sections 99H to 99J. That means that you have to look at the definition of it being compulsorily acquired. Under the definition in section 99C in clause 6 “compulsorily acquired information” has to be information acquired under a section 98 notice or under one of the other provisions—yes sections 98 98A or 98H. So the three provisions are included in the “compulsorily acquired information” definition.  
But what Russell McVeagh were concerned about was that in a leniency process a company may in fact disclose that certain information was available and what Russell McVeagh were highlighting was that the commission could then issue a section 98 notice and it would meet the requirements of the compulsorily acquired information as the basis for issuing that information to an overseas jurisdiction. So something that was made available in a voluntary sense could become compulsorily acquired information if in fact the Commerce Commission were to use section 98 in that way. I think it would be very useful—we were absolutely persuaded at the select committee that the commission would not do that but we really would like to have the Minister on the floor of this Chamber actually put it on the record that the Commerce Commission would not do that.  
When we switch to the provision—section 99H—that actually talks about providing compulsorily acquired information apart from the protections around the Government to Government agreement and the regulator to regulator agreement you have to look in each case as to whether it is “likely to assist the recognised overseas regulator in performing its functions or exercising its powers in relation to competition law; and (b) the provision of the information … will not be inconsistent with the cooperation arrangement.” and then there is a prejudice provision around trade interest. But if we actually look at that at that point the concern of the regulator in New Zealand becomes the concern of the regulator overseas. So if the regulator in New Zealand originally knew of the existence of the information because of the voluntary disclosure of it under a leniency process there was concern that that would then become compulsorily acquired information. 
There were not that many submissions that came before the select committee but I thought that Russell McVeagh had put a lot of thought into its submission. It was actually arguing that this law was necessary. So it was not arguing against the law; it was just raising a particular concern about how the law could operate in practice and that it could mean that an overseas regulator would really want our regulator to be doing its job for it in a way that was not necessarily going to enhance our position in terms of protecting the interests of New Zealand consumers in terms of any anti-competitive behaviour between different companies.  
I really do think it is worthwhile raising this as a particular issue and having the Minister place on the record of the House how he would see the Government responding to that particular concern which was raised at the select committee. As I say there were not that many particular submissions on the subject but I felt that this one had some merit. They did appear in front of us as I recall. If I had my notes in front of me I think I would have had— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why do you not have them? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not really have time to get my notes Mr Cosgrove because I was not expecting this bill to quite come up as soon as this. But when I come back to the Chamber for another couple of calls on this particular part then I certainly will have the detailed notes with me and I will be able to be assisted—