Williams Andrew: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1982. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It is good to see at the end of a parliamentary week and a parliamentary sitting day unanimity across the House on a matter such as this particularly affecting our commerce our competitiveness and our openness in terms of our trading economy with our sister country across the Ditch in Australia.  
We have always said as New Zealand First that we will support good policy but we will oppose bad policy. In this case this is good policy. It was policy that was introduced by the former Labour Government; it was introduced in 2008. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the best part of 4 years to get to this point and one would wonder why a good policy like this does take 4 years to get through the processes particularly when Australia had already introduced such legislation and was basically waiting for us to catch up. As is the case once again Australia shows us up and it would be good if New Zealand could perhaps pick up its act and work a bit closer with our Australian partners in areas such as this in a swifter nature.  
The primary objective of this Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is to facilitate that cooperation between the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and its overseas counterparts but most notably the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill proposes improving cooperation by enabling the commission to exercise its statutory information-gathering powers to assist an overseas competition authority and also to provide any information acquired under its powers to an overseas competition authority.  
These new powers will also be included in each of the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and reciprocity is the main justification for this bill: any assistance provided by our New Zealand Commerce Commission to an overseas regulator should be reciprocated. This is achieved by requiring formal cooperation arrangements to be in place before the commission can offer any investigative assistance or information. That is a good thing. It means that it has to work both ways. It has to work in the interests of New Zealand but also of the partner country.  
There are safeguards and it is good to see that New Zealand firms have already complained about the sluggishness of the Commerce Commission in reaching decisions on mergers and other such investigations and so this is a good thing for our New Zealand companies. For them a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core function would be unwelcome. The bill provides some safeguards in this regard. The bill also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator for any costs it incurs in assisting so in that sense it is a user-pays bill and those overseas authorities that may require assistance from our Commerce Commission can be charged for its services.  
The proposed powers—the bill seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour—again can be only good for consumers and can be only good for the people of New Zealand to ensure that there is no anti-competitive behaviour taking place within New Zealand. The bill overcomes international difficulties by providing an alternative and some would say back-door route for obtaining international legislative documents. Again that can only help in terms of our commercial competitiveness.  
Where information is to be provided to an overseas regulator the commission must advise any person to whom it relates about that unless disclosure compromises the overseas regulators or the commission’s investigation. So this is not smoke-and-mirrors sort of stuff; this is above board. It does mean that the commission will be required to disclose to any corporates or companies that there is an investigation under way. The only time this will not happen is if it will compromise or prejudice that investigation. That would perhaps refer to any unlawful activities that may be taking place and in that regard that is a route for the commission to work in a more confidential manner.  
There are existing agreements already in place with the likes of Australia Canada the United Kingdom and Taiwan. However these provide for cooperation on certain matters but do not provide for that reciprocal arrangement. This bill does provide for that with those existing countries where we do have an understanding. The bill is an acknowledgment however that without compulsorily acquiring information that is able to be shared mutual cooperation is somewhat limited. These existing arrangements are likely to be amended to incorporate the new proposed powers.  
New Zealand First supports this bill. We are pleased that all parties are supporting it. We are concerned that it has taken this long. We do support the fact that the trans-Tasman relationship the CER relationship is a very very important one. This will help to facilitate business between Australia and New Zealand. It will help the two commissions on both sides of the Tasman to do their jobs more effectively. It will ensure that there is a more competitive level playing field and it will limit any anti-competitive activities that might be happening in any jurisdiction where we have agreements signed under this bill. So it will support New Zealand. At the same time it can only support commerce. It can only help our companies be more competitive on the global stage and therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this and we commend this bill to the House.