Kedgley Sue: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6853] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: I would just like to make a few comments on Part 2 of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). First I will make a few general remarks because the Green Party has not spoken at all on this bill to say that we will be supporting it slightly half-heartedly because we believe that it is so narrow in its purpose and there are so many serious issues relating to the Fair Trading Act that would be of great benefit to consumers if the law were strengthened. But this bill focuses on a couple of issues that really I believe miss the main concerns that consumers might have about the Fair Trading Act. 
 So in other words we see it as rather limited in its purpose. We certainly support the idea of strengthening the powers in respect of pyramid selling. The member from ACT argues that the powers already exist and that it is rather pointless but we will take it at its face value and say that this certainly spells it out. So we support that and some of the other provisions in this bill. 
We are deeply disappointed that the bill has not dealt with fundamental issues. For example the bill does not even establish a consumer’s right to know what is in a product that he or she purchases. There are all sorts of other flaws in the legislation that need strengthening and we are concerned with clause 14. The member from New Zealand First has pointed out the very wide broad—and some would say sweeping—powers that that provision gives such as the power to search given to the Commerce Commission and we are extremely concerned about the very far-reaching and unfettered nature of those search powers. So we will definitely be supporting the amendment from New Zealand First to tighten that amendment and to define precisely what we mean. 
As the previous speaker said under the Crimes Act one has to have very specific and serious reason to believe there is some infringement or whatever to get a search warrant. It is quite specifically spelt out whereas here it is extremely loose. It is all about saying that one must have reasonable grounds to believe that a search is necessary for the purpose of something that “may” constitute etc. 
The member from New Zealand First is moving an amendment that we support but one could drive a bus through this. I may be a little paranoid but I sometimes worry that with a small bill like this some technical amendments are slipped into a technical bill with the thought that some of us may not be paying a lot of attention to it then one finds that something is slipped in that significantly extends the search warrant provisions. They are then slipped through and we are told: “There’s a precedent for this.” If we suddenly find those provisions being slipped into other bills we may then be told “Well the precedent exists in the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3).” so we worry. 
It may be that there is some other good reason for this very very loose wording but that has certainly never been spelt out to us. Whatever the reason may be the fact is that the unintended consequence of this very loose wording will be that the search warrant provisions are widened to the point where people could be going on a fishing expedition as the previous speaker said. Basically as it is at the moment the bill is giving unfettered search powers and I am not aware of any other search powers in any other legislation that give the same broad unfettered search powers—whether to the Commerce Commission or whatever. 
So I am delighted that the member for New Zealand First has drawn our attention to that defect in the legislation. We are grateful to him for drawing it to our attention and for coming up with a tightened wording. The Green Party will certainly be supporting the amendment and we hope that all other members in the House will also support it. As I say we will be supporting the bill—narrow though it is in its scope—but we bitterly regret that it does not deal with some of the more fundamental problems with the Fair Trading Act from a consumer’s point of view.