Carter John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Carter John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4724] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 In response to Sue Kedgley’s contribution I must say thank goodness we do not have any mad cows in the House! Her contribution lead to that comment. 
I am taking this call for a couple of reasons. The first is that one of my colleagues came to me—actually he was talking about the next bill if I can digress for just a minute—and asked whether it would be all right if he spoke immediately after the Minister. I said that I was sure we could arrange that with the consent of my colleague Judith Collins. The member said the reason was that he was on the committee and he needed to speak on the bill so I thought it was not an unreasonable request. But then he threw in that Doug Woolerton was having a shout and he wanted to get to it. I thought that was fair enough and we would let him have the call first but I will now take 10 minutes to delay him for a fair while before he can get to his drinks! 
That is the first reason. The second reason I am speaking is that we are in urgency and I have to fill in 10 minutes because the bloke who should be speaking is not. Unfortunately here we go again team; we will have to hang on. Actually I will not take 10 minutes for this reason. 
Mark Peck 
: Your mum’s going to be very disappointed. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No my mother has never been disappointed in any of her sons at all I can tell the member. Her sons are the best things ever from my mother’s perspective. 
Mark Peck 
: What does your mum think? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have not got to anything yet so I cannot tell the member what my mum thinks. But if he is patient I shall get round to it. Members should just be patient. 
Mark Peck 
: Pyramid selling? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No I must confess that pyramid selling is one thing my dear old mum has never been involved in bless her heart. 
Tonight I want to talk about the issue of powers of search. One of the previous speakers—I cannot think who it was—said that the bill had been passed unanimously by the Commerce Committee. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that New Zealand First did not support the provision with regard to the search powers. I would have thought that in view of that members of New Zealand First might take a call to explain why that was so. Then I realised that they could not because of an invitation to an event that is outstanding that its members have to rush to. 
I make the point that the Commerce Committee has done something with regard to the search powers that is useful. I have no concern myself about our giving authorities the power to make sure that the law is properly enacted. If they think somebody is breaking the law and there is a need for information to allow them to advise the courts that some error has been made or somebody has broken the law then they should have the right to do so. However one thing that I think is important—and this is a quite specific point—is that the committee has changed the way in which the bill is written so that when people apply to the court the purpose is not just to get a search warrant but also to advise the courts why the search is necessary. 
I think that is very good because it is very easy to go along to a court and say: “Can we have a search warrant? We think this is happening.” The Commerce Committee has made a very good change. People cannot only apply for a search warrant; they have to advise why they believe there is justification for their application. That is a good step forward because when we give authorities this power as we in Parliament do we should also be happy that they have gathered the right information on which to grant those applications. So I draw the House’s attention to that. That was a sensible thing for the select committee to put in the bill to change it from the way in which it was first drafted. As a consequence the committee has improved the bill. 
As I say I am surprised that we have not had a contribution from New Zealand First on the bill given that its members do not support this provision. I would like to know why. It may be that my friend and colleague Mr Jim Peters will advise us but then again he may not because his friend Brian Donnelly might be upset that he was taking more time of the House. 
So with that contribution I will resume my seat and commend this bill to the House. The National Party supports the bill as I know my mum will and we should get on with the next business. 
Bill read a second time.