Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2651. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Talofa lava. I recognise that it is Samoan Language Week and it is a joy to be able to open with a greeting of that nature. I like my colleagues was expecting the Budget debate to continue for much longer this evening and I was expecting to speak in the Budget debate so I am a little disappointed that Mr Brownlee saw fit to change the order of events from what had previously been agreed. One might speculate—although now is probably not the time to do it—that perhaps it was because the debate was not going in the direction that the Government wanted. I understand there was some discussion of school ratios which is obviously a hot topic right now.  
We have seen where the Budget debate has been so far as we passed legislation that picked the pockets of paper boys and did asset-testing thresholds. We can see there are no big ideas in the Budget no big ideas in the Budget debate and we can perhaps conjecture that it is in order to get away from that painful slow torture the Government backbenchers present are facing as they realise that their Ministers and their people on the front bench have few ideas as to how to grow this country and how to grow this economy. They do not seem to have the pro-growth policies that we might expect from a Government.  
Before I get too far into the Budget debate which is not in fact the matter before us right now I want to refer to the regulatory impact statement on this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill which took some time to locate. There is not one on the Table in the centre of the floor of Parliament. So I went to the Bills Office and asked whether they had a copy of the regulatory impact statement. I am wondering what kinds of costs this legislation might carry for New Zealand as we put an extra burden on those responsible at the Commerce Commission for collecting further information. It was actually quite hard to find any kind of regulatory impact statement. The one that I did locate in the end on the internet was one prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development in 2010. It went through the range of options before the Commerce Committee and discussed their pros and cons. I am not sure whether there is a further regulatory impact statement.  
I will come back to the matter of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 1. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: In terms of Part 1 I would very much like to know what are the costs involved. I wonder whether the Minister in due course could point us in the right direction. This bill has as its objective to increase— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! We are not on Part 2. We are on Part 1. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot talk about fees. We are on Part 1. Fees come into Part 2. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: The fees. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about that MFAT issue? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: In terms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—I will come to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade issue because one of the things raised in the regulatory impact statement that I did find was around the recommendations that the commission consult with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if it received a request for assistance that has significant international trade consequences for New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The select committee wrote it into 99H. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Sorry? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: 99H. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: 99H? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: So if you look at 99H you will see the select committee wrote all those provisions in. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Ah the select committee did write in these provisions. But the question in my mind now is whether in fact we will have the specialist skills in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to service these requests because we know that there has been $120 million spent on a restructure that has been bungled— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gutted. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —gutting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and certainly bringing morale there to an all-time low. This is an important issue because we are attempting here to make sure that our international trade practices and obligations are met but also that our New Zealand exporters are in a position and our competitive companies are in a position to be competitive—both to comply but also to be in a competitive position.  
If we take an example if we looked at competing delivery companies in two different countries some in New Zealand might rely on young people to deliver items. They may be earning under $45 a week these young people and they may be facing an increased tax burden in New Zealand the paper boys and paper girls of this country.