Cunliffe David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5854. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a quick call on the cognate commerce bills and in particular this telecommunications aspect. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill was originally introduced by Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by Simon Power and now Craig Foss. So it has got quite a history and I know that none among us with any right mind would wish to disagree with the work of those three eminent parliamentarians. Of course Labour is supporting this legislation through. 
This legislation is part of a broader programme of work to iron out some little crinkles in the business relationship with the “West Island” and based on this progress we hope very much that we are going to address bigger and brighter things like dividend imputation in the near future. We expect that the legislation is going to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from overseas regulators. 
It is very very important that our Commerce Commission which plays a key role in the regulation of markets is able to access experience from across the Ditch. The reasons for that are several. One is that we are a small island market and our experience across different industry sectors is—oh look Mr Speaker I know the House is going to be delighted by this news. I have just been advised that I can now speak for the full 10 minutes so I am going to detruncate the remarks. What I would like to do— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Could you spend a little bit more time praising the former Minister and— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Now that I have longer to praise the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And the chair of the select committee. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Who was the chair of the select committee? No in all seriousness let us get back to the topic which is the importance of having coordination between the regulators on both sides of the Ditch. Why is that important? In a syllable it is because the businesses are coordinated because they are cross-owned. If you are dealing with telecommunications companies like Telstra and TelstraClear just as a random example or Griffin’s Foods or Heinz-Wattie or anyone even Vodafone which is a multinational any of those companies of course has a footprint on both sides of the Tasman. They are global businesses in many cases and in the eternal game between poacher and gamekeeper it is very important that the gamekeepers have access to the same global resources and information as the poachers and that is why it is important that our regulators are unified across the Tasman. 
So there will be greater reciprocal assistance from the regulators across the Ditch allowing more Government to Government cooperation arrangements and regulator to regulator arrangements. This might not sound very important to the people out there in TV land but what it means is in the telecommunications sector for example a better chance of getting cheaper faster broadband. Pretty simple. If the companies concerned are held to a more competitive market standard it means the price you will pay for your phone bills at home will go down. The data caps you get on your internet will go up and that is a good thing. The regulators on both sides of the Tasman will be able to hold the market to account. And as the companies concerned are global companies operating on both sides of the Ditch it is very important that the regulators are able to work across both sides of the Ditch. 
The Commerce Committee has recommended a consultative procedure where the committee is concerned that a request for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission can consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement by the Minister as to whether providing the information would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interest. It is not easy to think of an actual example where this would be an issue but it is a safety valve. Let us imagine that the regulators on both sides of the Ditch want to swap information about a particular business. The proposal exists as a result of the select committee’s work for the Minister to say no. As long as it is within the international trade rules the Minister can deem that that would be severely prejudicial to the interests of a New Zealand company and can thereby say: “No. We don’t think that’s a good idea.” That seems like a reasonably practical thing for us to insert into the legislation just to make sure that Kiwi companies do not get rolled over by their larger “Kangaroo” competitors. That is a reasonable safety valve to have in there I think. We ought to acknowledge the select committee for its work. 
I think it is probably relevant and fair at this point to note the change that has occurred under the current Government in the trans-Tasman trade liberalisation negotiations. Under the previous Government the standard to which New Zealand negotiators were held was to do what was in the interests of the New Zealand public and the New Zealand economy. In the last round of the single economic market negotiations that standard was amended and it is now for the negotiators to do what is in the joint interests of the two countries. Those sharp-eared and sharp-eyed amongst you will of course understand that that means that we could now be negotiating something that is not in New Zealand’s interests as long as it was in the trans-Tasman interest. As we are the smaller partner we cannot discount the possibility that that might occur. 
I guess I would call upon the Government speakers next up to explain to the House why as the custodians for the next 18 months or so of the national interest they believe it is in New Zealand’s interest for us to subsume our negotiation objectives to those of the whole trans-Tasman market rather than to act in the interests of “New Zealand Inc.” One of the things that right across this side of the House—and just as a little aside I think the public has seen in the last week with things like the manufacturing inquiry an uplift in cooperation between New Zealand First and Labour and the Greens all acting in a very professional way together to deliver services to the public. They are seeing us act as a united Opposition to try to bring policies forward and ideas forward that will really help New Zealand go forward and hold the Government to account. So we are asking on this issue as a united Opposition why National Government are you subsuming the New Zealand interest to the trans-Tasman interest? And why then is there a risk that the New Zealand regulator might be leaned on by a Minister because they get a phone call from Canberra? I could tell a few stories about meetings in the Beehive with the representatives of major Australian corporations but perhaps it is not the occasion. 
The Commerce Commission is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information it holds to Australian or overseas regulators. That is an important issue. If evidence is found in perhaps a trans-Tasman monopoly issue that bears upon the behaviour or performance of the Australian parent company—let us just say it was a bank for a start—the law currently prohibits the New Zealand Commerce Commission from sharing that information with the Australian regulator. That is not a smart thing to do. If the company is cross-owned then the sheriff needs to be able to share information with the posse. That is a reasonable and prudent thing to do in order to get good governance on both sides of the Tasman. 
In general Labour thinks that this legislation is worth supporting. We acknowledge that it flows from work that has come from cooperation across the House a bipartisan approach to international trade—or hitherto bipartisan—where we are managing for New Zealand’s national interest where we acknowledge the importance to New Zealand of our status as a trading nation and the importance of fair international trade rules. We understand that for that to work you have got to have teeth amongst the regulatory systems on both sides of the Ditch and that in turn means the ability of the regulators to exchange information and ensure compliance on both sides of the Tasman. 
This is a small but positive step forward. It is not the end of the road. Looking forward to conclude my remarks on behalf of the Labour Opposition may I remind the House of the importance of whoever for the time being is sitting on the Treasury benches Mr Bridges operating in New Zealand’s national interests in particular as well as those of the trans-Tasman economy as a whole. It is New Zealand mums and dads New Zealand taxpayers who are paying our wages and in whose interests we are working. Thank you.