Smith Stuart; Clark DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I wanted to kind of pick up where Damien Smith the previous speaker prior to the Minister left off. I too was raising concerns about the transport industry in particular but lots of other industries I suspect where the transaction value may exceed $250000. I think what we are essentially talking about here is a solution to a problem of what will in some cases be buyer's remorse. That is a grey area and the unconscionable conduct clause or definition while it is being claimed as widely accepted in the legal fraternity the reality is that what we are actually talking about here is someone who doesn't feel they've got a good deal.Now no one in this House I think would stand on the side of people who indulge in unfair business practices or unfair terms of a contract. However that is incredibly difficult at the margins to actually define and that is why we are in the situation that we are in. So I think what we have here in part is a well-intentioned solution looking for a problem in some respects.But I want to focus particularly on the Supplementary Order Paper No 39 on clause 7 replacing new section 26D(2). I think this really comes back to the whole $250000 question because under replacement section 26D(2) it says Trading relationship in relation to a contract means a relationship consisting of—(a) that contract; and (b) any other contract (whether current or prospective)". And what my question would be is: what happens if a dispute arises partway through a contract and it is lower than $250000? It says here quite clearly "whether current or prospective". And various actions along the way in the contract trigger further an expansion of that current contract and it ends up being $252000 or $300000 worth of transactions that therefore falls outside of this bill. What happens then to that particular action? Does it fall over because it then falls outside of the bill? And there will be no case law of course to fall back on. If the prospective amount of the contract exceeds $250000 do you not even get past the first base if you have an issue and an issue arises?I can think of lots of instances. The previous speaker mentioned transport for example. It could be a $400000 contract if all of the prospective agreements go through but we could be partway through the year say or the length of that contract and a dispute arises they start to trigger this action at $200000 say and then we continue on and because of the contract the business has to continue the contract exceeds $250000 then the whole thing falls over.I'd like a lengthy and fulsome response from the Minister please rather than a yes or a no. I want to actually know how this is going to work because this is so nebulous this bill quite frankly. We need something on the record that we can all sheet home in the future when this comes up in court. Thank you. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I just want to pick up on something that the member Damien Smith raised before because I think I misinterpreted something he said and I do want to apologise to the member. He was suggesting raising the cap to have a wider cover for unfair contract terms. I think he was disagreeing with the definition that we were putting forward but actually suggesting a wider group if I understand him correctly—and if that is the case I do apologise to the member because it is a slightly more nuanced argument that he was making.But to come to Stuart Smith's point larger strategic contracts would be subject to due diligence so if the contract goes to a larger amount then it is treated in the way of a larger commercial contract and those protections would not necessarily apply in the same way."