Russell Deborah; Tolley AnneDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Must be a cold night in hell because tonight is the night that the National Party has opposed a bill that supports small business. That is an astonishing position for that party to take. This is a bill that small business asked for. This is the bill that was extensively canvassed in discussion and consultation with business. It is a bill that was asked for. Why? Because 45 percent of small businesses say they have been bullied they have been pressured they have been subject to conduct that could amount to being unconscionable conduct. This bill seeks to protect small business from the imbalance of power that can come when they are dealing with large business. This is a bill that should be supported by the National Party and I do not understand why they will not support it.On this side of the House because we understand the stresses and strains of small business because we understand what can happen from a power imbalance because we understand why it matters when one party is so much bigger and stronger than the other party we support this bill. Why? Because it seeks to give grounds for redress where a large business pressures a small business where a small person is subject to extraordinary pressure. That is why we support it.The previous speaker Brett Hudson was concerned that we had not defined what unconscionable conduct is in this bill that we had not given an explicit definition but he also complained that we hadn't allowed case law to provide a definition over time. Now I cannot reconcile those two statements. In fact this bill does find a way of drawing on the strengths of case law and drawing on the strengths of providing guidance in legislation. If the previous speaker would care to look at clause 6 of the bill he would see that clause 6 inserts two new sections into the Act sections 7 and 8. Those clauses give an understanding—it says that a person must not trade in or engage in unconscionable conduct and then it sets out a series of criteria that the court may take into account when determining whether something amounts to unconscionable conduct. It doesn't define it exactly but it sets out a series of criteria.This is I guess because in some cases what might amount to unconscionable conduct might change over time. Phishing indeed did not exist 20 years ago but it might amount to unconscionable conduct. Some of the sales techniques that we see that have come about through the advent of the internet might not have been unconscionable conduct—couldn't have been defined that way—because they didn't exist 20 years ago. These series of criteria will enable us to update our understanding of what unconscionable conduct is as business practice changes.So let's have a look at some of the criteria that are sitting there in the bill. It is to do with the relative bargaining power of the people engaging in the conduct—that's paragraph (a) of the proposed new section 8. It is to do with the extent to which a trader and an affected person acted in good faith. It is to do with taking into account the particular characteristics and circumstances of an affected person. It is to do with whether an affected person was able to understand any of the documents provided. It's to do with whether there was unfair pressure. It is to do with whether the trader unreasonably failed to disclose various intended conducts and so on. In other words there's a series of criteria set there as to what unconscionable conduct might be.It is exactly those criteria that we might seek to elucidate to refine to make better in the select committee process but not the basic premise of this bill the basic premise that says that we must act to protect small business from unconscionable conduct. May I suggest that it is utterly absurd not to support this bill this bill that works to protect the small person. I commend this bill to the House.Jonathan Young: Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker—Jonathan Young.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh I call Jonathan Young. I got the Young" bit; I was just struggling with the Audrey or the Jonathan."