Clendon David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
Clendon David: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11269] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I have not given the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill very close scrutiny but it appears on the surface to be quite a sensible and practical response to a very real problem. In that context it is interesting to discover that it came from the former Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. 
The bill clearly sets out to enhance the ability of the Commerce Commission to work more closely with the equivalent regulators overseas to share information in a bid to better police anti-competitive behaviour. Although in the greater scheme of things the Greens do not necessarily think that competition is always a desirable thing in business—we see cooperative and collaborative approaches also having significant power—clearly in this context it is to everybody’s advantage to not allow anti-competitive behaviour. That would not be in the interests of either good business practice or consumers or other stakeholders. To the extent that this bill can reduce collusion that would disadvantage the market the stakeholders and the consumers then clearly it is a good thing. 
Given the closeness of the economic relationship between New Zealand and Australia it is clearly entirely appropriate that this bill should focus first on establishing that relationship in the context of getting some synergy some parallel operations between here and Australia in order to enable a higher level of cooperation between the two countries. 
The bill sets out some requirements that must be met before information sharing can take place. We see these as essentially public interest tests. It is desirable that this assessment be done on a case-by-case basis. There is always a temptation for regulators to be a little bit open-handed perhaps inappropriately so on occasion with information sharing or exchange whether by intent or simply by poor judgment on a given occasion. Companies whose information is taken by regulators need to know that the information will be treated with the utmost confidentiality within the context of what the legislation is trying to achieve. It is critical to meet that reasonable expectation of companies. 
It is proposed that quite significant powers be given to regulators. We think it is important that that comes under some fairly close scrutiny. We have had the recent example of a search and surveillance bill brought to this House that has stimulated significant and very well-founded public opposition and opposition from the legal profession and elsewhere. It is important that the same mistake is not made with this bill. Having said that at the moment the degree of regulation proposed seems appropriate but that is certainly something that the select committee will want to give some very close attention to and it will want to invite significant input into the question of whether the powers this bill will give to regulators are appropriate and no more than is sufficient to achieve the purpose of the bill. 
What is lacking is the very obvious national-interest test. I think that a previous speaker commented on that. We need to look at the bigger picture beyond individual consumer and indeed public interest to the broader national interests in the context of establishing what is appropriate. Our free-trade partners are all specifically protected under the law. We need to ensure that the interests of consumers and businesses are protected under the law. It would be also useful to know that we are considering our more general national interest. We recognise the importance and the value of trade. This country makes its living on trade. But we do not share the belief that any trade is good trade. We insist rather on trade that is fair trade that is mutually beneficial and for those reasons trade that is much more sustainable. 
There are some provisions in this bill about reducing fees for small to medium sized enterprises and that is appropriate given as was mentioned by the previous speaker Clare Curran issues of scale and of what is appropriate. There is also some suggestion about a waiver in terms of payment of fees for those who get to acquire another business or in some instances to engage in a restricted practice. We would like to engage in some discussion at the select committee about the appropriateness of those conditions. It seems that the Minister would be given some quite wide and non-specific powers to make regulations on the waiving of fees. We would like to challenge that to ensure that the best outcome is achieved. 
In summary we certainly support the general thrust of the bill. It is a positive step forward towards getting some international cooperation between agencies tasked with policing anti-competitive behaviour. We will be very happy to support the bill’s referral to a select committee where some discussion and some appropriate amendments could be made to it. Kia ora koutou. 
Debate interrupted.