Ryall Tony: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6851] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: National Party Opposition members have proposed a number of amendments to the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) which will improve it. I make it very clear that the Opposition has quite a number of points it wants to cover on this debate and I am sure that you Madam Chairperson provided that Opposition members are addressing the issue will ensure that the Opposition has an opportunity to debate its proposed amendments sufficiently. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That comment was completely unnecessary. Mr Benson-Pope will stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We have proposed a number of amendments to this part to deal with a number of issues that the National Party has raised. We have an amendment to make it clear that franchise schemes should not be considered pyramid schemes. ACT National and New Zealand First speakers have made the point that there may be confusion about whether franchise schemes are involved and that it could lead to a significant compliance cost as they seek to redefine the terms of their operations and the conditions of their agreements and we think Parliament should move to make it clear that franchise schemes are not pyramid schemes. 
We have a number of amendments to address the issue of fines and we would like to take different calls to explain those amendments in detail. We will move an amendment that will require the Minister of Consumer Affairs to undertake a review of the various penalties that apply across commercial law to offending. We will also move an amendment that seeks a principle that would guide courts in their application of the Fair Trading Act. That is an amendment based on the wording in the Sentencing Act principles which states: “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—(d) must impose a penalty near the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious cases for which that penalty is prescribed unless circumstances relating to the offender makes that inappropriate;”. 
We seek the Government’s support for that because the Government has voted for that wording previously. The Commerce Committee made it clear that the Government wanted to double the fines because the courts were not imposing fines at a sufficient level. We think a more appropriate remedy would be to provide a guidance to the courts that they should be more willing to use the full range of the penalties that are currently available within the law and we seek the Government’s support to deal with that. 
We are also concerned about the removal of the right of parties to seek compensation from the Commerce Commission if it takes an interim injunction against a party. If someone is going lawfully about his or her business the Commerce Commission gets a complaint and the commission then seeks an interim injunction of the court to stop that action there are surely consequences. The Commerce Commission thinks that any alleged offending might stop but it also has an impact on the commercial operation its profitability and the reputation of the people the injunction has been taken out against. 
We say that the Commerce Commission should have to carry the cost of that if it has got it wrong. If the Commerce Commission takes an injunction against a perfectly law-abiding business in the belief that there has been a breach of the law and it then takes no action because it cannot find a breach there will have been a negative effect on the business—it might affect the reputation or the profits—the Commerce Commission should pay. It should compensate for the disruption to the business and reputation that taking that interim injunction would have cost. 
If I took an interim injunction against a company I would have to pay if I took it wrongly and so should the Commerce Commission. Why should businesses have to suffer because Commerce Commission staff have been over-zealous? It should be a basic right as Business New Zealand told the select committee to seek redress for suffering damages as a result of another person’s actions and we will move an amendment to withdraw the exemption the Commerce Commission will have from having to pay for any costs. I will touch on another amendment briefly. How long have I got? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thirty seconds. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I may have to take another call to explain it. The amendment is in respect of what happens when the Commerce Commission comes into someone’s business and says it wants a particular document but that document does not exist. Recently there was a case in which the Commerce Commission went into a company under investigation and said that it wanted a document. But that document did not exist and the company had to change its computer programs and write new ones in order to generate that document. The Commerce Commission did not pay.