Dalziel Lianne: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5788. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 After that third reading contribution on the Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Amendment Bill the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill the Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill from the member Simon Bridges the whole House has realised just how important this legislation is to the Government’s agenda. We have heard from the member and he has spoken about how important this is in terms of the mutual relationships with Australia and how important it is for business. It is so important that it was introduced on 9 September 2008 by me when I was the Minister of Commerce. That is how long it has been on the Order Paper. 
Admittedly that was just prior to a general election so we were not expecting really to see it dealt with within the first 100 days. Of course the Government had its own agenda for the first 100 days. Everyone knows that giving anyone 100 days to do something is a political statement and that every party is judged as it takes office on its first 100 days. So we were not expecting this legislation to get its first reading within the Government’s first 100 days. We understand that. We expect that. So when did it get its first reading? Did it get its first reading just after the 100 days was up? No? Well maybe the second 100 days? Did it get it within the second 100 days? Or maybe the third 100 days or the fourth 100 days or the fifth 100 days? That would be getting up there. But no this legislation got its first reading on 25 May 2010—2010. So it was actually quite a long way after the Government was elected to office. Yet we have heard how important this legislation is. 
Maybe it got held up at the Commerce Committee. You know it had its first reading back in May 2010 and I mean we are dealing with it in 2012. So maybe it was held up by that select committee which was by that stage chaired by me. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this legislation was referred to it. I was the Minister who introduced the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and I subsequently become the chair of the select committee that received the bill on 25 May 2010. Maybe I was a bit slack and maybe we did not deal with the bill as quickly as we should have. When did submissions on that bill close? Submissions on that bill closed on 30 June 2010. So we gave a reasonable time for people to make submissions on it and we reported back the bill—this is probably what has been the hold-up—on 22 November 2010. So actually we held that bill for less than the 6 months—well no about the 6 months—that we would normally expect to have a bill for and we reported it back within that 6-month period. So actually we did our job. 
 So when did it get its second reading? Well it must have been in 2011. Surely it got its second reading in 2011. Maybe there have been other things that have been holding it up. But actually no I went back and checked that. The second reading was on 3 May 2012—2012. The Committee stage was closely after that on 29 May and then concluded on 31 July. And here we are now on 27 September 2012. For legislation that is so important to the Government—as we have heard from the Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister who inherited it from the last Minister who inherited it from the Minister before who was me—it actually has had quite a circular route to this point. But I do want to say that we do support this legislation and I do want to say that we improved the quality of the legislation within the context of the select committee hearings as well. 
It is not often that Parliament addresses legislation that has a degree of retrospectivity included within it that is not subject to a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet as is the case in this particular instance. But actually the select committee amended the definition of “compulsorily acquired” to make it absolutely crystal clear that it was retrospective in this regard. We were worried that the definition as introduced could lead to existing information being excluded by the presumption against retrospectivity and we did not want that to happen. We wanted to make it clear that all compulsorily acquired information would be subject to this because the guidance was there in the agreements that it had to be subject to ministerial approval either Government to Government or regulator to regulator. 
We had a long discussion about Government to Government and regulator to regulator approval as well because of course we have issues for example with utilising our relationship with Australia where different states have different regulators and in some instances an overarching one. So I think that it is important to have the ministerial approval and to have the flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards and that is what we did as a select committee. 
We did note that there was some concern and the Minister actually referred to this in his comments. He said that there was a concern expressed that New Zealand would be sharing information with a country or a regulator without “reciprocity”—I was actually looking forward to using that word myself in this debate and he got there first—or the fact that the information may not be treated as secure or may not be secure once it leaves New Zealand. Again I think that it was pretty clear in the advice that we received from officials and the advice that we actually accepted that New Zealand simply would not enter into an arrangement that did not provide the level of protection that is required when one is dealing with this type of information. 
The last issue that I just wanted to touch on briefly—and I do not think that the whip would terribly mind if I just touched on this matter briefly; I am just checking—was the question of international trade interests being protected. There will be issues that arise from time to time that will be subject to consideration by such a request for compulsorily acquired information where in fact it may not be in New Zealand’s trade interests to have that information made available. In those cases the Commerce Commission would consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement by the Minister of Trade as to whether providing the information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. Then basically before providing such information the commission would have to be satisfied that the information would not significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. I think that that protection is a pretty strong protection and one that certainly was well received I think when we reported the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill to the House. 
I will mention one other point because I did not get the nod from the whip that I was looking for and he is still not nodding. I just wanted to touch briefly on the question of whether the statutory powers of compulsion that the commission has can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within New Zealand and there also being legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information that is already held by the commission. I think that this does limit the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on that concept of mutual assistance or reciprocity as I have already mentioned. 
I think that possibly I have got the nod now so I think that on that basis I would like to say that I really did enjoy chairing the Commerce Committee when legislation like this was supported across the House. I am certainly welcoming after—well since it started its journey on 9 September 2008 it has actually just had its fourth anniversary. So it is very pleasing to see it finally receive its third reading and the support of all the House.