Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would start by indicating that on this side of the House we oppose this bill. I think when it comes to commerce and consumer affairs - type legislation in this House most people would like to think that we're creating law that makes it easy for people to conduct business and from time to time regulations need to be adjusted to update because some laws are quite old. But in terms of unfair conduct such as the use of pressure tactics targeting of vulnerable consumers or drawing up of overly complicated contracts or one-sided contracts it is something that we oppose—you know use of deception and things like that. We do oppose that but we already have laws in place which actually can prosecute those behaviours to protect the consumers.In terms of some of the things that the Minister actually said he began his speech by saying that you know he didn't want to define the unconscionable conduct. That was at the very first beginning sentence of his speech tonight. The issue is that back in 2013 the Fair Trading Amendment Act—actually I'll go back. The bill follows the updates of the New Zealand Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Auctioneers Act which was passed between 2010 and 2015. The Fair Trading Act went through the select committee process and the select committee at the time opted not to include the unconscionable conduct law which was similar to that that existed in Australia. The reason why they opted not to include it at the time was because they wanted to wait for a body of case law built up around what unconscionable conduct actually means. Now this Labour Government is actually introducing this law without the body of case law I believe. I just think it is unfair for people to actually spend more money because when laws are created regulations are actually created for businesses. It means particularly for small businesses it's extra burden on them extra money to figure out what unconscionable conduct actually means. It means money for lawyers. Lawyers can actually you know test this in a court of law but for businesses it means extra burden extra costs. I think this Minister is actually putting those costs on businesses that should not have to spend that kind of money. When good laws are created they shouldn't have to spend money on legal advice to define what unconscionable conduct means.I would've preferred it if the Minister had decided to define it to make it very very clear. I quote some of the concerns that stakeholders—and I actually quoted these in part in the previous iteration of our debate. Consumer New Zealand actually supported this law but recommended tighter drafting. And I quote—it says We support the introduction of a ban on unconscionable conduct. We consider New Zealand consumers deserve better protection from unfair business-to-consumer conduct than currently provided. However we are concerned the new [provision] may not have [the] intended effect"—is one of the things that they actually said. Business New Zealand also—and I quote—"It would be fair to say that addressing this issue has been a lengthy and … repetitive process and we have consistently made the point there must be clear evidence of a significant problem before any of the changes proposed are enacted. At no stage during the process - now lasting around 16 years - have we had any clear evidence yet despite this issues apparently already dealt with have now resurfaced."So what has changed? Nothing really—nothing has actually changed. There's no evidence introduced that this unconscionable conduct exists. We can't even define it in legislation but the burden is being put on our businesses increasing the costs of good working New Zealanders mums and dads who run small businesses. It is a burden that they will now have to wear and face. I think if it's good law we would support it and in my opinion this isn't one of them. I oppose this bill."