Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2644. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to raise a couple of issues but before I do I just note for the record that the reason we are here tonight not debating the estimates is what I would call the usual reason—I see Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga nodding and grinning in agreement. This is a Gerry Brownlee special. This is a Gerry Brownlee special in that the deal was reached to debate the estimates to 9 o’clock and Gerry stuffed it up either deliberately or otherwise. So here we are deal broken debating this piece of legislation the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill which somehow tonight after a robust estimates debate has taken on such urgency that Mr Brownlee comes down to the House on bended knee breaks the deal and here we are. 
The question you have got to ask is why. Well I suspect that—and I will make this very relevant to the bill Mr Chair because I am anticipating your thought in respect of my speech—after Hekia Parata came down and had to effectively reverse and back down from the policy over teacher numbers the feet were put to the fire. Then down came Gerry on the draught horse on the silver charger to break the deal—to break the deal—and here we are debating this legislation tonight. 
I have got a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce on that—for instance if we look at some of the interesting things in the Budget that are very germane to this bill like rest home care. I have a question for the Minister. So if one had for instance a— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Very germane to the bill! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is. Oh it is germane to the bill and I will tell you why before you leap to your feet. Taihoa help is on the way. It is germane because what if one for instance and this is a question for the Minister had an Australian-owned rest home provider with Kiwi interests and one of the two companies say the New Zealand company was attempting to claw back and increase the numbers of fees from its residents—say for instance colleagues to make up for the fact that the Government has now slashed the asset-testing subsidies—what if they were trying to claw some of that back? Would those two entities Minister be subject to this bill in respect of monopolistic behaviour or collusion and therefore subject to the investigative procedures if they shared that information? That would be interesting given— 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s a good question. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —that is a good question I think—that of course the third National Government in its generation—Muldoon Bolger and now the Key Government—has kneecapped the oldies in respect of in this case asset testing; in its history the pension; or in Muldoon’s history of course bribing people with their own money. 
The question is this: if a New Zealand - owned rest home operator decided to in a monopolistic way claw back moneys could that information be shared with an Australian provider and would that then be collusion and subject to the provisions of this Act? I know that this is an issue that Mr Lotu-Iiga who is an eminent lawyer I am told—an eminent lawyer; more so than Mr Finlayson—is exploring and is deeply concerned about for his constituents of course in South Auckland— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: It’s not South Auckland. Maungakiekie’s not South Auckland. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —or Maungakiekie I should say who are subject and may be subject of course to rest home provisions. 
The second point I would make is Mr Parker’s. It will be very interesting to note—and it may be that the Minister has not anticipated this question as this bill has gone through—given that the Crown is effectively a monopoly provider of services within the State sector and it is stripping resources from that education sector particularly pertaining to technology whether it is the case that the Australian regulator could require an investigation and require information to be shared to bring that provider namely the Crown to account if it was engaging in monopolistic behaviour. I think that is a very important question given I suspect that the Minister—though he is a Minister and therefore part of the whole Budget process—presumably in bringing in these Supplementary Order Papers 274 and 26 was aware of the provisions in the Budget and was aware of what his own Cabinet and what his Government was doing. Presumably that is addressed within these Supplementary Order Papers. Or if the point is not valid I think the people of New Zealand would like some assurance as to how those issues will be dealt with because they are important issues. 
We support the tenor of this bill because of course it is about aligning with Australia and it is about bringing our regulatory relationship and our commercial relationships together. It is about attempting and doing that to make business easier—easier and more transparent for the entities on both sides of the Tasman. That is something that has occurred for a great period of time going back beyond CER. 
I think there are some lessons coming out of the Budget that need to be addressed. There are some actions the Government has taken that could directly impinge upon the legality and processes within this piece of legislation so I invite the Minister to address those issues. There will be elderly folk who have now of course been shocked in recent days by the announcements of this Government having gone back on its word and who will now be listening to this debate tonight and wondering for instance—especially rest home providers—whether this legislation will impinge upon them in respect of the relationship with their counterparts in Australia or indeed in other places. 
I also raise the other point that Mr Parker did in terms of what controls there are in respect of information sharing. I would note that I would assume that there are some jurisdictions internationally that we would not want to share information with perhaps. What are the controls or vetting procedures for receiving information and verifying it from some of those jurisdictions? Of course we would not like to see the Crown’s name slurred internationally even though it is in danger of that at least domestically with some of the provisions in this Budget. 
The other point I would make is this: in terms of monopolistic behaviour we know in Australia there are also great young entrepreneurs called paper boys and paper girls and they are indeed paid for their service. I am not sure but I think their tax provisions are far more generous in Australia— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Saying that comments are germane to the bill does not necessarily make them so and I fear that the member speaking has drifted far too far outside the boundaries of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am the judge of relevance in this matter and I will ask the member to speak on Part 1 from now on. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I completely note—as does the House—the quality of your rulings. I know that the inexperienced souls—some of them on that side—will be learning from your learned judgments— 
Maggie Barry 
: We certainly don’t learn from you except what not to do. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —in respect of this bill. Hang on! That was a bit of a dandelion at the back of the garden I think over there who decided to wake up. You know the eyes have opened the blood is now pumping and the air is being pumped through. Well done! As I said the other night Miss Barry go on gardening leave. You will be far more qualified for that than you are in this House with your contributions. The best contribution that member made was to try to intimidate submitters at a select committee but moving back to Part 1— 
Maggie Barry 
: Go and get a hairdo. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I may be light in the hair that is true but it is all real and it ain’t dyed. 
Let me say this: in Australia we have young entrepreneurs as we do in New Zealand called paper boys and paper girls. We also have young entrepreneurs who do after-school work of course. In Australia or in New Zealand one could argue that it would be hard for monopolistic behaviour to occur between those entities across the Tasman but it is an interesting question to ask given that the tax arrangements are far more generous in Australia and given that Australia does not have a Government that has decided to tax every dollar every cent that young entrepreneurs decide to make whether it be $1 or $45 or whatever. 
So again I make the same point to the Minister in respect of the rest homes. If say a paper boy or paper girl was a part of a company delivering the local newspaper and that company was perhaps to engage in monopolistic activity and those employed by say Independent Newspapers or Fairfax in New Zealand were to engage in similar activity what would be the provisions that would be invoked? And could the Commerce Commission and the Australian regulator then investigate those entities poor though they will be of course given the Draconian legislation this Government has put forward in respect of taxing them? Would the provisions of this bill apply? I think it is a fair enough question to ask because the poor old young people have been kicked in the guts once in the last 2 weeks. They used to be able to earn 45 bucks a week without tax. Now these scrooges have come along and pulled the rug out from under them and pulled the pin. So I think we would not want to scare those fine young entrepreneurs. 
The Government said once many many years ago that it wanted to encourage entrepreneurship and a brighter future—many many years ago. It does not mention those words now of course and it has a harder job mentioning them when it is actually discouraging entrepreneurship as it did in the Budget. But I think that is a fair question to ask. We are giving these regulators substantial powers in this legislation. Will they apply to those rest home companies or to those companies employing paper boys and paper girls? Will those provisions apply and to what extent? And regarding the quality of information which jurisdictions will we not be prepared to share information with? My colleague Mr Parker mentioned Fiji. 
These are germane questions and I invite the Minister to look at them very carefully respond and give some assurance to the Committee—in terms of both the young folks and those in their retiring years—as we go through it.