Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3)

At the adjournment of the House last night, we were debating the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). I start my comments this morning by saying that National supports this bill. A large part of it relates to strengthening, or ensuring, the enforcement of pyramid selling as illegal. We believe in that, because a lot of innocent New Zealanders might be caught within pyramid selling, to their financial disadvantage. But we would wish that it be monitored to ensure that the Commerce Commission is proactive in that area.

It was a disappointment to National that, although we support the bill and our colleagues put forward a number of very sensible amendments that would have enhanced the legislation, the Labour Government continued to adopt a very arrogant approach in not accepting them. So we promise that, in 2005 when we become the Government, we will introduce those amendments to make the legislation even better.

We have some areas of concern. As my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out, there is some inconsistency around the various penalties attached to the business law, and that is an area that needs tidying up, since that business law has been in existence for a long time. For example, in this particular legislation we have doubled the penalties for pyramid selling and other offences, but in other legislation similar offences might not attract the same level of fines or penalties. It is high time that we looked at for consistency and streamlined this legislation to make sure that a consistent message is sent out to potential offenders about the seriousness with which we will treat those criminal offences.

The other area of concern related to the powers given to the Commerce Commission. It can request information or documents that are not readily available from the companies concerned. The Commerce Commission should be asked to take into consideration that, if the documents are not readily available, it would cost the company to produce them. We are also concerned that, when the Commerce Commission issues an interim injunction and that injunction turns out to be wrong, it will not be liable for damages. That seems to us to be sending the wrong message to the Commerce Commission. We want the Commerce Commission, which has the advantage already of being a Government department and is armed with all sorts of authority, to be particularly careful in making sure that interim injunctions would not be readily used on companies, given that it would not incur damages if injunctions were issued incorrectly.

Finally, I express disappointment that there is no compliance cost statement included in this bill. It is all very well for the Hon Judith Tizard to say that there is no significant compliance cost issue. I think that if, in 2003, we have a Government that claims to be very concerned about compliance cost statements, then we should see a more specific compliance cost statement included in this bill.