Third Readings

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That 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 be now read a third time. The legislation plays an important role in supporting the Government’s objective of a single economic market with Australia. It builds on other single economic market initiatives progressed by the Government over the past 12 months, such as the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act. The aim of this legislation is to facilitate enhanced cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other overseas competition and consumer regulators. The legislation aims to achieve this by enabling the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers and information acquired through use of its statutory powers to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and overseas regulators in other countries. This in turn should enhance the commission’s ability to obtain assistance from overseas regulators for its own investigations.

I would like to quickly outline some of the key features of the regime in the legislation. Firstly, the proposed amendments operate on the principle of reciprocity. This should ensure that cooperation arrangements under the legislation result in benefits to New Zealand. Secondly, the legislation provides flexibility in the type of cooperation arrangements to be used. By allowing both Government to Government and regulator to regulator types of agreements, it allows us to tailor our approach to cooperation agreements with different countries as is appropriate. Thirdly, and very important, although the regime enhances the commission’s ability to assist overseas competition and consumer regulators, it recognises that in doing so there need to be appropriate public interest safeguards.

The legislation provides such safeguards at two levels. Firstly, it does so through requiring specific matters to be taken into account at a ministerial level. Such matters are broad, and include having regard to the legal framework in the overseas country and the potential consequences to New Zealand businesses and consumers of a cooperation arrangement. Secondly, and separately, once a cooperation arrangement is in place, the legislation requires specific matters to be considered by the commission on a case by case basis. Providing safeguards at both levels is important in ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to public interest matters at different stages. It should also promote confidence in the integrity and implementation of cooperation arrangements under the legislation.

Overall, the legislation further implements the Government’s commitment to making further progress towards a single economic market with Australia. In doing so, the legislation equips the commission with modern-day tools to combat anti-competitive behaviour and enforce consumer laws in the international context of business today.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the legislation, including the members of the Commerce Committee, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, officials, and the members of the public and industry representatives who participated in the various submission and policy processes. I want also to acknowledge other parties in the House for their support of this legislation.

I commend these bills to the House, and move that they be read a third time.

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.

Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in support of the bills we are looking at that were formerly parts of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, which is touching on all of these five bills of international cooperation. I do thank the previous speaker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, for the history lesson—what a great grasp of figures and dates. One of the things that we—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Too much time on her hands.

I think so, too much time. In fact, if we had not detoured through memory lane we might have got through this a lot faster, which is what she was hoping.

It is important to understand in this modern age of global trade that things are happening very, very rapidly, and especially as we see New Zealand and Australia lay out their ultra-fast broadband. This creates even greater opportunities for businesses on both sides of the Tasman to cooperate and work together in a single economic market, which, we know, is very important for us and is also very important for our Australian brothers and sisters, or cousins, or whatever you may refer to them as, over the Tasman.

This legislation is going to allow that better trans-Tasman work. It is going to allow enforcement of competition and consumer laws. This is incredibly important because we know that an even playing field is what competition thrives on, and when we have good, honest competition we know that the consumer is the person who will benefit most of all, because competition means efficiency in product development and efficiency in marketing and sales because everybody is competing for the consumer’s interest. In the final analysis, when there is that competition, the consumer is getting the best deal that is possible: high-quality services at the best deal possible. This legislation is going a long way to support that, and it is very good to see it progress here to its third reading.

International cooperation between regulators is becoming very much part of the global market place. We know that as a nation we are big, big traders internationally. I think somewhere between 85 percent and 90 percent of what we manufacture gets sent overseas. We know that this legislation matters a lot for us in terms of our ability to interact on that global stage, so it is important for its progress to go through the House in this final reading. Our ambition is that a New Zealand company can do business as easily in Australia as it can at home, and vice versa. We know that as ultra-fast broadband rolls out in Australia and in New Zealand there will be that fantastic opportunity for people to trade, interact, discuss, make business plans, and cooperate as if they were in the same room. We are yet to see the advantage and the benefit of that in our businesses, and I think it is going to be outstanding. I think it is going to see great advancement for businesses in New Zealand.

So the easier we can make it for companies to operate in both countries, by removing unnecessary barriers, the greater the opportunities will be for business to make big productivity gains and take up the new opportunities that will underpin long-term business growth. We know that New Zealand is in far better shape than many nations around the world. We know that Australia has done very well during a time when many other countries have struggled. So it is good that we can have this arrangement, particularly with Australia, and other regulators as well, of course, so that we can continue to build on the strengths that we have as a nation. I am very pleased to support this. I think that this is going to be very positive and progressive for businesses and also for the regulators of both Australia and New Zealand. Thank you.

I was rather hoping that the last member, Jonathan Young, would take his full call, and we would come back for a fresh start in a couple of weeks from now, but this is how it is. It is my first time on this Commerce (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill and the legislation arising from it. I have not been involved with this legislation at all. Therefore, it is always instructive when you have to prepare yourself to take a call at the final stage—when one has to take a call at the final stage—and I have enjoyed doing that.

The purpose of the legislation has been well read by the Minister from the—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I’m helping you—I’m getting you to the bell.

Well, I am happy to go to the bell, and I shall come back after the bell. It might be better for me to simply respond and wait for the bell, so that I can have a fresh start the next time I come, or I can actually talk about the timing factors that Lianne Dalziel has already spoken about. Of course, what she has not spoken about is how quickly the Australians did this. They had the memorandum of understanding in 2006-07.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.