Third Readings

I am destined to have breaks in my speech—[Interruption]—and I am sure that keeps members opposite entertained, especially Mr Maurice Williamson. Just to reiterate, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill was originally introduced by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by Simon Power, and now the Hon Craig Foss. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in November 2010, and it has languished on the Order Paper, but it is good to see the legislation arising from it back here in the House.

The proposals of the legislation are part of the work programme supporting the memorandum of understanding on business law coordination with Australia—therefore, the legislation aligns the systems of the two countries—where similar legislation was passed in 2007. So, finally, in 2013, we do catch up with Australia on this matter. The legislation certainly expects to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from equivalent overseas regulators, which is increasingly important for the effective enforcement of competition and consumer law where businesses operate in multiple jurisdictions.

What is interesting for me in this legislation is that there are now provisions about cooperation and the flexible way in which we will engage in that cooperative relationship.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Well, this is my third go at it, and it feels like a bit of a conspiracy. Two weeks ago, I was given 1½ minutes, and a couple of hours ago I was given another 2½ minutes. This is the third go. But it is good that I have the chance to finish what I was going to say.

As I said, the Commerce (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill is a bill that we support. It puts in place some very good provisions around cooperation with Australia to give meat, if you like, to the memorandum of understanding that has been signed. The bit here that is of interest to me is the cooperation arrangements that the bill proposes. That seems to be the flavour of the provisions in the bill—in all of the bills now, as the bill has been broken up into four.

So it is the desire here to get regulators to cooperate to manage competition and consumer effects of transactions on domestic markets. And then in the legislation there are the provisions about how information that has been acquired compulsorily on this side of the Tasman is then to be shared with regulators across the board. That is provided for, and further down in the legislation there are some safeguards that are built in about the sharing of this information. Indeed, it says very clearly and very directly that the matters of maintaining confidentiality of information, the storage of information, the copying, returning, and disposal of anything that is provided, and the payment costs are some of the provisions.

It is good to see in the bills those kinds of provisions put in place. So the point here is about information sharing and maintaining the confidentiality of information. But I have to say that this is not a good week, if you like, to have a look at—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, it’s a great week.

Mr Bridges will soon realise exactly what I am talking about. Mr Bridges, it is about maintaining the confidentiality of information. So for the member’s Government this has been a bad week, where information that should have been well protected was actually made available accidentally. So there you are, Mr Bridges. I say that his Government now has a bad record, and, therefore, I am glad that this part of the legislation is here. But I hope that his Government can deliver on it, because the kind of information that is collected around credit and around payments etc. is really highly confidential.

Mr Bridges has gone quiet. I am pleased he has, because he acknowledges that there are some holes in the Government’s commitment to protecting information and protecting privacy in that way. So those provisions are here. The Government has had a bad week. It has got a lot of work to get through to regain the confidence of the public around information and around maintaining the confidentiality of information. These bills enable that type of information collected here to be treated in a confidential manner when it is to be shared with our counterparts in Australia.

There are many warnings from the recent experiences that the Government has had around ACC and around the Ministry of Social Development just a few days ago about information. So with those kinds of statements, those kinds of anxieties we have about confidentiality of information, we are pleased to be supporting these bills. I am glad that I finally got to finish my last comments without interruption. Thank you.

May I just, in beginning, compliment Dr Prasad on his perseverance in getting through his contribution. It has been a long haul. I am pleased to take a final call on these bills: 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, which have evolved or, rather, been derived from the original Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. We have been happy to support that bill throughout its rather extended journey through this House—some 4 years, coming on 5 years. We were happy to support the division into the four bills that we are discussing collectively tonight. It was an appropriate and a sensible thing to do.

In his opening remarks, the Minister of Consumer Affairs on behalf of the Minister of Commerce pointed out some of the features of these bills as they emerged collectively; initially, that they are intended to enhance cooperation between our Commerce Commission and its Australian counterpart, and, indeed, the consumer and the anti-competitive regulatory bodies in other countries. That is an entirely appropriate and sensible thing to do.

It is interesting that the notion of cooperation is emerging much more in business. Competition has its place, of course, and anti-competitive behaviour ought not to be tolerated, but, equally, in the evolving and emerging language in the business sector there is much more recognition that in a small country a high level of inter-business cooperation and collaboration is a good thing. Indeed, I think that notion can extend. That notion of cooperation can even extend across the Tasman, given that New Zealand and Australia have some combined economic interests, clearly, as well as having our independent sovereign interests. But, equally, we should recognise that the notion of collaboration is an extremely powerful place to start looking to do business and to do well economically as well as in other ways.

The bills contain the notion of reciprocity—that all participants, be they in bilateral or multilateral arrangements, should benefit. Again, that is entirely sensible and appropriate, otherwise what would be the motivation for other countries to participate? The notion of flexibility, that these bills allow for both Government to Government and regulator to regulator relationships to be built up over time and for action to be taken at that level, was particularly important. It is a long time ago now, but I recall that the Commerce Committee looked at the issue of regulator to regulator engagement, and to some extent that was based on recognising that otherwise we could find ourselves in the situation where the commission was having to deal, potentially, with half a dozen different state Governments in Australia. That simply was not feasible. There was no point to not creating this other flexibility and these other flexible arrangements.

As I said, the Greens have supported the original bill throughout its extended journey. Our only concerns initially were about the issue of the regulatory powers that allowed for an exemption in terms of the fees. We had some suspicions about that, but I can say that they were allayed through the select committee process. Clearly, the intention is that the exemption may be applied to small to medium sized enterprises, recognising that it is not appropriate to put on a small to medium sized business the same burden or cost as that put on a larger concern, a large corporate, that is very likely trading across the Tasman anyway. We think that is a very good thing.

I hope that that continues—that the Government continues to have regard for the well-being of the small to medium sized enterprises sector. I have to say that within the sector there is a great deal of concern that such support for small to medium sized enterprises seems to be conspicuous by its absence from this Government—notably, for example, a week or so ago at a gathering of 150-odd small to medium sized enterprises at the Small Business Summit. I was there for the third time and a third year. Labour sent a senior MP; a former Minister.

Regrettably, the Government did not seem to be able to produce a person despite the fact that the organisation organising this event for the 150-plus small to medium sized enterprises actually shifted the date of the event to accommodate the diary of the Minister for Small Business, who, nevertheless, could not manage to be there, and nor could one single member of this National-led Government, which is quite extraordinary.

These bills do give some consideration to the small to medium sized enterprises and to the small business sector, and that has been, as I said, notable by its absence in many other contexts. The Government seems to have no interest in this sector, which provides over 30 percent of employment in New Zealand and contributes something like 40 percent of value-added production in New Zealand. Small to medium sized enterprises make up something like 97 percent of all of the enterprises in New Zealand, so their collective contribution is extraordinary. And we do hope that the contribution, or the acknowledgment, of the small to medium sized enterprise sector and its special character—which this legislation, which is about to become law, does recognise; these Acts, as they soon will be—will not be entirely overlooked by this Government.

Having said that, it is not entirely an issue, because the Greens are very, very happy to pick up the cudgels, to become the champions of small to medium sized enterprises, because, after all, even our largest companies started out as small businesses. The Greens are very pleased and very happy to be involved in supporting small to medium sized enterprises, helping them down a sustainability path, and helping them to become contributing members of our economy, to our environmental well-being, and to our social well-being.

So although this Government seems to have lost its way in supporting small to medium sized enterprises, the Greens are very happy to pick up that task and continue it. So with those few comments, as I say, we will continue to support the progress of this legislation, and we look forward to it being passed into law. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to speak on the third readings of the legislation arising from the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. It is legislation that will be welcome. It enables greater cooperation between the Commerce Commission and our Australian counterparts, as well as other overseas regulators. The legislation is particularly important because it advances the single economic market outcomes framework that was announced by our Prime Minister, John Key, as well as Prime Minister Rudd in 2009.

What this legislation does is it allows for better trans-Tasman enforcement of competition and consumer laws. It enables the commission to share information with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other regulators. It will support the work that we have been doing around consumer law reform, which is also proceeding through this House. It is about international cooperation between our regulators and our foreign counterparts. It is legislation that will be good for commerce, good for our country, and good for jobs and opportunities here. I support the legislation.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the bills arising from the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is supporting this legislation. We supported the original bill through the first and second readings and now we support the third readings of this legislation.

As we have heard, the primary objective of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill was introduced on 9 September 2008, so it has taken a long time to get to this point. It is somewhat disturbing that it has taken 4 years to get through the legislative process when it does provide some assistance in terms of our Commerce Commission and dealing with its associate in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. So it is somewhat disappointing that it has taken this amount of time for that cooperation to be confirmed.

The new powers will also affect the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, so they do have some ramifications for those Acts, as well. The main thing in terms of this legislation is the reciprocity, and the main justification for this legislation is that any assistance that is provided to the commission is then reciprocated with its sister organisation in Australia. This is achieved by requiring formal cooperation arrangements to be in place before the commission can offer any investigative assistance or information. Every such agreement must provide for the commission and the overseas regulator to provide information and assistance to each other.

The concept of reciprocity between regulators is important. It should go without saying that the commission should not dedicate its time and limited resources to assisting an overseas regulator unless there is something to be gained by it and New Zealand consumers. The commission’s core function is to promote competition in markets for the benefit of New Zealanders. There are some safeguards in this. New Zealand firms already complain of the sluggishness of the commission to reach decisions for mergers and other investigations. For them, a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core function would be unwelcome. This legislation provides some safeguards in that respect.

Cooperation arrangements must consider the potential consequences for New Zealand consumers and businesses of providing compulsorily acquired information or investigative assistance to the overseas regulator. The Minister must also have regard to the legal framework around the use of the information in that foreign jurisdiction. This should alleviate concerns that information obtained in New Zealand may be used in another jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with New Zealand’s legal principles. The legislation also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator of any costs it incurs in assisting. Again, that is a good move so that we are not just doing things in the freebie situation, and so that there are charges incurred, and therefore they will be genuine inquiries that come from any sister organisations from other jurisdictions.

The legislation seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour. The proposed powers represent a significant inroad into international law concepts about the extraterritorial reach of domestic legislation and the powers of domestic regulators. This legislation overcomes international difficulties by providing an alternative and, some may say, back-door route for obtaining international legislative documents.

Where information is to be provided to an overseas regulator, the commission must advise any person to whom it relates about that, unless disclosure compromises the overseas regulators or the commission’s investigation. In practice it is likely that the commission could, if it so wished, often argue disclosure would prejudice an investigation. For example, it may tip off a company that an overseas regulator is investigating a particular industry, or, if the information has been received pursuant to a leniency application, it could reveal the identity or existence of the whistleblower.

The legislation also contains provisions to expressly protect privileged documents the commission receives from overseas regulators and vice versa. Existing agreements are already in place with some countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. These provide for cooperation on certain matters, including coordinating enforcement activities and exchanging non-compulsorily acquired information, or with the consent of the providing party. The legislation is an acknowledgment, however, that without compulsorily acquired information being able to be shared, mutual cooperation is somewhat limited. These existing arrangements will likely need to be amended to incorporate the new proposed powers.

As to the timing of the change, this has been a long gestation, as I said before—since 2008. It has taken 4 years. The Australian legislators have already enacted this some considerable time ago, so we have been lagging in terms of our response to this. This is overdue. New Zealand First supports this legislation. We have said we support good policy when it is put up by the Government. This is good policy. It is very sad that it is long overdue policy, but it does certainly give more strength to the Commerce Commission to this country, and across the Tasman with its sister organisation, to ensure that there is good practice in terms of our economy. New Zealand First supports this legislation.

It is my pleasure to stand and support this legislation arising from the original Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill at the third reading. The legislation leads to increasing economic performance because its main aim is to facilitate and increase cooperation between New Zealand’s Commerce Commission and its counterparts in other parts of the world, particularly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other regulators in Australia. Needless to say, the end beneficiary of this simplified process will be the end consumer, as the process will promote competition and fair trading in the domestic market, which will result in lower prices, more choice, and, of course, better consumer protection.

For a small trading nation that exports almost 85 percent of what we produce, it is critical that we build good relationships, and that rules and regulations are agreed by our trading partners so that we can compete on a level playing field. This legislation makes it simpler for New Zealand businesses to operate in international markets and economies that have the same type of international laws and regulations as we have in New Zealand. I sincerely feel that this legislation will serve as a big help to our exporters and I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the third readings of these cognate commerce bills. As my colleagues have said, we support the original bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Amendment Bill, which has been divided into the following bills in the Committee of the whole House: 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.

As many people have observed, the original bill was introduced by that excellent Minister of Commerce of the former Labour Government the Hon Lianne Dalziel way back in 2008—a long, long time ago. It was adopted by Simon Power, who has now gone elsewhere, and now we have Craig Foss. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in November 2010. Since then we have had a general election, and here we are now in 2012. Finally, after seeing the bill languishing on the Order Paper for some time, we are finally getting to what we agree are very good bills that need to be passed tonight.

It is very instructive to look at the report from the select committee, which, as I said, reported back in 2010, and to look at exactly what the process was. It is hard to see, looking at that, why this legislation has been so difficult to pass. There were seven submissions from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard two submissions. So this was hardly controversial. There was a high level of agreement around this legislation. There was also, of course, advice from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Economic Development, which has, since then, gone through a whole other evolution. What is it called these days? Is it the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—something like that? Yes, it has gone into a whole new thing.

I was also interested in the select committee membership way back then. It is a bit of a who’s who of who was in the ACT Party in 2010 and who is no longer here. There was John Boscawen. I do not have a problem with John Boscawen. He has gone on to better things, I am sure. He was on the select committee. Hilary Calvert had a very, very short career in Parliament, actually. I think my abiding memory of Hilary Calvert is that—you know, I cannot do it—that clown face, that clown thing, that she did in Parliament. You know, that was her face—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Nah, nah, nah, it was the building with her eyes on top.

Oh, OK. Yes, that is right, the building with her eyes on top. That is right: “This is not a sex shop”. That is the one. Also Sir Roger Douglas, the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, was on the select committee. As I said, this is a bit of history that we are debating tonight in these third readings—a bit of history. We are looking back to some honourable members who were here for either a long time or a short time, or who came back after a career when perhaps they should not have. I could probably make some analogies about current ACT members, but I will not.

The proposals in this legislation are part of the work programme supporting the Memorandum of Understanding on Coordination of Business Law with Australia. The legislation aligns us with Australia, which passed similar legislation in 2007. I do have to say that it is really nice to be debating legislation in the third reading where we actually are aligning ourselves with Australia. Apart from the promises that we had from John Key in the 2008 and 2011 elections, and the 2025 Taskforce, which was all about catching up with Australia—remember that? Half a million dollars went to Don Brash and friends to make recommendations about how New Zealand was going to catch up with Australia.

Of course, the only thing that has caught up is this legislation. That is evident. We certainly have not caught up with wages; we are dragging way, way behind Australia. John Key’s famous hoarding during the 2008 election campaign, “Wave Goodbye to Higher Taxes. Not Your Loved Ones.”, has become a joke. He has become a laughing stock, because day by day, week by week, month by month, and year by year tens of thousands of our kids, our best and brightest, are going to Australia. Actually, a lot of them are in the 18-30 year age group, so we are losing a lot of young people to Australia. So that promise—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I saw you on telly tonight, having a laugh.

Yes, that is right, I did. I like laughing, and I certainly like laughing when we talk about catching up with Australia. So it is really good, as I said, to have some things that we can talk about where we are aligning with Australia, even though it passed similar legislation in 2007, which is a long time ago. It just reminds us of the dragging that this legislation has taken. Five years later here we are at the third readings, passing this legislation.

The legislation is expected to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from equivalent overseas regulators. This is increasingly important for effective enforcement of competition and consumer law where businesses operate in multiple jurisdictions. That is an increasing issue, as people are aware. We support what this legislation does with this, but I think there are other issues that over time we will need to address—issues around similar jurisdictions, and particularly the relationship between New Zealand and Australia.

How often do we have people talking to us about the job they do here compared with the job they do in Australia, where the wages are so much higher? They ask how that is fair and why it is different. We have this relationship with Australia, we have had this treaty with Australia for so long, yet New Zealand seems to be positioning itself as a low-wage country. So it is really good that we are going to be able to enforce competition in consumer law, and protect people where businesses do operate in multiple jurisdictions.

The legislation will allow Government to Government cooperation arrangements or regulator to regulator arrangements, subject to ministerial approval. That was inserted by the select committee. I think that is probably a really good thing, although I always have reservations about ministerial approval, as well. But it is another check and balance that probably needed to be added to this legislation.

It is interesting to read the select committee report. In submissions the Commerce Committee requested that this legislation also apply to information gathered under the Telecommunications Act. Obviously, that was a big discussion at the select committee. Telecom and Vodafone opposed the inclusion of the regulations that were included in the Australian legislation, but this has been included by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. We support that.

The select committee has also recommended a consultative procedure where the commission is concerned that a request for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission may 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. That is a good provision, because it is looking out for New Zealand’s international trade interests.

We hope, certainly, that our negotiators on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement are looking out for New Zealand’s international trade interests as well as our sovereignty interests. And we will wait with interest and some anticipation that the Government will do what it says it will do. When it comes to that particular trade agreement, there is a lot of concern about this. However, there is a flexible regime that will come about because of this bill. It facilitates enhanced cooperation between the commission and overseas regulators, and it seeks to do this while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to address public interest considerations.

So all in all I think the Commerce Commission, the select committee, and others have done a very good job on this bill. There will be new powers for the Commerce Commission—statutory powers—but they can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication in New Zealand. There are legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information already held by the commission.

Most overseas regulators consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. As I said when I started out, Labour supports these cognate commerce bills. We are pleased that we have finally got to the third readings of these bills. We are pleased that we are finally passing this legislation—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: After all these years.

DARIEN FENTON—after all these years—and the excellent work done by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, not only as a Minister but also as a chair of the Commerce Committee. It is very fulfilling to see that the work of the former Labour Government is coming to fruition at last. Labour is very pleased to support this legislation.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the third reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. It is very important for this country that our export and trading sector continues to grow. This bill is just part of the Government’s bigger programme—an aspirational programme—for the future growth of New Zealand and for futureproofing New Zealand for our younger generations coming through.

Eighty percent of our economy is actually small to medium sized businesses, and many of those will look to markets like Australia to want to grow into. Often they will look at the barriers and the risks associated with entering a new market like Australia. The great thing about this bill is that it actually removes a lot of those risks and a lot of those barriers for them. I am confident that with a bill like this we will see more of our businesses wishing to take the step into a new market like Australia, and continuing to help the country to grow. Thank you.

Is this a split call?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It is, Mr Speaker—5 minutes.

Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a quick call on the cognate commerce bills and in particular this telecommunications aspect. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill was originally introduced by Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by Simon Power and now Craig Foss. So it has got quite a history, and I know that none among us with any right mind would wish to disagree with the work of those three eminent parliamentarians. Of course, Labour is supporting this legislation through.

This legislation is part of a broader programme of work to iron out some little crinkles in the business relationship with the “West Island”, and based on this progress we hope very much that we are going to address bigger and brighter things like dividend imputation in the near future. We expect that the legislation is going to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from overseas regulators.

It is very, very important that our Commerce Commission, which plays a key role in the regulation of markets, is able to access experience from across the Ditch. The reasons for that are several. One is that we are a small island market and our experience across different industry sectors is—oh look, Mr Speaker, I know the House is going to be delighted by this news. I have just been advised that I can now speak for the full 10 minutes, so I am going to detruncate the remarks. What I would like to do—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Could you spend a little bit more time praising the former Minister and—

Now that I have longer to praise the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And the chair of the select committee.

Who was the chair of the select committee? No, in all seriousness let us get back to the topic, which is the importance of having coordination between the regulators on both sides of the Ditch. Why is that important? In a syllable it is because the businesses are coordinated, because they are cross-owned. If you are dealing with telecommunications companies like Telstra and TelstraClear, just as a random example, or Griffin’s Foods, or Heinz-Wattie, or anyone, even Vodafone, which is a multinational, any of those companies, of course, has a footprint on both sides of the Tasman. They are global businesses in many cases, and in the eternal game between poacher and gamekeeper it is very important that the gamekeepers have access to the same global resources and information as the poachers, and that is why it is important that our regulators are unified across the Tasman.

So there will be greater reciprocal assistance from the regulators across the Ditch allowing more Government to Government cooperation arrangements and regulator to regulator arrangements. This might not sound very important to the people out there in TV land, but what it means is, in the telecommunications sector, for example, a better chance of getting cheaper, faster broadband. Pretty simple. If the companies concerned are held to a more competitive market standard it means the price you will pay for your phone bills at home will go down. The data caps you get on your internet will go up, and that is a good thing. The regulators on both sides of the Tasman will be able to hold the market to account. And as the companies concerned are global companies operating on both sides of the Ditch, it is very important that the regulators are able to work across both sides of the Ditch.

The Commerce Committee has recommended a consultative procedure where the committee is concerned that a request for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission can consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and then rely on a statement by the Minister as to whether providing the information would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interest. It is not easy to think of an actual example where this would be an issue, but it is a safety valve. Let us imagine that the regulators on both sides of the Ditch want to swap information about a particular business. The proposal exists, as a result of the select committee’s work, for the Minister to say no. As long as it is within the international trade rules the Minister can deem that that would be severely prejudicial to the interests of a New Zealand company and can thereby say: “No. We don’t think that’s a good idea.” That seems like a reasonably practical thing for us to insert into the legislation just to make sure that Kiwi companies do not get rolled over by their larger “Kangaroo” competitors. That is a reasonable safety valve to have in there, I think. We ought to acknowledge the select committee for its work.

I think it is probably relevant and fair at this point to note the change that has occurred under the current Government in the trans-Tasman trade liberalisation negotiations. Under the previous Government the standard to which New Zealand negotiators were held was to do what was in the interests of the New Zealand public and the New Zealand economy. In the last round of the single economic market negotiations that standard was amended, and it is now for the negotiators to do what is in the joint interests of the two countries. Those sharp-eared and sharp-eyed amongst you will, of course, understand that that means that we could now be negotiating something that is not in New Zealand’s interests as long as it was in the trans-Tasman interest. As we are the smaller partner we cannot discount the possibility that that might occur.

I guess I would call upon the Government speakers next up to explain to the House why as the custodians, for the next 18 months or so, of the national interest they believe it is in New Zealand’s interest for us to subsume our negotiation objectives to those of the whole trans-Tasman market, rather than to act in the interests of “New Zealand Inc.” One of the things that right across this side of the House—and just as a little aside, I think the public has seen in the last week, with things like the manufacturing inquiry, an uplift in cooperation between New Zealand First and Labour and the Greens, all acting in a very professional way together to deliver services to the public. They are seeing us act as a united Opposition to try to bring policies forward and ideas forward that will really help New Zealand go forward and hold the Government to account. So we are asking on this issue, as a united Opposition, why, National Government, are you subsuming the New Zealand interest to the trans-Tasman interest? And why, then, is there a risk that the New Zealand regulator might be leaned on by a Minister because they get a phone call from Canberra? I could tell a few stories about meetings in the Beehive with the representatives of major Australian corporations, but perhaps it is not the occasion.

The Commerce Commission is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information it holds to Australian or overseas regulators. That is an important issue. If evidence is found in, perhaps, a trans-Tasman monopoly issue that bears upon the behaviour or performance of the Australian parent company—let us just say it was a bank, for a start—the law currently prohibits the New Zealand Commerce Commission from sharing that information with the Australian regulator. That is not a smart thing to do. If the company is cross-owned then the sheriff needs to be able to share information with the posse. That is a reasonable and prudent thing to do in order to get good governance on both sides of the Tasman.

In general Labour thinks that this legislation is worth supporting. We acknowledge that it flows from work that has come from cooperation across the House, a bipartisan approach to international trade—or hitherto bipartisan—where we are managing for New Zealand’s national interest, where we acknowledge the importance to New Zealand of our status as a trading nation and the importance of fair international trade rules. We understand that for that to work you have got to have teeth amongst the regulatory systems on both sides of the Ditch, and that, in turn, means the ability of the regulators to exchange information and ensure compliance on both sides of the Tasman.

This is a small but positive step forward. It is not the end of the road. Looking forward, to conclude my remarks on behalf of the Labour Opposition, may I remind the House of the importance of whoever for the time being is sitting on the Treasury benches, Mr Bridges, operating in New Zealand’s national interests in particular, as well as those of the trans-Tasman economy as a whole. It is New Zealand mums and dads, New Zealand taxpayers, who are paying our wages and in whose interests we are working. Thank you.

Well, how lucky were we to have 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes from the previous speaker, the Hon David Cunliffe. I feel that all of the issues have been so well traversed that it leaves it for me simply to sum up by saying this is good legislation. It needs to be passed into law, and I support it.

Bills read a third time.