Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party to the first reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. The ACT Party is pleased to support this bill at its first reading. As the Minister of Commerce stated in his first reading speech, and as other members have also noted in the House tonight, this bill contributes to the objective of the single economic market with Australia. As Minister of Consumer Affairs responsible for the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, I support this bill and the measures that it puts in place.
The bill will facilitate increased cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which will allow for better trans-Tasman enforcement of competition and consumer laws. It also provides for the Commerce Commission to undertake investigative assistance and exchange of information with other overseas competition and consumer regulators.
The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is the result of a 2004 recommendation from the Australian Productivity Commission for increased cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Productivity Commission’s report addressed both the Australian and New Zealand competition and consumer protection regimes. It identified and assessed options for better administration and enforcement of Australian and New Zealand competition and consumer protection laws. Following a comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits, the Productivity Commission’s report supported the option of investigative assistance, which is the option that has been chosen in this bill.
The Productivity Commission found that the option of investigative assistance comprised a number of desirable features that this bill has picked up. These include the local regulator retaining discretion. It may choose not to comply with a request for assistance from a foreign regulator, if to do so would be inappropriate. There are clear lines of accountability and national procedural safeguards, which should be retained. Conditions may be imposed relating to maintaining confidentiality of the information obtained and transmitted, and a degree of ministerial oversight is provided for within the bill. The Productivity Commission’s recommendations were accepted by both the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government, and are incorporated into the single economic market outcomes framework, as the Hon Simon Power has already noted.
In 2007 Australia enacted legislation to allow enhanced cooperation between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and overseas regulators. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is our equivalent legislation. This bill also takes a wider than trans-Tasman view. Similar issues do, of course, arise across a number of different jurisdictions. For instance, the advertising of all-inclusive air fares and mobile phone roaming fees are good examples. Obtaining information from equivalent regulators would enable the Commerce Commission’s investigations to be more efficient and effective. The current provisions in the Commerce Act 1986 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 constrain the Commerce Commission’s ability to share information—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the member. There are a number of conversations going on over here that are distracting me from listening to what the member is saying. I ask members to quieten down so that I can hear what the Minister is saying.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am standing. If members want to continue their conversations at length, that is what the lobbies are for. I am sorry to interrupt the member.
The current provisions in the Commerce Act 1986 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 constrain the Commerce Commission’s ability to share information and provide assistance to equivalent overseas regulators. Not only does the existing legislation constrain the commission, it also serves to constrain overseas regulators from providing assistance to the commission, as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on reciprocity. This bill serves to address these issues.
The bill currently provides that in order for compulsorily acquired information to be shared with an overseas regulator, a Government cooperation arrangement must be in place between those two Governments. This arrangement must cover a range of high-level concerns, including consideration of the legal framework in the overseas jurisdiction, New Zealand’s international obligations, potential consequences for New Zealand businesses and consumers, and the rules around the use and security of information. There must also be consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, and the arrangement is then made.
Governmental cooperation arrangements ensure consideration of wider principles at the highest level, in both jurisdictions. The New Zealand Government receives a commitment from the overseas Government. This places the arrangement on a morally binding level, not unlike a treaty. It is foreseen that such arrangements may be concluded as part of future free-trade arrangement negotiations.
Since this bill was tabled in September 2008, the Government has received feedback that having governmental cooperation arrangements only may be too constraining for some jurisdictions. As the Hon Simon Power has said, consideration will be given to allowing the Commerce Commission to enter into an agency cooperation arrangement with an overseas regulator, subject to ministerial approval. Prior to granting approval to an agency cooperation arrangement, the Minister would need to take into account international obligations and the legal framework in the overseas jurisdiction. This alternative option of an agency cooperation arrangement would address circumstances where governmental cooperation was not necessary or not possible, whilst preserving the safeguards of a governmental arrangement. The ACT Party supports this bill and its intent to enhance enforcement of competition and consumer protection laws in a global economy.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
It is my pleasure to take a call on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill tonight. The proposals in the bill are part of the single economic market outcomes framework announced by the New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers in August last year. The bill enables greater cooperation between the Commerce Commission, its Australian counterpart, and other overseas regulators. It is about lifting economic performance. The bill is part of the National-led Government’s focus on improving access for our exporters to world markets. Boosting innovation and improving export access to world markets is one of our six policy drivers for a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance. Only by lifting our economic performance can we create more jobs, boost incomes, improve living standards, and provide the world-class public services that Kiwi families need.
Actually, it is a bit more than that; it is about making it easier to do business with Australia, and making it easier for our businesses to go to bigger markets, and this is one step towards that. We find, when we go around New Zealand and talk to people in businesses up and down the country, we have a huge number of businesses that have a huge amount of capacity and capability to go to bigger markets. But in New Zealand we have an issue: we do not have what is known as critical mass. In New Zealand we may have a company that is relatively small, and that sells well within New Zealand to our market within New Zealand. But that market is very limited by the size of New Zealand itself, so if our companies want to export, if they want to grow in capability and capacity, they have to go offshore. To do that means they are entering markets they are not familiar with, markets that have different international laws, markets that have different international regulations, and markets that have different exchange rates, and for a guy who is an owner-operator, has a great business, and who wants to take it to that next step, it is a really big move. It is a really, really scary move for a lot of those businesses that do not have the skills in law, do not have the skills in accountancy, and do not understand how to take their business to the next step.
Going into overseas markets is a big step for these businesses to take. This legislation is one step towards finding another economy where we can go in, one that has the same type of international laws as we do, the same types of regulations as we do, and an exchange rate we can understand, because those New Zealand businesses are going out into international markets and competing with other companies that are already at that critical mass state. For a company to produce a million units in New Zealand it may have to go to one other exporting country, whereas in America for a company to produce the same million units it does not have to leave the country to do it, it does not have to enter new markets, and it does not have to understand all the regulations around those markets. Immediately, our small companies that are trying to grow are at a disadvantage because they have all these barriers, all these regulations, and all these costs to add on to the costs of their products, and they are not as competitive as they might be. So it is really important that we ensure we go forward and make it as easy as we possibly can for these companies.
It is my pleasure to be on my feet tonight to support the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Just as an opening comment, I say that the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is entirely consistent with the range of legislation that has been introduced into this House over the last 3 years as we attempt to respond to the perceived increase in white-collar crime—in other words, the internationalisation of hard-core cartels—within the Government’s responsibility to monitor and manage activity. It takes place, of course, in the context in which the Minister of Finance is borrowing a massive $250 million a week—a billion dollars a month—just to keep the country afloat. So from the Māori Party’s perspective it is crucial that we do everything we can to bring the highest standards to all levels of money management.
The Māori Party is pretty keen on kicking the loan sharks out of town, and we are just as fierce about the need to deter dodgy business dealings between respective nations’ commercial activity. In this sense, it is hard to argue with the logic of legislation that seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour. It has, in addition, been an idea that has taken some time to get to the debating chamber; I am told that Bell Gully made submissions on a discussion paper on the issues some 4 years ago. Be that is it may, we are happy to have the bill before the House for its first reading tonight.
The added dimension of this bill over and above others that also try to deal with corrupt and fraudulent behaviour is that this one focuses on international cooperation. It is not as though the issue of cooperation agreements has not already been explored. I am told that the commission already has four existing agreements in place, with Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. However, this bill is an acknowledgment that without compulsorily acquired information being able to be shared, mutual cooperation is somewhat limited.
The Māori Party believes that the intent is positive in that it attempts to form relationships with other nations to bring a high level of scrutiny and transparency to all dealings related to the commercial activities between nations. Basically, the bill amends the Commerce Act 1986 to allow the Commerce Commission to seek a place under warrant to establish whether a person is breaching the Act. Having a reputation for effective competition laws and enforcement is considered to be vital in obtaining the confidence of potential foreign investors and in attracting finance for development. It is also a requirement that is often raised by other jurisdictions when negotiating free-trade agreements.
Just on that point, the Māori Party has always considered that the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of our own local, regional, and national social progress and environmental enhancement. The House will be well aware that, in brief, the Māori Party supports fair-trade agreements as opposed to free-trade agreements. Throughout the debates that have taken place in the House about free-trade agreements we have constantly raised the view that we also consider it to be fundamental to best practice that, first, we should establish trade relationships with other first-nations peoples, and, second, that we would expect to see tangata whenua involvement in all decision making on international trade agreements.
There is only one other aspect to our position on this bill, and it is one that we hope the select committee consideration will provide an opportunity to respond to. We are aware that New Zealand firms already comment on the length of time it takes the commission to reach decisions on matters such as mergers and other investigations. For them, a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core functions would be unwelcome. As we understand the case to be, when cooperation arrangements are entered into by the Minister of Commerce, that Minister must consider the potential consequences for New Zealand consumers and businesses of providing compulsorily acquired information or investigative assistance to the overseas regulator. The bill also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator of any costs it incurs in providing assistance. If the commission does that, it may help to allay concerns about it diverting scarce resources, but we would hope that the select committee consideration would enable a specific focus on this aspect of the bill. To this end we await the response to the bill, and we support its first reading to ensure that the bigger debate is able to occur. Kia ora tātou.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this
I rise to support this bill and as part of my contribution I would like to pay tribute to the former Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who introduced this bill in September 2008, and the current Minister, the Hon Simon Power, who adopted this bill.
The proposals in the bill are part of the work programme supporting the memorandum of understanding on business law coordination with Australia. The Hon Lianne Dalziel, together with the then Treasurer of Australia, signed the memorandum of understanding in February 2006, and it is the centrepiece of the single economic market agenda with Australia.
The primary objective of this bill is to facilitate cooperation between the Commerce Commission and its overseas counterparts, most notably the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Both the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission were of the view that the constraints on cooperation are impeding trans-Tasman investigations. Therefore, the bill amends the Commerce Act 1986, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, and the Fair Trading Act 1986, and proposes improving and enhancing cooperation by enabling the commission to, first, exercise its statutory information-gathering powers to assist an overseas competition authority, and, second, provide any information acquired under its powers to an overseas competition authority.
Having said that, I point out that it sounds like this bill is addressing international cartel investigations, because they are the areas where these powers will have real relevance and application if the scope of this bill is much wider. Indeed, the international nature of transactions and territorial limits on regulators make it increasingly desirable for regulators to cooperate to manage competition and consumer efforts in transactions in domestic markets.
The Commerce Commission is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and the compulsorily acquired information it holds to overseas regulators. The commission’s statutory powers of compulsion can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within New Zealand. There are also legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential information compulsorily acquired that is already held by the commission. This in turn limits the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission, as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on mutual assistance.
The first feature of this bill is reciprocity. Without reciprocity it is hard to see how assisting an overseas regulator carrying out its functions promotes competition in New Zealand markets, given that the Commerce Commission’s core function is to promote competition in markets for the benefit of New Zealanders. Secondly, the bill provides for a number of safeguards for New Zealand interests. This includes consideration of matters such as the nature of relevant overseas competition or consumer protection laws, any relevant privacy issues, and a framework within the overseas jurisdiction for dealing with what would generally be sensitive information. The third feature relates to the maintenance of privilege. The bill addresses this by providing for the protection of privileged documents that the commission may provide to an overseas regulator, and vice versa, in order to encourage enhanced cooperation in respect of this type of material.
Other aspects or issues likely to be addressed or looked at closely at the select committee include, first, as the Minister the Hon Simon Power asked in his speech last week, whether the Government to Government cooperation arrangement should be the only means by which overseas regulators may access investigative assistance from the commission, or whether ministerial approval of a regulator to regulator arrangement could be a good alternative. Second, in relation to fees or fee exemptions, clause 13 in Part 2 amends section 108 of the Commerce Act 1986. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel pointed out, the concept of having a tiered approach may be a better way of addressing the issues, taking into consideration all factors, including the need to make compliance costs more manageable for the small to medium sized enterprise sector. Finally, as many legal practitioners queried, it will be interesting to see whether the proposals in this bill will cause any changes in the Commerce Commission’s approach to the use of a section 98 regime.
The first issue related to that is in relation to what information is covered by the information-sharing provisions of this bill. This bill primarily deals with the sharing of information that is “compulsorily acquired information”, which in the competition law context means information that is not in the public domain and is acquired by the Commerce Commission using its powers under section 98 of the Commerce Act 1986. Information that is provided to the commission voluntarily is, however, not subject to the information-sharing regime.
The second issue is in the merger area, where the commission obtains information both voluntarily and by the use of section 98 notices in circumstances where information is required in a short period of time or in a way that would otherwise breach confidentiality obligations to third parties. Currently, the method used is irrelevant to the party providing the information, but under this bill the confidential information obtained under a section 98 notice will be liable to be shared with overseas regulators. I look forward to hearing more from submitters and learning more on this subject. I commend the bill to the House.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this
I am very pleased to speak on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. We are a small trading nation. We export 85 percent of what we produce, so it is imperative that very good relationships, understandings, and regulations are agreed to by our trading partners in order for us to have a level playing field, the cooperation and willingness of markets overseas to trade with us, and confidence, which is absolutely necessary. This bill, which was introduced in September 2008, was adopted by this Government and carried forward because it is very much part of our agenda of focusing on improving access for our exporters to world markets.
It is interesting to know that New Zealand feeds the equivalent of 60 million people in the world with our food produce, so we are producers, which I believe are highly sought after and appreciated in the wider world. Evidence of that is the number of free-trade agreements that our very expert and effective Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser, has been able to broker with nations overseas. But backing up all of that is the importance of regulation in order that the process of doing business is streamlined, effective, and sure, particularly with Australia, which is a very important market.
We have been developing a single economic market with Australia, and that is a concept where both Governments are intensifying efforts to move forward. In fact, both Prime Ministers, John Key and Kevin Rudd, agreed on the imperative for continued strong and coordinated international action to restore confidence and global economic growth. They recognised that strengthening trans-Tasman economic integration, including through the single economic market work programme, would be vital for both of our countries. The Trans-Tasman Outcomes Implementation Group, co-chaired by senior officials in the Australian Treasury and our own Ministry of Economic Development, has been working to advance these outcomes, which were identified by Prime Minister Key and Prime Minister Rudd.
Key areas where substantial progress has been made include work towards a single cross-border insolvency proceeding; progress on the alignment of accounting standards for profit entities; establishment in New Zealand of an accounting and auditing standards-setting infrastructure that will mirror those in Australia; the potential for mutual recognition of auditors and financial advisers; a process for achieving more ambitious intellectual property outcomes, including a single application process for patents and trademarks, and a single regulatory framework for patent attorneys; the development of equivalent approaches to approval and verification of weighing and measuring equipment on both sides of the Tasman; and in respect of other aspects of consumer law.
Also, agreement has been reached on cross-appointments of commissioners between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and our Commerce Commission. These cross-appointments will underpin cooperation on trans-Tasman competition issues. They will make a way possible for continuing effective and even better trade between our countries and for the betterment of New Zealand exporters. Thank you.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
I find myself in the unusual position this sitting period of standing to support a Government bill—that is, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. The reason I say this is that the tax legislation supporting the Budget was definitely one of those pieces of legislation for the few and not the many. The Budget delivered massive tax cuts to the most wealthy Kiwis, whilst delivering practically nothing for ordinary New Zealand families and households.
John HayesNo, no, it did deliver something; it delivered GST increases and it delivered huge inflation. But anyway—
Dishonest? Does that member want to know what dishonest is? The phrase “I will not increase GST” is dishonest.
This bill is another one of those bills that was originally introduced by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel in 2008 and is now in the name of the Hon Simon Power. In fact, I wonder what Simon Power will do when the rest of Lianne Dalziel’s legislation gets passed, because I think this bill is the second bill of Lianne Dalziel’s that I have spoken on in the last month. I ask Mr Power whether there are any more of her bills to come before the House, or whether this is the last one of hers that he has adopted. I must admit I found it quite amusing when a couple of the National speakers stood up and said this bill was the centrepiece of the National policy of driving economic growth. Well, it is a Labour bill, for goodness’ sake! There is no doubt about it, Lianne Dalziel was a very busy Minister, and that is great.
As already outlined, the proposal in this bill is part of the work programme for supporting a memorandum of understanding on business law coordination with Australia. The current memorandum of understanding was signed by Lianne Dalziel and Australia’s Peter Costello in 2006. That memorandum of understanding was a centrepiece of the single economic market agenda with Australia, which explicitly recognises the trends towards international convergence and the regulation of financial markets and business regulation. If members opposite would choose to listen they might learn something. Apparently this is part of National’s economic agenda. Well, it was Labour’s economic agenda for 9 years.
Hon Darren HughesThe member is dead right; it is too late for John Hayes to learn, but he should listen and he might learn something.
The member is dead right. It is unlikely. This bill is most important, considering what we have seen recently in both our domestic and international markets, due to what many would perceive as a fundamental breakdown in the regulatory framework governing the investment banking sector and the shadow banking system, especially in the United States. But we were not immune by any stretch of the imagination. Countless numbers of Kiwis lost thousands of dollars, and some of them lost their life-savings due to the unscrupulous behaviour of some true rogues.
The crisis and the resulting recession of the last couple of years was not just a case of problems associated with financial deregulation, even though this did not help. According to Professor Krugman, himself a Nobel Laureate, it involved risks undertaken by institutions that were never regulated in the first place. Although this bill does not deal with this specific issue head-on, it is one piece of the legislative jigsaw that is needed to guard the future security of the world’s citizens from unscrupulous and predatory behaviour on behalf of those who seek to rip the heart out of our communities. It is an important step in the process of tightening the regulatory environment by providing an efficient regime that facilitates enhanced cooperation between the commission and overseas regulators, whilst ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to address public interest considerations.
As has been mentioned, this bill aligns us with Australia, which passed similar legislation in 2007. This is an important bill in terms of regulatory and economic alignment, which was introduced by Labour. The Australians actually thought it very important legislation in terms of developing a regulatory framework in line with international best practice. I suppose the question must be asked why, if the Australians thought this legislation so important—and I think it is, as well; I agree with that—it has taken Mr Power so long to bring this bill before the House.
Hon Simon PowerA bit on? We have been under urgency passing legislation for secondhand-car dealers, and that sort of carry-on. Now we are talking about financial regulation between New Zealand and Australia. I would have thought that was quite important. We have had numerous periods of urgency under this Government debating various bills that one could argue, very successfully I think, do not have nearly the positive impact that this bill does. So much for the rhetoric around increasing productivity and harmony with Australia, or aligning the regulatory framework and providing protection for ordinary New Zealanders! Anyway, here we are.
This bill provides powers for the Commerce Commission to use its statutory tools to provide assistance to overseas competition or consumer regulators with investigations.
Carol BeaumontIt is a very good idea. The bill will promote more effective and efficient enforcement of competition and consumer protection law in the global economy.
In this age of globalisation, New Zealand needs to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of regulation designed to ensure that our citizens never again are taken advantage of, as they were by the shady characters running the shonky finance companies preying on the elderly and the vulnerable.
Although we will never be able to totally eliminate that risk, we can put legislation in place to at least mitigate the risk. This bill is one of those pieces of legislation. It is a fundamental part of the Labour philosophy of looking after the many and not the few. That does not refer to just developing a fairer tax system that benefits all Kiwis, not the lucky few. It is backed up by a regulatory framework that serves and protects the many from the few. It is quite interesting, because we are talking about New Zealand and Australian alignment of regulation here, and who would have imagined 10 years ago that a man who had defrauded thousands of New Zealanders out of millions of dollars will today fly back from his Sydney penthouse each time he has to serve his community service sentence? It would almost be comical if it was not so obscene.
Closer economic alignment with Australia, while still maintaining our economic sovereignty, which, of course, is very important, is another important platform of Labour’s economic and foreign affairs philosophy. This bill is about best practice, and, as I have mentioned, follows the signing of a joint agreement between the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Peter Costello. We all know the Prime Minister bangs on about catching up with Australia, which is what this bill is about, yet this Government would not even let a bill on compulsory redundancy, which is law in Australia, go to a select committee in order to let the public have their say. Whilst the Australian Government increases worker superannuation, this Government cuts the Cullen fund and continues to erode workers’ rights.
This bill will help build relationships between New Zealand and Australia, but what would really help cement a relationship is closer alignment of worker pay and conditions. I note with interest how oil workers in New Zealand have received a massive pay increase in order to align them with their Australian counterparts who are doing the same job. The path to economic prosperity is not tax cuts for the most fortunate, but increasing salaries and wages. As anyone who knows anything about economics, economic history, and philosophy will understand, there is a direct correlation between wage rates and productivity. This bill complements a trans-Tasman treaty on court proceedings that was signed by—you guessed it—not the Hon Simon Power but Lianne Dalziel, when Labour was in Government. That bill is currently before a select committee, I understand. That bill concentrates on enforcement, and this bill aims to facilitate mutual assistance during the investigative stages through to enforcement proceedings. This is a good bill, a helpful bill, a constructive bill, and a focused bill. It is a Labour bill, and I commend it to the House.
MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this
I begin by saying that jealousy is such an ugly thing, is it not? After 9 years of terrible management of this country, the New Zealand public voted Labour off and decided to go with National. What a wonderful thing that was—and with so many votes! Then after delivering a Budget that actually dealt with the worst recession that this country has ever faced, and, this year, delivering a Budget that 90 percent of the New Zealand population agrees with and that is good for this country, all we get is jealousy from members on the other side of the House.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. I will take the time to take a short call. Economic growth, as many speakers have said before me, is what New Zealand should be focused on. This bill is all about lifting New Zealand’s economic performance. This National-led Government is focused on improving exporters’ access to overseas markets. Only by lifting our economic performance can we create much-needed jobs in this country, boost incomes, and improve living standards for all Kiwi families.
This Government wants to see New Zealand companies do business as easily in Australia as they do at home here in New Zealand, and vice versa for Australian companies, I believe. The easier we make it for companies to operate in both countries, by removing unnecessary barriers, the greater the opportunities for business to make big productivity gains and take up new opportunities for long-term business growth.
The proposals in the bill are part of the single economic market outcome framework announced by our Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister in August last year. This bill enables greater cooperation between the Commerce Commission, its Australian counterpart, and other overseas regulators. We consumers will indirectly benefit from this cooperation by regulators, as will businesses in New Zealand harmed by anti-competitive behaviour or unfair trading by overseas-based parties. Stronger cooperation will increase the likelihood of detecting and successfully penalising overseas-based parties who contravene the Acts. That will promote competition and fair trading in domestic markets, resulting in lower prices, which is a fantastic thing, a greater choice of products, and better consumer protection—and, as Georgina te Heuheu and I would agree, better-quality and cheaper shoes, perhaps.
Prime Minister John Key and Kevin Rudd have provided a stronger new political push towards the vision of a single economic market, and we now have the Trans-Tasman Outcomes Implementation Group, which is co-chaired by senior officials in the Australian Treasury and our Ministry of Economic Development. The Minister of Commerce, the Hon Simon Power, has been given the responsibility to work with his Australian counterparts to advance 27 regulatory outcomes identified by the two leaders.
Substantive progress has already been made on working towards a single cross-border insolvency proceeding. Perhaps Mr Hughes should listen to some of this news; his Labour Party is not doing that great. Progress has also been made on the alignment of accounting standards for profit entities, a process for achieving more ambitious intellectual property outcomes, including a single-application process for patents and trademarks, and a single regulatory framework for patent attorneys.