Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill in this its third reading. There are three things that I would like to cover today. The first one is actually what brought this bill about. We had a set of circumstances. The circumstances actually accrued from a natural disaster. After the Canterbury earthquakes we determined that it would be a good idea to free up the ease of bringing building materials into New Zealand because of the high volume of construction that was going to be required which ordinarily would otherwise cause prices to rise. What the Opposition members do not realise because they think—and you can hear it in their speeches throughout this bill's passage—that it was because of the Christchurch earthquake. Well the Christchurch earthquake was a set of circumstances under which the problem arose. The problem was the volume of construction required and what that would otherwise do to material prices.In making a legislative change then to allow us to act the way we needed to we realised that actually there was an opportunity to put a framework in place to allow a Government of the day to adapt and respond to whatever sorts of events might be facing whatever part of our industry or economy at a given time. It is not just earthquakes or floods; there could be dry seasons that lead to growing issues. There could be any number of things that might occur that could lead to a shortage or a situation where allowing more free flowing of goods from outside New Zealand would be a good thing for consumers in particular. So what we look at here in the Opposition's opposition to this is that they are saying that every time something happens pass another bill—get together in Parliament take up time do more legislation. What that shows us is that they are an issues-based group. They are down in the weeds at a detail level. If you want to be nice about it we could say they are trying to manage things whereas this Government by putting in a proactive framework is showing that we are about governing—governing not simply managing.The second part I would like to cover—and it was raised by the Hon David Parker yesterday and I think he touched upon it again today actually—is showing a failing of understanding of how the processes under the bill would work. In fact it is a misunderstanding of how the process works today. It was raised particularly yesterday that the passage of this bill when enacted could mean that dumping would not be investigated. Well that is simply not the case because the process today is that if a complaint is made about a suspicion of dumping an investigation is undertaken and it is determined whether or not it exists in fact. When this bill is passed that will remain 100 percent the same: if there is a complaint that dumping could be occurring an investigation will be undertaken. It will be determined whether or not that is happening in fact and only then—then and only then—will it be decided whether a public interest test should be assessed. So this does not compromise the investigation into dumping nor the finding of fact as to whether it is occurring; it simply then gets to a point to say: Right we know it's there. We know we now have a right to take action. Do we want to make an assessment as to whether there's a public interest to set aside the action that we're allowed to take?".The third part I will touch on before finishing is the idea that somehow the Minister is responsible for that. Again it shows a complete lack of understanding of the bill and how the processes that flow from it work. The Minister gets to determine yes whether we should have a look to see whether there is a public interest in the situation but it is officials who actually undertake the public interest test. They are the ones who publish the findings of that public interest test. Yes the Minister will make a decision as to what to do but they will make that decision with the information in the public domain. So in fact it is not really the Minister who will be determining at their whim whether or not a public interest will apply; they will be deciding whether to investigate that particular aspect and then making a decision based on official material that is supplied back.So very simply this is a very good bill. It is a bill that shows a governing approach to the country not a management one. It is one that I wholeheartedly support and I commend it to the House."