Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill and as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has indicated the Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Commerce Committee where Melissa Lee is the chair. We will very much look forward to the debate around what this bill has to offer and how New Zealanders can benefit from it and if necessary make recommendations for tweaking or amending the bill should it prove after submissions from interested parties that it can be improved upon or if there are fishhooks in it that we have not yet spotted. On the surface of course what it does is it makes the regime more responsive to consumers and that has got to be a good thing. On this side of the House we recognise the importance of trade for this country. New Zealand is a trading nation it is the way we make our way in the world and so the Labour Party has with the exception of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement with which we have had some challenges supported trade right since the beginning. In fact the first Labour Government was the party that made a real impact in Europe by looking for new trade avenues there long before the National Party was even formed. Before the National Party was even a perverse idea in somebody's mind the Labour Party was out there beating the drum on trade. National will of course have a difference of opinion on some matters of trade but generally there has been a bipartisan consensus across this House that trade is an important thing. We will of course continue notwithstanding this bill to challenge the Government. It has set itself the test of getting exports up to 40 percent of GDP since it came to office. It has in fact gone backwards during its time and it now sits below 30 percent of GDP. We recognise that if we are going to pay our way in the world as a country we do need to trade and we do need to trade increasingly. Unfortunately this Government seems to be taking us in the opposite direction. But when we see a bill come along that seems a sensible trade measure that clarifies the rules and that is in favour of consumer benefit we want to support that bill. That is our natural instinct on this side of the House. This bill allows for natural disasters and a different course of action when natural disasters happen and essentially a relaxing of the regime that is in place because it might be in fact to the country's benefit to take goods in a situation that is different from the ordinary situation despite it technically being a case of dumping. I have had a chance to flick through some of the background papers gathered under the Official Information Act and I can see that the ministry itself has provided analysis of a range of options and assessed in a handy matrix form for the Minister the range of options and whether they achieve the goals that a country might set out for itself in terms of assessing the change against the status quo. Preserving the good sides of anti-dumping legislation is one of the goals the ministry has set itself but also providing discretion in situations that are different and giving that discretion so that the public might benefit. It has done it in a simple tick-box form that pretty much anyone could understand. I encourage people at home who are interested in this kind of thing to apply for such papers under the Official Information Act. It is something I was discussing with a constituent just yesterday how few people do use the Official Information Act. It is a favourite of course of journalists and politicians to get the background information to make sure that the Minister has made the right decisions is across his or her paperwork and is acting in the best interests of the country given the advice that they have received. But ordinary members of the public out there people in middle New Zealand can of course request information under the Official Information Act too. They will receive by and large copies of the paperwork that a Minister will receive in their decision-making process and they can see how decisions have been made. Often that aids in the process of select committees but it can aid generally in the making of good law and the understanding of how we come to be in the situations we are in as a country. The first speaker for Labour the Hon Clayton Cosgrove touched on the fact that businesses want clear rules. They want a level playing field for trade. They want to be sure that there is not dumping going on that is going to affect domestic industries in a negative way because of unfair behaviours—behaviours that are outside the norms of international trade and the expectations set up by trade rules. That is fair enough because with clear rules some certainty and expectations—that is when businesses prosper. When the rules are clear when the playing field is laid out and everyone is playing by the same rules we back our New Zealand industries to be innovative to put their best foot forward and to compete on the international scene. Of course on this side of the House we feel that there is more that could be done. We see some distortions in our economy. We see money going into the speculative sector in the housing market that could be going into the productive sector and supporting businesses. We see a lack of investment available for hard-working New Zealand business people. It is very hard to get the capital that people need and of course one of the consequences of that is that we have seen fewer businesses created per annum under the current Government than we saw under the previous Labour Government. That in part is because I would contend the members opposite are more interested in big established businesses and less interested in new businesses coming through. They are less interested in the ordinary middle New Zealander who risks their shirt every day. They are more interested in backing vested interests in the ultra-wealthy. That is something we have seen time and time again in the nature of legislation that is brought to this House. However today we are not criticising that. We are supporting this bill for the fact that it seems like common-sense policy. It is not the big idea that is going to change things and be a game-changer in New Zealand. It is not the big idea that will get us to exports reaching the Government's goal of 40 percent of GDP rather than going backwards. It is not the big idea that will turn the corner for us and see us earning more per capita. Unfortunately wages in New Zealand have been static under the Government as expenses have gone up and funding in the health sector has dropped and so on. Things are getting tougher for New Zealanders. This is not the thing that will change that overnight but it does seem to be a sensible measure that we would want to support to the select committee to have a full examination because we do support sensible measures albeit they are small steps in the right direction. So just to remind ourselves what we are talking about here is goods that are dumped. They are considered to be dumped if their export price to New Zealand is less than the price the goods are sold for in the exporting country. So you can see the pattern of behaviour that is being described. Goods that are subsidised by foreign Governments can be considered to be dumped as well. Where there is a distortion in trade practices we have legislation in place that stops dumping practices because they are and can be injurious to New Zealand industries. Where there is no New Zealand industry present where it is unlikely that goods coming cheaply into the country are going to be injurious to an existing industry they may in fact be of benefit to consumers in New Zealand. We would support this change and that is in fact as I read the legislation what it is designed to achieve. We only hope that this can get through in a good form. We recognise that with the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which Minister Goldsmith brought to the House before there was some backtracking and a curious path taken. We hope that this one has a safer journey through the select committee. We ourselves will be putting our shoulder to that cause to make sure that this legislation is debated fully thoroughly and comes back to the House hopefully in an improved form because there are always good suggestions that come forward from the public and interested parties. We will bring the bill back to this House and debate it fully and see a better regime as a result. Thank you.