Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill and as my colleagues have signalled Labour is supporting this legislation. We are keen to see this legislation go to a select committee so that some of the questions that have arisen in this debate and I am sure others that will be raised by submitters can be teased out. As speakers before me have outlined the purpose of this bill is to introduce a public interest test into New Zealand's anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime and essentially this changes laws to allow goods into the country without duties being imposed on them if it is considered that consumers will benefit. That is the critical part of this legislation. It is about getting that balance right—about balancing how a consumer will benefit from these changes against the need to protect local industries—and that is the debate that we are hearing in this House. We are saying that we do not want to see our local industries destroyed but we do need to put in place a regime that sees that consumers will benefit and that is what the public interest test that is going to be introduced under this legislation will do. It will give us the tools to weigh up whether or not there is a public interest in this—whether or not ordinary people when they go down and look to purchase certain goods and materials are going to benefit from this. There is a more general ability to do this and my colleague David Cunliffe spoke about that in his contribution but there is specifically pointed to in the legislation an ability to do this in the period following a natural disaster. I think that we do need to think about what happens to a supply chain when you have a rapid increase in demand and there is just no way that the local suppliers can meet that demand and that is what we have seen in the case of the Christchurch rebuild. I think it is worth going back and thinking about the genesis of this legislation. We know that the bill came out of the Productivity Commission's 2012 report on housing affordability and that that is where this idea first came from. This is a report that was presented to the Government in 2012 and here we are in 2016 debating this measure. Some could say that it is a little bit too late and it is no wonder that we have not done the things that we need to do to address the really real and critical issues of housing affordability because this is 4 years on from the Government being alerted and this is a measure—it is not a silver bullet but it is a measure—that could have been introduced to address some of those issues. There was the report to the Government. It directed the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to undertake a market-level study into the construction sector to identify barriers to improved housing affordability. The regulatory impact statement that sits alongside this bill explains that the ministry identified tariffs and anti-dumping duties on residential construction materials as two barriers to competition and productivity and it went on to give some specificity around those claims. So this is legislation that is born out of a particular need in our country at the moment. But after that report it came through that there was another phase of some consultation where the public did have a chance to have their say on some measures that were going to be introduced under this legislation. One of the things that came through really clearly in that public consultation which was carried out throughout 2014 when the discussion paper was released was that there was a range of opinions. Twenty submissions were received on the discussion paper. Thirteen submitters expressed support for the status quo while seven submitters supported the adoption of the public interest test. A range of questions were raised in these submissions whether it was the people who were supporting the status quo or the submitters who actually did want to see the introduction of a public interest test and they are questions that the select committee will need to consider when this legislation goes before that committee. One question will be around the limits of the test: what are the parameters that we are putting in place and whether it is fit for purpose in order to address the issues that have been spelt out which the legislation is trying to address. What we learn from the legislation in terms of when the imposition of a duty is being investigated as to whether it is in the public interest is that the chief executive of the relevant Government department that administers the bill must investigate the following issues. They must look at the effect of the duty on the prices of the dumped or subsidised goods:". They must look at "the effect of the duty on the prices of like goods produced in New Zealand:" so this is very much having a look at what the impact of making these changes will do to our local industries. They must look at "the effect of the duty on the choice or availability of like goods:". They must look at "the effect of the duty on product and service quality:". They must look at "the effect of the duty on the financial viability of the domestic industry:" so we can see that many of these tests are there to ensure that we do not destroy our domestic industries in the process. They must look at "the effect of the duty on employment levels:" and this is going to be a critical test. We do not want to see goods coming in without the proper thought given to what it does to jobs here in New Zealand. They must look at "whether there is an alternative supply … of like goods available:" and any other factor the chief executive considers might be important. So these are going to be really important criteria for the select committee to consider and I am sure that the submitters who will submit on this legislation will address those. Are these the right criteria that we are putting in place for making these decisions? Are these the things—or are there more—that should be considered when deciding whether or not to apply this legislation? It will also need to be considered how this legislation and how allowing these goods in will fit with our international obligations. This was something that was raised when there was the call for public submissions in the discussion document so I am sure something the select committee will need to consider is how this fits within other trade agreements and with the other objectives of the World Trade Organization of which we are part and how New Zealand is seen to fulfil its obligations there. As I have mentioned many times one of the things I am sure the select committee will turn its mind to and give good consideration to when the bill appears in front of that group of parliamentarians is the impact on local industries and that will be something. One of the other issues—and there will be many but another issue that I picked up from the regulatory impact statement that was raised in the initial round of consultation on the discussion document was the complexity in administering the rules that are put in place. Are we making a set of rules where it is possible for them to be administered and for them to be checked that they are being applied in a fair and even-handed way? So these are all questions that the select committee will turn its attention to and I am sure that it will give due consideration to them because these are really important questions that do need to be addressed and I think that everybody knows that. But we do have to ensure that we are getting that balance right between making sure that our consumers are getting a fair deal and making sure that our local industries are also receiving a fair deal. I think we have a number of case studies where we can have a look at what happens in a place after a natural disaster like Christchurch where you do have the normal demand and supply mechanisms severely upturned. But what we do have to realise here is that this legislation although it seems sensible—and Labour is always happy to consider sensible trade legislation and consider it at a select committee. We are more than happy to do that but we cannot kid ourselves that this is the big idea that we need in terms of how we grow our economy and how we provide the kinds of incomes that we need so that all New Zealanders can get a fair deal. This is not the big ideal that will get us exports reaching the Government's goal of 40 percent of GDP. This is tinkering around the edges. We are happy to support this. We think there are questions and fishhooks that need to be addressed at a select committee and we certainly will play our part in that."