Hutchison Paul: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1880] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to support this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which was initially tabled by the Hon Lianne Dalziel back in September 2008 but which is now being debated under the name of that very excellent Minister Simon Power. What a great team National has in this field given that we have Tim Groser as our trade Minister. He is doing extraordinary and sterling work on New Zealand’s behalf day in day out. 
This bill implements a new safeguards regime for New Zealand. It safeguards the emergency measures that are applied at our border usually in the form of a duty that may be taken to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in the number of imported goods resulting from unforeseen developments. 
Although I was not here for the earlier part of the debate I did happen to just catch a glimpse of the speech by Dr Kennedy Graham which was very erudite. He was talking about the concept of free trade being ideal but that that is only a partial truth. He said that the Green Party espouses fair trade and green trade. He talked about what those are exactly and he talked about the importance of having global equity and global sustainability. These qualities may be very admirable but they are almost impossible—if not actually impossible—to legislate for because fair trade would be almost impossible to define and trade being free and fair would require extraordinarily individual integrity in all the players. This bill as its title suggests is about safeguard measures usually in the form of a duty that may be taken to provide those temporary protections we have talked about earlier. 
I also happened to get a glimpse of Sir Roger Douglas’ speech in which he talked about how vital and fundamental free trade is to increasing economic growth on a world basis. What a contribution he has made since the 1980s in terms of opening up New Zealand markets. Today when my wife rang me to ask about opportunities in buying whiteware I marvelled that it is extraordinary that in New Zealand we have hugely wide choice at very competitive prices and we have had that choice for a long time. Goods at the best quality and at the best prices of anywhere in the world have probably been available to us through our pursuit of free trade over some period of years. 
But I note that Sir Roger said he had some suspicions about the bill including the question of whether it would be used to hinder free trade in some way the need to meet World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—which I believe the bill is absolutely in alignment with—and the questions of whether it is the appropriate way to meet those WTO rules and whether it could be used as an effective non-tariff trade barrier. As I understand it that last possibility is highly unlikely. 
Sir Roger said that the principles involved in international trade should be basically the same as in any voluntary exchange. In international trade firstly the people of a particular nation can undoubtedly sell things that that nation produces well and effectively and it can buy things that it does not produce well or easily. Secondly it allows an individual country to concentrate on what it does best and produce that product at the lowest cost per unit. Thirdly it promotes competition in domestic markets and allows consumers to purchase goods at an internationally competitive best available price. That is very much like the example I was talking about earlier on in terms of the availability and choice of a whole range of products in New Zealand. 
I understand that my excellent colleague Jacqui Dean mentioned the flood into New Zealand markets of Chinese underpants. Again around Christmas time my dear wife happened to give me a book by that excellent author Joe Bennett about his pursuit to find out exactly where those Chinese underpants came from. He traced them back to the very silk worms that had produced the cotton to enable that particular brand to be made. That pursuit took him many months and went over a huge variety of different importers and people who put the product together. But again at the end of the day what consumers are interested in is quality and value for money. That indeed is one of the great values of free trade. 
I note that the current bill has a regulatory impact statement and that does give one comfort as to the fact that the degree of regulation being imposed by this bill is minimal. It should also give a degree of comfort to Sir Roger Douglas. I note that only four investigations have been carried out under the Temporary Safeguards Authority Act 1987 with one investigation resulting in a safeguard being applied. However New Zealand is potentially exposed to a greater risk of World Trade Organization dispute settlements and that is why it is so necessary to have this bill. It is to ensure that if there were a challenge through the courts we have a mechanism to improve the efficiency and clarity of the safeguarding legislation. I note that there was a discussion of a non-regulatory option but the view was that no non-regulatory measures exist that would be capable of achieving the specified objectives. 
In the bill there are a variety of regulatory options which have been taken up. There is also a statement of net benefit of proposal including the total regulatory costs. The key benefit of the preferred option with regard to the Government is a significant reduction in the risk of a successful World Trade Organization dispute settlement or judicial review should an investigation be concluded and a safeguard measure applied. In terms of business there are not expected to be any significant additional costs to business and in terms of societal effects New Zealanders as a whole will benefit significantly from the reduction of trade barriers. This indeed is a very worthwhile bill and it gives me great pleasure to support it in its first reading.