Goff Phil: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 2 of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill deals with miscellaneous matters. It deals with the temporary safeguard authority which is of course abolished under this bill. It is abolished because the responsibilities of the temporary safeguard authorities have been taken over by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Labour put this in the original bill and it does not object to that because it is a more efficient way of dealing with it. Of course the purpose of this bill was to promote “efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes.”But I have got to ask the question again. If the purpose of this bill is about transparency and objective investigative processing can we rely on the Government to actually carry out the purpose of this bill? It has been anything but objective and transparent with the investigation of the Minister who was formerly in charge of this bill the Hon John Banks. This was a Minister who was known to have taken two donations of $25000 each—$50000—and omitted to declare those donations—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: Well it is about whether the Government can be relied upon to be transparent in this way. I have got to say that there has been no transparency in the manner in which this bill has been dealt with and why this bill has been delayed for such a long time.I come back to the point that if there was a general agreement across the floor of the House on this bill can I get the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce to stand up and say why it has taken 5 years for this bill to go through. Was it because at least 2 of those wasted years were because John Banks was in charge of the bill and theGovernment did not have confidence in what John Banks did in his oversight of the bill? Or alternatively was it because the Government felt embarrassed by what John Banks represented and did not want him sitting where Mr Foss is sitting because there would be questions about—if this bill was about objective investigation and transparency—whether he could be relied upon to ensure that or whether he would simply be an embarrassment to the Government? He was after all—as clause 4 of the bill sets out—appointed under the authority of the Prime Minister. But why did the Prime Minister leave that Minister in the chair when he was known to have made a donation and not—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] No. Order! I have cautioned the member before. This is a very narrow debate. Part 2 is a very narrow debate and we are dealing with clauses 26 through to 31. It is a very narrow debate and I will ask the member to come back to the provisions of the bill and speak on nothing that is outside the scope of that.Hon PHIL GOFF: Thank you Mr Chairman. The temporary safeguard authorities of course had the right to enforce safeguard measures. Although New Zealand is a country that believes in free trade and believes in not having excessive protectionism there are circumstances where you need to safeguard the trading interests of your country. We need to safeguard that when for example there is a surge in imports those imports could damage our domestic industries and there is a need for a period of time to allow domestic industries to adjust to that. There are circumstances where there may be dumping by another country. Dumping is a process whereby the country of origin of the exports is actually selling the goods in the New Zealand market at a lower cost than what the normal value is of those goods in their own country. That is undesirable. There is another case for having safeguards and that is the need for countervailing duties. In some instances we find that the competition from imported goods is not fair competition at all; it is a lack of competition created by the fact that the Government in the country that is exporting to New Zealand is actually heavily subsidising those goods.So that is why we set up the temporary safeguard authorities. They were set up way back in I think 1987 under a Labour Government. The purpose of those safeguard authorities continued to be relevant. We needed protection where goods were subsidised or where goods were being dumped. Therefore we needed to have a continuation of those functions but the ministry is now in a position where it is able to carry out those functions. I think it is also fair to say that the temporary safeguard authorities were hindered in their work by the fact that they were given only 35 days to consider whether there was a need for safeguards. Frankly 35 days was not a sufficient period of time. This bill allows the ministry that replaces the temporary safeguard authorities to have a period of time of 75 days or in some instances up to 85 days. So I think the provisions that are set out in Part 2 are relevant provisions.I think it is worthwhile mentioning too that a number of the amendments made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee are sensible amendments. They were accepted by both sides of the committee. That is although allowing ministerial discretion in terms of imposing safeguards they narrow the breadth of that discretion in order to increase certainty and to allow where a provisional safeguard was set in place and a final duty was not imposed for that duty to be refunded to the exporter concerned. There were also provisions for countries to be exempted from the provisional safeguards. That is where for example the countries are developing countries and we have obligations under the World Trade Organization that we should not impose safeguards against them. And clearly where we have negotiated specific trade treaties there is a need sometimes to exempt countries from the imposition of safeguard measures. I think that the bill is sensible.We have got a provision here for transition from the old Act and maybe the question has to be raised that we are allowing for transitional provisions but in fact there has already been a 5-year period when this bill has been held in abeyance. People knew that it was there and people knew that it had wide support but they could not understand why the Government had held up the passage of this bill for so long. It is relevant to ask—and the Minister has steadfastly refused to take a call on this—why this bill has been delayed for 5 years. This House is meant to expedite legislation. It is meant to be efficient in the way it passes legislation. Why is it that if this measure is important for the protection of New Zealand industry and for ensuring fair trade we have waited for 5 years? This bill was on the books when the Government was elected in 2008. Why is it Minister that the Government has been embarrassed about bringing this bill back before the House and progressing it?I think the Committee deserves an explanation on that point. I think the country deserves an explanation and most particularly New Zealand industry needs an explanation as to why the Government has delayed this measure. Why was it that his predecessor and the Minister before him for that matter have taken so long? I have heard of transitional provisions and this section deals with transitional provisions; I have never heard of a transition of 5 years when a Government is meant to have passed a piece of legislation but has failed to do so. It is not that it was controversial; I think it is supported by all parties in the Committee.Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that the debate on this part of the bill was narrow and I fear that the member is veering away from—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I am listening very carefully and I am taking note of what is being said. The member has 53 seconds remaining if he wishes.Hon PHIL GOFF: Thank you. Fifty-three seconds is such a small period of time when you consider that this Government has delayed for 5 years the passage of legislation that it now tells this Committee is important to pass. If the Minister will not take a call on this bill the Committee is entitled to ask why he is not prepared to do so. Does he not know the answer to why the Government has been hopelessly inefficient about passing this bill? Or does he know the answer—and I suspect that the whole Committee knows the answer—as to why this bill has been delayed but is shamed and embarrassed that it has taken so long because of the inadequacies of the previous Minister?