Street Maryan: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1363] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and speak to the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill having been one of the people on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who at the time considered this measure. The member who has just resumed his seat the Minister for Regulatory Reform who was standing this evening in his capacity as Associate Minister of Commerce was right to draw attention to the fact that this bill was first of all introduced to the House in September 2008. It proceeded to the select committee on 11 March 2009 the closing date for submissions was 14 April 2009 and we on that Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee received five submissions from interested groups and individuals—five submissions. So it was reported back quite promptly after its referral to the committee in the early days of this Government’s first term and here we are an election later around about the same time—11 March 2009 was when it was referred to the committee—3 years almost to the day later and it is finally appearing in front of the House.  
It is quite extraordinary that this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill should have languished for so long on the Order Paper. There is no excuse for it apart from the shambling bumbling incompetent management of the House that we have seen ever since this Government took office. That has only been underscored by the ridiculous speech we have just had to endure from the Minister who was moving it—or forgot to move it—for its second reading. So all of the responsibility for where this piece of legislation has finally arrived lies with the incompetent management of the House which this Government is famous for. It is just lucky that very few members of the public actually realise what a bad job it makes of running this House because if more people knew about it they would be scandalised that the country and this Chamber could be run so incompetently. But there we have it.  
When we considered this bill at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee it was clear that it was a technical bill and it had a limited appeal outside of the select committee and hence attracted only five submissions. But I think there is always a good reason in this House to air some of the principles by which this country’s trading relationships are governed. I think this is another opportunity to do that and I welcome that opportunity.  
First of all this bill clearly aligns us with World Trade Organization practice as the Minister so meticulously read from his notes a moment ago. It makes us consistent with World Trade Organization regimes and there are some reasons why that is a good thing. These reasons are not universally agreed with across this House so it is worth traversing them I think. In terms of the trade portfolio New Zealand has enjoyed for quite some time now a bipartisan approach and that is right and proper. The major parties the National Party and the Labour Party have for many years now agreed on a bipartisan approach to trade and there are very good reasons for that. We are too small a country and we have too short an electoral cycle to allow our trading policy to be changed potentially every 3 years. There is no good purpose served for foreign direct investors whom we welcome or for our exporters if our trading arrangements and the policy framework that our trading arrangements are set by are changed potentially every 3 years.  
So it has been a sensible approach of both Labour and National to adopt a bipartisan approach to trade. I support that. When I had the trade portfolio in Opposition in the last term I supported that and I was pleased to accompany the Minister of Trade on several occasions when he was signing free-trade agreements. He invited me to accompany him on the basis of our bipartisan approach. His predecessor the Hon Phil Goff extended the same courtesy to him when he was in Opposition—when the Minister now Tim Groser was in Opposition. That is a good thing. That allows for policy stability and that is important for not only the productive sector of our economy but the relationships we have with foreign direct investors and the security that they can rely on in terms of our policy settings regardless of whoever is the Government.  
So this bill was no trouble at the select committee. It is in fact a slightly modernising bill but who knows the rules can change in the future as well. But in this sense it is modernising. It actually hands over to some of the expertise that we have in the Ministry of Economic Development—or whatever it was before Steven Joyce got hold of it; I hope those people of expertise are still there—the ability to examine safeguard measures to ensure that New Zealand is adequately protected in its trading arrangements: that at our borders safeguard measures are applied that prevent dumping and that prevent illegal trading arrangements that would undermine and disadvantage New Zealand. There are ways of coping with these things if we think they have happened and they lie in the disputes procedures in the World Trade Organization system. Those disputes procedures are referred to here as well.  
This bill although it will not set the world alight at least will not bring our trading relationships to a close. I think that it should progress but let the Government not be under any illusion that we are impressed with its ability to bring this bill which was ready 3 years ago to the House at this late stage. A little more attention to detail is helpful when the parliamentary programme and the Order Paper are being devised and are being constructed. Surely the Ministers—the Minister of Trade in particular but also the Minister of Commerce—have been warned about this by officials. I am sure officials would have said: “Ministers this bill needs to proceed. We are getting seriously behind the play with World Trade Organization rules and regimes and it is time to bring this into order.” This bill does that and I commend it to the House. Thank you.