Street Maryan: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to the Committee stage on Part 1 of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I am particularly interested because this is the Committee stage Mr Chairman and your rulings recently have required us to stay very much on task even though we are debating fairly widely across the whole of Part 1. The importance of the Committee stage as I understand it is that the Minister in the chair defends the legislation. The Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Commerce is required to defend and explain—clause by clause if necessary—this legislation. It has come into the House in the Minister’s name. He is responsible for it and he must answer questions about every clause.  
I would like to begin but before I start on that tack I will just say one thing in response to the member Dr Paul Hutchison who has just resumed his seat. This bill was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel on 9 September 2008 and then there was an election a couple of months later. It was referred to the select committee on 11 March 2009. It was reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on which I sat and deliberated on this bill on 7 July 2009. So it took from only March to July to dispose of the bill at the select committee. Since then it has languished on the Order Paper for nearly 3 years—3 whole years. So I do not want to hear another squeak out of that member about whether or not this bill should have arrived in the House earlier. Of course it should have arrived earlier and it was entirely the Government’s fault and responsibility that it has not.  
But can I say on that note that I am quite glad that this bill has arrived in the Committee stage today because it gives me an opportunity to ask this Minister in the chair what he understands by some of the clauses. I was present when he gave the first reading. It was an automaton kind of speech and it was clear that he was not very au fait with the bill itself. So I would like him to take a call any time he likes this evening. 
Let us start with the explanatory note. I would like this Minister to demonstrate his competence in regard to this bill by explaining what the explanatory note of the bill means where it says that it promotes “efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes.” I would like to know what this Minister understands by the word “transparent”. Does he understand that “Yes” means yes and “No” means no? Does he understand that when he is asked a yes/no question—a closed question—his two options are to say “Yes” or “No” and that it is reasonably simple to answer a closed question?  
Does he understand that transparency is required in all a Minister’s dealings? Even if it is behaviour prior to his entry back into Parliament and his taking up of a ministerial warrant the nature of the man and the behaviour beforehand go to what we can expect a Minister to uphold.  
I would also like to know what the Minister understands by the words “objective investigative and decision-making processes”. Are objective investigative processes characterised by obfuscation or are they characterised by clarity and a distance—an objectivity? Even if done under legal advice is obfuscation the same as objective investigative and decision-making processes or is something more required of the Minister in charge of this bill?  
This is the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Does this Minister understand the meaning of the word “safeguard”? Does he understand that there is more to the law than the words on the page? Does he understand that in fact the intention the import and the ethical nature of conduct also go to the way that laws are made in the House? This Minister whose ethical behaviour seems not to be a problem— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! Now just take your seat. This is not an opportunity to do a character assassination about allegations against the Minister. I think the member had done quite well up to that point. We are debating the content of Part 1. I am not going to tolerate the allegation side of it coming into this in the way the member just did it. The Hon Marian Hobbs. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: No sorry Mr Chair—Maryan Street. Maryan Street. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Oh I am sorry; what did I do? 
Hon Member 
: Called her Hobbs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well can I apologise to the member. I think perhaps I could just make the comparator that when the Hon Marian Hobbs was in the Chair she was very prescriptive about being on message. I was probably thinking of her when I inadvertently called the member by that name and for that I apologise. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. It is fine; I take it as a compliment. To have Marian Hobbs channelled in this way may in fact be quite useful in this debate. However— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well I’m moving away. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Ha ha! Let me turn to clause 10 in Part 1 which talks about “Access to information relevant to safeguard investigation and treatment of confidential information”. Could we please have the Minister’s explanation of what is meant by “safeguard investigation and treatment of confidential information”? In the terms of this bill what is understood by “confidential information”? Is it like any other kind of meaning of confidential information—that is information that may not be disclosed—and on what grounds would that information not be disclosed? I would invite the Minister to get on his feet at some point in this Committee stage— 
Grant Robertson 
: Any time.  
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: —any time would be fine—and explain “safeguard” explain “confidential” and explain how this legislation can be deemed to be doing all the things it says it wants to do with this Minister in charge. 
This is an important piece of legislation. It was disposed of quickly by the select committee. It has been sat on by this Government for no good purpose other than the fact that it cannot organise its way out of a paper bag so the bill has not got to the top of the Order Paper until such time as the Government could not think of what else to do. So it has been put in as a bit of a gap filler but it does resonate. It does resonate. Of course we want a system that is compliant with World Trade Organization requirements. There are preventions in the bill that protect and safeguard New Zealand trade and New Zealand industry. They are important and they are part of the safeguard measures but over and above all that we have to be able to have confidence that this Government understands the meaning of the words on the page. It is not clear to members on this side of the Chamber that we have a Government that understands the meaning of the words on the page.