Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This bill would be laughable if it was not so tragic. This Government aimed it said at the beginning of its time to increase exports as a proportion of the economy to 40 percent. It is now below 30 percent and dropping. The Government has failed to generate an export economy and here is yet one more measure that undermines our domestic producers.This solution if you can call it that is a solution to a problem that does not exist. This solution is one that Australia has twice looked at and rejected resoundingly. They know it would undermine their domestic producers. They know it would undermine productive industry in the Australian economy. Over there they are willing to ban non-resident foreign speculators from their housing market and they support their domestic businesses. Across the House here we see from the National Government no such willingness. It backs non-resident foreign speculators in our housing market and allows them to bid up prices beyond what New Zealanders can afford—to not even live in the houses—and it is today introducing to this House this Parliament a measure that will undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand's domestic producing businesses. There it is undermining New Zealand's businesses and the Minister could not even answer a simple question or several simple questions that I put in the Committee stage.How does this affect upstream suppliers? The bill does not even address that question. The officials who spoke to us at the Commerce Committee acknowledged that it did not address that question. The Minister it seems is not even aware that it does not address the issue of upstream suppliers and the effect on their businesses in New Zealand.This bill proposes that we put aside the normal flat rules that World Trade Organization (WTO) standards would suggest were the logical thing to do to create fair markets across jurisdictions—the kind of thing that New Zealand argues for in international fora: that there should be a level playing field where there are no massive subsidies for businesses and there is no protectionism across the board. This bill proposes that we put that to one side when it suits us. So when we go to argue at an international trade forum that New Zealand believes in a level playing field the rest of the world is going to laugh at us and say: No no. You oppose those kinds of things when it suits you—when it suits you. Right here and now you're saying that you will accept dumped goods from overseas if you think it suits you—if you think they will come into the New Zealand market at a time that you need them to."We know that when this has been needed in the past as with the Christchurch earthquake the Parliament was willing to sit and put through measures that allowed dumped goods or ones that had a countervailing duty element to them into the country. We did that as a Parliament. Why would we want to put that power into one Minister's hands? Why would we want to put that discretion into one single Minister's hands particularly when pressure from foreign Governments could be applied to that Minister to take dumped goods or face challenges when trying to get New Zealand goods into their country?We know that non-tariff barriers are one of the big issues in contemporary trade internationally and this makes us more vulnerable as a country to pressure placed on one Minister. This is a much less robust regime. That is without even mentioning how the Government would assess when it was harmful to the domestic industry. How much does this Government know about emerging technologies about innovative new companies?This Government has allowed fewer new businesses to form than was happening under the previous Labour Government. New business start-ups have been much slower under this Government and that is backed up. They sing loud and clear about the fact that this Government is bad for small business in New Zealand.Here is another example. It is the innovative players that come in that spot goods that seem to be a bit too expensive coming into our market and that come up with innovative solutions and start new companies. Instead this Government is saying: "No. If we don't know about you or we haven't heard about you yet we'll allow these goods to come in from overseas and be dumped on the market and that will squash your innovative idea." That is the effect of this legislation. The Minister has not even addressed that problem in the speech that she made just now.Of course there is also the problem of the criteria that are going to be applied. They are subjective. We heard from officials at the select committee that they could not say because they were subjective—and they used the word "subjective"—how these criteria would be weighted. There are eight criteria put forward by the Government—eight factors that will be considered when assessing whether dumping in the New Zealand market is appropriate.Here are the factors: a focus on prices; product choice and availability; product and service quality; the financial viability of the domestic industry not specified how; employment levels not specified at what level; and competition in the market not specified at what level. All of these things are not specified at any particular level. There are eight of them and the priority given to one over the other is also not specified.This is basically a blank cheque to the Minister to say at the Minister's will that he or she can allow goods to be dumped in the New Zealand market affecting whatever industry. Possibly if that industry speaks up it will get worse treatment. That has been the track record of this Government in the last week or so. If anyone opposes what they do they will knock them on the head and tell them that the Government will not be sympathetic to them. That is what has happened. That is the Ngaro effect. That is what New Zealanders are worried about with this kind of legislation that concentrates power in one Minister's hands and says that the Government knows best about innovation in the economy.The Government knows better than the World Trade Organization (WTO) about setting a level playing field! The Government should just leave the decision in the hands of one Minister—in the hands of one Minister—about how this regime applies! I do not think that is right and I think most New Zealanders would say that this bill introduces something that is not ideal for our country.What we need actually is a fresh pair of eyes. We need a fresh approach to these issues. We actually need a new Government that will look to make sure that small business is not disadvantaged in this way a Government that actually listens when business submitters come in and say: "This will jeopardise domestic industries." We need a fresh approach where when approached by businesses that come in to make submissions the Government will say: "We understand that this will make your capital decisions more expensive and risky and that you will be considering going to Australia and not investing in New Zealand as a consequence of this legislation the Government is ramming through the House."We need a fresh approach. We need a Labour Government because Labour will listen to those small businesses and to the big businesses and to those who produce exports for New Zealand. Labour will not be content to manage demise as the Government has. It has watched exports as a proportion of the economy drop year after year under its watch and it is projected to drop further still. This Government has been managing an economy that is based on speculation because it does not understand how to support the productive sector how to grow exports. It can talk a big game it can publish glossy brochures but the facts speak for themselves. We need a fresh look at these things. We need a Labour Government which will actually understand small business and will support people to generate the wealth we need as a country so that we are not an economy based on speculation and selling houses to one another. That is not the way to get rich long term and I think most New Zealanders understand that and can see that this legislation contributes nothing to that picture.I have touched briefly already on the concern that will be in the international fora for our foreign affairs folks who are over there arguing for a level playing field. As we say this will take that level playing field under WTO rules except where it suits us to do otherwise and will concentrate that power in the hands of one person. I have raised the issue of how this bill solves a problem that does not really seem to exist because when it has arisen in the past—when there has been a need for goods affected by countervailing duties to be brought into the country—we have as a Parliament agreed that it was a good thing. That was in the case of the Canterbury earthquake.In the select committee it became abundantly apparent that the Government did not really have a rationale for this bill. It is not clear what pressure has been put on the Government or whose bright idea it was to bring this legislation to the House but it is a solution for a problem that does not exist. Worse than that it will damage our domestic industries and will make their investment decisions more costly because it introduces uncertainty. They have an uncertainty as a result of this which they will have to factor into their cost of production and they may decide to set up in Australia as well.It is really unfortunate that this Government is sitting with these old ideas—that it cannot take a fresh look at these issues and say: "We need a Government that supports business to build exports in a real way." But that is not what it is doing. It is managing a decline in exports as a proportion of our economy. Building a housing speculators' paradise is not good for most New Zealanders. The Government knows that middle New Zealand is getting sick of its arrogance and this bill speaks to that. It speaks to a Government that is out of ideas. We need a fresh approach."