Nash Stuart: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:539. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):As mentioned we support this bill. It is interesting when we talk about this bill being introduced in 2008. It was an interrupted reading and the last two National MPs to speak on this were actually Tau Henare and—who was that other bloke who was in trade? I cannot even remember his name. It is shocking is it not? It was a National MP who is not here anymore. It has taken a long time for this bill to get here but not only that this bill actually ratifies a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement that was established in 1994. It has taken a long time for New Zealand to recognise its WTO obligations and I actually think that both parties are probably to blame for not getting it to the third reading a lot earlier. In fact there have been three Governments. There has been a National Government there has been a Labour Government and there has been another National Government since the time that this was actually ratified in Marrakesh by the WTO in 1994.As has been mentioned this bill is about anti-dumping. It is a temporary protection that talks about temporary protection from serious injury. “Serious injury” is not particularly well defined but it basically says in the bill that “serious injury” is an injury that is imminent. As mentioned by the last speaker there are 75 days for an investigation period. This may be drawn out if the chief executive or the applicant provides further information but I would hope from a business perspective and a trade perspective that it would all be done and dusted within 75 days.Some things that the chief executive must investigate when a safeguard application has been brought forward are things about whether the increased imports—this is about increased imports—have actually caused serious injury or a threat of serious injury. So there must be a very real threat of injury. So for example we cannot have just a dumping of material that does not cause serious injury even if it is dumped but there is no injury that has been caused. It is also about whether the increased imports were due to unforeseen developments and whether the safeguard measures were necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic injury of the increased imports.We are a very open economy and that has served us well over the last 20 years but because of that it has brought risks. We have seen our local manufacturing industry become decimated over the last 6 to 9 years and in fact the number of excuses that have been used are things like the high exchange rate. But every now and then we do get a dumping issue here and I think I remember one—Fisher and Paykel Appliances actually. I think there was Haier a Chinese company that dumped washing machines or whiteware into the country and so an anti-dumping action was brought against us. But you know when we talk about this Labour has always been the party that has supported free trade. We signed the free-trade agreement with China. One of our own Prime Ministers Mike Moore was Director-General of the WTO. He is now our Ambassador to the United States working very hard on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So Labour has had a very very active role.We had Phil Goff who I think ended up signing more free-trade agreements than any previous trade Minister for and against. But the thing about free trade—you know I am not skiting or anything like that—is that we have basically taken a bipartisan approach. In fact I think if I am right the only party in this Parliament that really has not supported free-trade agreements certainly in my time has been the Greens. They may have their reasons but I think that in the 21st century free trade is just an economic necessity. In this day and age as countries become more and more specialised it is not just companies but countries that are seeking global competitive advantages. But also with an opening economy what we are finding is that we do need to ensure that the industries we do have in this country are protected because they are open to abuse. You know around the world there are instances where either feast or famine in one area—and I am not talking just about foodstuffs—creates an opportunity for dumping. We were one of the most liberalised economies very early on and we have seen this so we do need to protect these.The existing Act which is the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 was subject to review under the Labour-led Government and that did include wide public consultation because it has pretty serious consequences. The last thing we wanted to see and the last thing we need to see in this country are companies and industries closing down simply because of dumped goods by a large major global competitor from another country.So we do support this bill. We think it adds just further strength to our already enviable reputation but as mentioned it brings us into line with WTO regulations which in the end is most important. Thank you.