Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would like to start my contribution by giving sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Jacqui Dean and wishing her the best in her role. I would further like to work towards a friendly relationship by sincerely thanking the likes of Mr Hudson and other backbench National MPs who have contributed this evening. Their short spin contributions have given me ample time to make a full contribution this evening for which I am truly truly grateful. The Minister spoke about the select committee being a robust process over the period. It was a robust process because it was split fifty-fifty in terms of those representing the people of New Zealand on that committee. So it was very robust but it was only those in the Opposition parties who were actually doing their job and listening not only to industry submitters but to the officials who gave information to the Government. It seems that in having this bill brought forward this evening the Government has decided to not do the same. The new Minister seems to have ignored that advice of her own officials and it does not seem to be a portentous start to her new role. The Minister's description of the change in what she describes as a contribution to the latticework of her discretionary powers will achieve absolutely nothing. It will harm business. If this bill passes let us be very very straightforward about what that will do. It is clear that business will immediately—immediately—have to manage new risk in making business decisions because that is what this bill does and I hope to have the time to go into the detail of how that is being achieved unfortunately through this legislation. I would like to just highlight the contribution of the chair of the Commerce Committee. She in her contribution seemed to imply that by making these changes we were complying with World Trade Organization (WTO) requirements. We already comply with WTO requirements and further to that our compliance is very very discretionary in terms of our anti-dumping commitments under the WTO system. What the chair said did not seem to ring true for me. I would like to address Mr Hudson's contribution but truly I cannot be bothered. This bill was drafted in response to the cost of building materials in New Zealand with particular significance to the Canterbury earthquakes. A pragmatic parliamentary response to the Canterbury earthquakes" at a time permitted dumped goods. What that statement means is that at that time the Government reacted with the assistance of Parliament to enable the importation of goods at what we would normally define as a dumped price. It happened—it has happened already. Parliament had the power to act and it did so but that does not mean that this argument now is a sound one. A well-rounded and comprehensive system of countervailing duties helps to ensure that there is a level playing field for New Zealand businesses so it is important that we look at this countervailing system. But we did that. We got past the first reading and then we heard from the experts. It was then that this whole process should have ended. It should have ended abruptly and the Minister should have gone away and started again. Where foreign producers benefit from subsidies or where they dump products at below domestic prices here in New Zealand harming our local businesses and industries New Zealand First will always oppose this. I stand here now in what appears to be a combined stand by this side of the House to stand against what appears to be blatant stupidity to be quite honest. The chorus of feedback from industry and expert advisers to the select committee and to MPs directly has been unanimous as far as I can tell. I use this one quote as an illustration: "The net effect will enable dumping with no real recourse for local manufacturers." Away from the backroom Government officials and out in the real world there is no debate—this bill will weaken protection for New Zealand producers. There has been no debate. There has been only a facile argument from that side of the House. The most damaging issue was the introduction of the consumer interest clause. It is timely to remind ourselves what it is we are talking about here. We are talking about measures to stop what we call dumping which is when foreign producers can bring goods into New Zealand at lower prices not because they are more efficient not because they are more expert and not because they have larger scales of production necessarily but because they have had assistance from their own Governments—subsidies. So that is what we are trying to stop. We are not trying to stifle competition from around the world although it seems that that is becoming a harder and harder argument to have but we are saying: "Don't bring in these goods because you guys over there have not played by the rules." As Business New Zealand said in fact "we depend significantly on international trade and we follow [WTO] rules in all countries we export to." and this bill "would make New Zealand-made products vulnerable to unfair predatory pricing by international competitors." That is the simple fact of it. This bill will affect the innovation of small businesses—the small Kiwi businesses which already have to compete around the world and all they really have is their Kiwi smarts their entrepreneurship and the reduction of costs. But no what this Government will do with this legislation is add another barrier in terms of uncertainty and risk. Those businesses will suffer unduly especially and most clearly those businesses in our manufacturing and export - oriented sector. Let us be very clear in the House tonight. The Government officials have acknowledged that the test that will be applied to determine consumer interest will be intrinsically subjective and "that this subjectivity will impose a cost on business as investment decisions will have to factor an additional level of uncertainty into their risk and return calculations." New Zealand First along with colleagues across this side of the House is absolutely opposed to the implementation of this process. New Zealand companies are disadvantaged by the uncertainty as soon as this bill passes and I said that before. Literally as soon as this bill passes through all stages in this House and becomes law that will create a level of uncertainty. We have observed as others have noted that the Australian Government has refused twice already to make similar changes to its anti-dumping legislation and for the very same reasons we outline here tonight. The Aussies—not the sharpest tools in the chest—rejected it twice and what that National Government needs to be cognisant of is that what it is doing now is opening up a window for the Australian economy because in trying to counter the uncertainty after this legislation is passed New Zealand businesses will almost invariably move to Aussie because they know what the rules are they know what the outcomes will be and they know how they can best protect their businesses from dumping practices. That is the reality of this situation. Submitters were overwhelmingly opposed to this bill warning that it will be likely to tilt the playing field in favour of dumped or subsidised imports rather than support local producers and jobs. The New Zealand Government will not support domestic producers but New Zealand First will. Thank you."