Goff Phil: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to get up to speak to the Committee stage of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Labour actually supports this bill and we support it because it was introduced by Lianne Dalziel and I think we can rely on a former Minister who introduced this bill who does not forget things who can be relied on to act with integrity and who can be relied on to be straight with the media and not to obfuscate. For all of those reasons I think that this bill probably deserves our support but I do have a number of questions to the Associate Minister of Commerce. 
My first question to the Minister is given the trouble that he is in will he still be here when we complete— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look we are not getting into this speculative area. There is plenty of scope to debate the purpose and Part 1 is a big part so I ask the member just to desist from the line that he is on. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: On a different line this is a question that was asked on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
to Mr Banks: has he actually read the bill? He has not read the Local Electoral Act; has he read this bill? If he is the Minister in charge of this Committee stage our side of the Chamber wants to have assurance— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You spoke only a matter of seconds ago about the content of the bill and the fact that it was quite wide in its scope. I would ask that you manage that member’s relevance please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. The member on his feet asked the Minister whether he had read this bill. I think his references to the paper were unhelpful but he did not—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I think he is just inside the line at this stage. I caution the member and I caution other members as we proceed. I am happy to proceed with the debate. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I read that this bill’s purpose is to replace an old regime with a new regime and I want to know whether the new regime will be as reliable as John Key’s new regime to lift the bar on ministerial standards. I want to know that because you know we have been promised new regimes before and they have not been delivered. So I want to know whether the new regime that this bill introduces is going to deliver the goods because John Key did not deliver the goods on lifting the bar on ministerial standards. When Ministers can mislead the public obfuscate forget things and not tell the truth that is not introducing a new regime. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I have been very tolerant here but the member talks about Ministers not telling the truth. There are standards here about members being honourable members. I just think the member ought to be a little more careful about how he is phrasing that stuff.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my honourable colleague. The point I would like to make is that Mr Goff at no stage suggested that the Minister did not tell the truth in the House and that is the requirement. We are allowed to say that Ministers did not tell the truth outside the House and clearly that is the case with this Minister.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not my understanding of Speakers’ rulings. I invite the member to demonstrate to me through Speakers’ rulings where my interpretation is not correct. But we will continue with the honourable member. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Part 1 of this bill talks about safeguard investigations. I want to know the meaning of the term “safeguard measures” because there are a lot of things that the public need to be safeguarded against. They need to be safeguarded against Ministers who do not tell the truth to the media. They need to be safeguarded against Ministers who obfuscate and are not upfront and honest with the public and the media. And they need to be safeguarded against forgetfulness. Can we rely on this Minister in the chair to remember what the provisions of this bill are so that he can properly implement them when he could not remember a helicopter ride to the biggest mansion in the country— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I have cautioned the member. This is about the bill and I caution the member again. That is it—right.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you seeking a second call now? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. I hardly got started. The bill also “promotes efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes.” Let me repeat that because that is really important. The bill promotes efficient transparent and objective investigation and decision-making processes. I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair what he thinks about transparent decision-making—whether things should be upfront open and honest and whether the law should be followed in that regard.  
This bill interestingly is also about anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Does this mean I ask the Minister in the chair that if he dumps on Kim Dotcom there will be countervailing action by Kim Dotcom to tell the truth about what he said? I think that is a really good question and I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is that a countervailing duty? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a countervailing duty I think that if your loyalty and your goodwill towards somebody is not reciprocated—by someone who pretends that they cannot even remember who you are even though he spent 2 hours with you dined with the family and toasted you at your birthday party—then you will expect that person to feel that there has been no countervailing loyalty towards you and that you have been used. So it is little wonder that Kim Dotcom responded in that way.  
Clause 5 of this bill is about the Act binding the Crown. I want to ask about that. Is that the Act binding the Crown in the same way that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 binds the Prime Minister for example to uphold and be seen to uphold the highest ethical standards on his Ministers? Is that what binding is? It does not say much in the bill. It simply says that the Act binds the Crown. I would have thought— 
Kris Faafoi 
: It’s the ACT Party. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The ACT Party. Well does the  
Cabinet Manual 
 bind the Prime Minister or his Ministers to uphold and be seen to uphold— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It should be “props up the Crown”. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes well binding and propping up—there might be something in that.  
Clause 6 is about notification of a decision or a report. I wonder whether that notification is a bit like notifying the Electoral Commission that a huge donation was made and that he then asked the donor to split it into two parts contrary to the spirit of the law. Is that the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is a requirement for a Minister to be in the chair during the Committee stage of the debate. They are not allowed to run around the Chamber like this no matter how scared they are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will uphold that. Yes the Minister in the chair should not move more than from the chair to the aisle. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This is a bill— 
Hon John Banks 
: This is very boring. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister might say it is very boring but I tell him that the country is not bored about his escapades his misleading comments and his obfuscation of what he is doing. Maybe the Minister could explain what he meant when he was asked whether he had declared all his donations and he said: “look look look look look look look … I have never been with Dotcom to Skycity.” If that is not obfuscation— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee John Hayes and his colleagues on this side of the Chamber are very very interested in this debate. This going-on by the member for Mt Roskill serves his interests no good. It is contrary to the Standing Orders because it is irrelevant and I would like to think that the Committee would stay in order the shouting and carping from the parliamentary Opposition should cease interjections should be rare and reasonable and we can get on with the important business of this Government. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will accept the member’s contribution. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: My response in fact was to an interjection made by the Minister himself. It is a bit rich for him to be saying that we should not be interjecting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot attack another member through a point of order and talk about richness or anything else and the member should know that by now. I am listening very very carefully to the debate and it is fair to say that the member in his speech is moving outside the realm of what is acceptable but then he ducks in again. He is a very senior member. My tolerance about this—we have had a go on this now and I ask members to debate more specifically the purpose and Part 1 of the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to alert your attention to the fact that this is the second time that the member speaking has been interrupted in order for relevancy to be questioned which is in fact out of order. The Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that the sole judge of relevancy is you as the Chairperson and therefore you should not be questioned by a member abusing the point of order process to interrupt another member speaking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think that two times one on each call is probably not excessive. The member does make a point and I have assured the Committee that I am listening. If members wish to test my patience I will terminate a few speeches if I think that members have got too far away from the bill. Bearing in mind that members have four calls I am quite prepared to terminate calls. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think I am going to welcome the ruling that you have just made but I just ask you to confirm that it is now OK according to you for members to question the relevance of other members’ speeches rather than leaving it to you. It is a new ruling but quite a good one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it is in fact not a new ruling and members will know that from time to time relevancy has been a call that members on both sides of the House have made depending on whether they are on the Treasury benches or not. If it is excessive then warnings are given about members using that to interrupt. I do not believe that on this occasion that it was to interrupt but was merely to set the standard of what is acceptable in this debate upon which I have given my ruling. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will come back to the bill but the Opposition members would feel much more comfortable if they had a Minister in the chair whom they felt they could rely on. This bill is quite an important measure. This country does believe in opening up a free market for trade so that our exports can go into other countries and their imports can come and fairly compete with ours. But there is a need on occasion for safeguard measures particularly when there is dumping and particularly when that competition is not of a fair nature. My concern about the Government is that this bill was introduced over 3 years ago. This is a straightforward but very important piece of legislation and it could easily have been carried into effect at any time over the last 3 years. So my question is why it has taken 3 years to bring this legislation back to the House. 
We are a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). We are a small country. We rely on a rules-based system in international trading to protect our rights and we need to be compliant with the WTO and the rules that it sets out. This legislation is compliant with those rules. It is not a trade protectionist measure. It is about fair-trading rules and we support it on that basis.  
I welcome the fact that this introduces a system that is streamlined and New Zealand producers and manufacturers will likewise welcome that. It will rely on expertise within the Ministry of Economic Development rather than setting up temporary safeguard authorities and I think that that is a positive move. It will extend the time frame for the completion of safeguard investigations to 75 days. I think that also is a sensible move.