Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I did sit on the Commerce Committee which heard this legislation. The Commerce Committee was a split committee. The Labour Party supported this legislation at its first reading—not being at that point cognisant of the significant issues that it raises. Once we were at the committee and heard submitter after submitter come before us and talk about the threats of these measures to our domestic industry we became seriously concerned.We tried to get substantial amendments and questions answered through this legislation unsuccessfully. This basically led us to believe that it is being pushed through for a set of reasons other than common sense because it is a counterintuitive piece of legislation. If you were to believe that this Government was committed to a growth in exports to a growth in the productive economy and to a growth in small business becoming bigger business and being able to compete on the world market with good quality products—what this does is open the door to serious impacts on numerous industries in this country. It gives ministerial powers that are questionable in terms of—and I think you have heard David Parker outline the pressure that could be brought to bear and the impact that it could have on ministerial discretion.I would like to say that I applaud new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Jacqui Dean for taking a couple of calls on this because it is important to be able to engage in actual debate in the Committee stage—true debate—to be able to get some sense of what on earth was in the Government's mind when it decided to press through with this legislation.The reason we have such a substantial set of amendments before us in the Committee stage today is that the split committee the Commerce Committee voted against this bill. The Government members did not have a majority so the bill had to be returned to the House unamended. Therefore these amendments that are before us in the Committee stage are as a result of that and have enabled the wider debate that is occurring today.I note that when the Minister did first speak she talked about—and this is going to the public interest test. I want to touch on the issues in the public interest test: the time that it takes to get an inquiry happening and the impact of that on domestic industry and then the intent—what is in the Government's mind around this.With regard to the public interest test which is in new section 10F in new Part 4 inserted by clause 13 around the investigation—other speakers have noted the eight issues that have to be taken into account when undertaking that public interest test. I just want to mention four of them and pose to the Committee the dilemmas that occur with this sort of Solomon's choice" approach that can be taken by a Minister. The Minister has to take into account whether prices will go down through a dumping into the New Zealand market whether it provides more choice whether it affects product quality and whether it affects the financial performance of the domestic industry.If it means that prices will go down and consumers get more choice—and bear in mind that the rationale for this legislation is to provide what the Government called "more consumer choice". It would seem that that is what is the intent of this legislation. So let us say it means that prices go down and there is more choice. But what actually ends up in the market is a lesser-quality product and if it affects the quality of the financial performance of our domestic industry then how does that decision get made? It has got to be either one or the other.The concern that submitter after submitter had—and I know that New Zealand Steel has been mentioned on a number of occasions; it talked about an unnecessary and radical shift in New Zealand's trade policy resulting in a materially weakened anti-dumping regime and a significant threat to New Zealand industry. I cannot stress highly enough just how alarming it was to hear the steel industry say that its very viability is on the line if this legislation is passed.I also want to refer to another submission. I want to quote from it and I will tell you who it was after I have quoted from it. It says: "We are not against global trade or protectionist and support the case where a country does something extremely well and removes the need for local production of such products but cannot agree that in some situations there is a need to tilt the playing field in favour of dumped or subsidised goods from overseas against local manufacturers producers and the jobs they create. How could such action detrimental to the country's productive base be in the public interest? We consider that small manufacturers and producers are less able to present a strong voice to the relevant Government departments. The public interest test aggravates this situation."This was from the New Zealand Flower Growers Association which sent an impassioned submission to the select committee. It wanted to bring to our attention that 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand have fewer than 20 employees and that all of the flower growers in New Zealand fit that category. That 97 percent of businesses employs 33 percent of all employees. It was trying to get its voice heard and I am trying to give it a voice today.To the Minister in charge of this legislation who I think is still the Minister for Small Business—am I correct—why are those voices not being listened to with this legislation? What is the point of this legislation when supposedly on the one hand the Government says it is trying to get exports to 40 percent of GDP? We are currently under 30 percent. Here we have a piece of legislation that is encouraging allowing and enabling the dumping of product that may be sub-quality into our market—but oh it might give more choice and lower prices to consumers! How is that in the public interest? I think that is the crux of this legislation.Other complaints with this legislation were around the time it takes to get an investigation into whether a tariff will be imposed and then the subsequent impact of that—because it is adding 90 days to that process—on local industry. Those are really valid questions.The reason this legislation is being hurried through in the next few days is that ultimately the original suspension period—and we are going back to the building industry—and the reason for allowing a temporary ability for those dumping provisions to be relaxed was after the Christchurch earthquake. Those provisions are due to end at the close of 31 May and one of the amendments in this bill today is to extend that suspension period until the close of 30 June 2019 which is why it has to be passed before 31 May.There are significant issues here and there are contradictions absolute contradictions in the rationale and the logic as to why you would put New Zealand industry—our productive economy—at such risk with such a piece of legislation. It is not supported by Australia which has gone through this process twice before and yet we push through harmonisation laws with Australia. What is the intention of the Government? I think David Parker got to the crux of that."