Graham Kennedy: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1873] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the adoption of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. It is not my intention to take up too much time of the House in explaining why but a few quick points are I believe in order. This bill repeals the earlier 1987 Act which embodies the current safeguards regime. That Act of course preceded the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and the aim of the new bill is to make the 1987 regime consistent with WTO rules. 
The underlying purpose as described is to improve the investigative and transparent processes of international trade. Our aspiration is to meet three standards so stated: efficiency transparency and objectivity. No one opposes efficient transparent and objective processes particularly in the area of international trade. It is a passing lament perhaps that the same standards were not met as stringently as the Green Party believes was appropriate in the cases of the recent bilateral and regional free-trade agreements this country has held over the past few years and is holding currently. I note the comments made by my colleague Lianne Dalziel about some concerns over the nature of free and fair trade that are held by some parties; of course we in the Green Party have harboured those concerns—and I would add in today’s world there is an equally deep concern about the imperative of green trade. 
We have also heard from our colleague John Hayes who was gracious enough to offer some insights into the merits of free trade based on the theory of comparative advantage. He recalled for our edification Ricardo while omitting in some haste the theories of Smith and Mill. To prove the point Mr Hayes drew as an example the case of as he put it “Brug-es” which he said gave way in the fullness of time to the rise of Antwerp: the river was silting up so people had to move from Bruges to Antwerp and Antwerp became the great economic power supplanting Bruges—QED the need for free trade. I thank the member. I have some passing acquaintance with Bruges or Brugge. The town is Flemish actually so it is properly pronounced “Bruha”. I lived there from 2002 to 2005 and intermittently from 2005 until the end of last year. In fact I had an apartment there until 2 weeks ago. 
I know Bruges. I also know the theory of free trade as it underpinned or did not underpin Bruges and its aspirations and its destiny. The point here is that Bruges did not collapse because it turned its back on free trade; it collapsed because of environmental concerns. Because of silting at Bruges the coastline developed. Free trade and the shipping trade did not switch immediately to Antwerp; it went to Zeebrugge which is now on the coast and is close to Bruges. The point of this passing exchange is that the theory of free trade has a partial truth—not a total absolute truth. 
The Green Party recognises the partial truth of free trade. That partial truth has to be calibrated with fair trade and with green trade. We are creating a hell on earth if we go headlong for free trade without due regard to the most basic notions of global equity and the imperative of global sustainability. 
Let me return to the Green Party’s concerns. They are particularly to do with transparency when it comes to international trade. I recognise that diplomatic negotiations—whether on security environment or trade issues—cannot be conducted in the full glare of live broadcasting. But in today’s world neither should they be conceived in the cosy backrooms of Geneva or national capitals and then carefully incubated under the artificial warmth of a hermetically sealed confidentiality until they are judged ready to be hatched for public christening after the creature’s DNA is forever determined. 
Today we live in a world that is effectively globalised and in which the public not only has a right to know but also has an ability to keep pace with events and make informed judgments. In such a world a balance has to be struck ensuring that the public input on issues that directly affect them—whether corporate farming or individual—is neither premature and thus unhelpful nor belated and thus futile. That balance is not always easy to strike but we do not think that the democratic and parliamentary process on our international trade negotiations has found it yet. We need to be more transparent with the public than we were with the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement. The Green Party looks forward to improvement with the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and with the Indian and ASEAN negotiations. 
That is a general context for addressing this more specific bill before us. The aim is to reduce the risk of a successful WTO dispute settlement or judicial review should a safeguard measure be applied. That is an objective the Green Party supports. We do however have some concern about the specifics. First the meaning of “public interest” is elaborated upon in the bill. Although non-exhaustive the guidelines are the likely effectiveness in assisting the domestic industry; the alternatives available; the likely effect on the market including on consumers; New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals; and the strategic importance of the domestic industry. We are concerned that the guidelines for taking into account the public interest are unduly limited. They could steer the outcome away from protecting a domestic industry that does not necessarily meet the Government’s current test of strategic importance but if and when oil prices rise again it may prove to be something we might regret. 
Secondly moving the investigative power from an independent authority to the Ministry of Economic Development could result in investigations having a greater political input from the Government of the day—they could perhaps or perhaps not have greater professionalism but quite possibly they could have greater political input. This will need attention. With due regard to these concerns we support the bill and we will be supporting it going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.