Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Dr Megan Woods has been talking about this is not the big ideal. Well we would agree. This is not the big ideal. This is one part of a comprehensive plan. If I focus on this bill in particular there have been lots of comments in regard to the construction industry obviously. There was a study that was conducted in 2013 in fact it was the residential construction sector market study and Cabinet papers clearly indicate that after that study was considered—it was in 2014 when Cabinet considered this—Cabinet considered suspending the tariffs that were in the construction industry. That was important. So there was some comment about why it has taken so long. That period of 3 years is quite critically important. Any cost-benefit analysis has to be done over a period of time hence the reason for that period of 3 years from when that was considered in 2014. The other thing is when we think about the construction industry and we think about I suppose the cause and effect of the removal of the tariffs at that time. One of the things that is of concern when we think about housing and construction is the way that the removal of tariffs is quantified in cases both here and abroad. In particular if we think about Australia to give an example it is costed and quantified per square metre. At that time the averages were around—so for instance in Australia the average build from design to build to a code of compliance and completion to handing over the keys to the new owners the average cost is around about $1200 given the exchange rate for us as well. If we think about what the comparative cost of that is in New Zealand it is around about $2500. If you were to do the sums the average house of 150 square metres would cost around about $375000. That is just to build and complete. We know with that costing there had to be some means in there for us to be able to try to capture that cost and try to reduce it so that our consumers could benefit from this—hence the reason for reducing those tariffs was quite critically important. There have been a lot of lessons that have been learnt from that. The previous speaker Megan Woods talked about the regulatory impact statement which talked about that. One of the things that did come out of that was that although costs had been reduced when we think about certain building requirements that were there—in fact in paragraph 34 of the regulatory impact statement it talks about that. It is talking about reinforcing steel and coil plasterboards nails and so forth. They were just part of a test to see the reduction that that would have. But one of the things that did come out of that hence the clause in this bill which is critically important is the public interest test in the regulatory impact statement. They call it the BPIT"—better public interest test—and that is to ensure that consumers would benefit. So although we can reduce tariffs and for the manufacture and the supplier there may be an added benefit what was not clear was seeing how the consumer was also benefiting from the reduction of the tariffs. So we are happy to hear that the support is across the House bar the Greens. We think that actually at the select committee we will hear from submitters from the sector. We will hear from those who are consumers. We think that will give us a good indication about the direction that this bill is taking. We think the discretion that has been afforded to the Minister is important to that as well. So we support this bill in its first reading to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House."