Bond Ria; O'Connor Simon; Bennett PaulaRIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party and my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to speak to the first reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to introduce a public interest test in New Zealand's anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime in a provision allowing for the duty to be deferred in cases of natural disaster and other emergencies. Dumping is a practice—for those of you who are not aware—where goods are sold at below cost primarily as a means to drive local competitors out of business. Interestingly it was Canada that first introduced such measures to counter US intrusions into its domestic market in 1904. I will try to give a very simple example for those members of the public who are watching or listening at home or perhaps even driving in their car tuned in and listening to Parliament tonight. If another country produces too much material such as concrete and offers it to New Zealand where we have a small concrete industry trying to compete within the domestic market this concrete would flood our domestic market at a reduced price. Therefore this could be seen as being anti-competitive practice especially for the example I have just provided—the small concrete domestic market. How would this be considered as providing domestic industries with assurances that they can be protected against dumped subsidised and injurious imports?Simon O'Connor: Is this what they call a concrete example?RIA BOND: In international trade dumping often has the effect of endangering the financial viability of manufacturers in the importer nation. You can still laugh Mr Simon O'Connor. New Zealand First will always stand up in this House to protect local manufacturers and local businesses. We are the only political party with true conviction in our first belief that we must put New Zealand and New Zealanders first.Hon Paula Bennett: Oh please!RIA BOND: If you did not know it then you know it now Mrs Bennett. It is interesting is it not this world of politics—it really is. Today I wish to extend my wholehearted congratulations to Minister Coleman for the speed by which he and his Cabinet have pushed this bill to its first reading. What an accomplishment. It was only this month that that Cabinet agreed in principle to the bill and here tonight we see it right before our very eyes like the speed of lightning. Some may call this efficiency; others may call this something else. If this does not make us celebrate how efficient Minister Coleman is it makes us worried about the motivation behind the how and the why this bill got to the House so quickly. Anti-dumping measures are designed to limit or ideally prevent a company from selling goods below cost to drive local competitors out of business. The World Trade Organization has recognised that heavily subsidised markets overseas can undercut New Zealand businesses in the market place. Theoretically having driven the domestic manufacturers out of business large multinational companies are then free to use their mighty market powers to fleece the domestic customer. As you can imagine New Zealand First is adamantly opposed to this tactic. The wider implications of this bill are of huge concern to us. The Minister talks about a public interest test but this is limited and we will seek to expand on this conversation further throughout the select committee process. We agree again that the anti-dumping and countervailing measures are accepted devices in trade treaties. However New Zealand First warns the Minister that unless applied in a considered and consistent approach this could actually do more to repress competition and could actually encourage inefficiencies despite what the Minister asserts in his speech. But done right our domestic producers can move forward assured of the countervailing measures. The public interest test is of course imperative and this supports a commerce Minister whose stated outcome is to support New Zealand business. But the question marks still exist. As the legislation describes the public interest test as involving an assessment of the extent to which the cost to New Zealand downstream industries and consumers of imposing a duty would materially erode the benefit. New Zealand First agrees that the test should allow for broader public interest elements such as competition and consumer welfare. So the question mark is the stand-alone provision empowering the Minister to defer not impose or be terminated or suspended. Clause 8 amends section 3 and provides a new definition of emergency" that allows the Minister to trigger the self-appointed powers. Again another question mark is in relation to the public test: the Minister must consider only the cost to New Zealand downstream industries and New Zealand consumers—there is the first issue. Actually that is a real issue and it is huge. If the Minister considers it appropriate the Minister may consider the domestic industry of a relevant third country. Make no mistake our support is only for the first reading of this legislation. It is imperative that the select committee process is able to take place. We reserve our final decision upon feedback from the New Zealand public and the experts in this space. Thank you."