Mathers MojoMOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. The Green Party opposes this bill. We were the only party to oppose this bill at the first reading. I spoke then at length about why and the reasons that I stated then hold still. In fact they have been affirmed by the committee process. Many submitters from major industries repeated the points that I had made during the first reading.But to be fair why would we weaken the protection the few protections that we have left for our industries from illegally dumped goods in New Zealand? It does not make sense. You can always argue that there is a short-term benefit to the consumer through having the cheapest possible goods but if that price is not sustainable out into the future then it is not actually in the national interest or for the consumer in the long term because what you do is you undermine the viability of critical local industries because they cannot compete with unfairly subsidised or dumped goods. We are not talking about competition on anything like a level playing field here. We are talking about goods being dumped and proving to be in breach of the World Trade Organization rules so we are just trying to level out the playing field a little bit.At the moment only very few goods have that anti-dumping duty imposed upon them but the fact that you can sends a very clear message to overseas industries that dumped goods are not welcome here. And that is why it is so important that we maintain a robust regime. Instead what this whole bill does under the guise of a public interest test is bring in a huge level of uncertainty. So when people are looking to invest here why on earth would they invest here when just across the Ditch in Australia they can be assured of much greater protection where they can be assured they will not have to face unfair competition with illegally dumped goods?We do not support that here. We should not be supporting that here in New Zealand. There are industries like the peach growing industry in Hawke's Bay a $15 million industry annually that would be at risk from dumped peaches from Greece or Spain or wherever. Why would we allow the duties imposed on these imported canned peaches to be lifted for very short-term consumer gain? Not only would you then destroy the industry in Hawke's Bay and put thousands of jobs at risk but then if the prices go up we go Oops sorry. We're going to have to have expensive peaches again." and it takes more than 5 years to regrow the trees until they are producing them again. Why would people want to invest in the peach industry again in New Zealand once it has gone?Similarly for the construction industry similarly for the steel industry: why once it has gone would businesses want to go through the laborious process of reinvesting and restarting a business again in New Zealand? They would not. And that is why for the long-term planning and for the national security of this country we should be much more vigilant and much more careful about this. Australia has looked into this. It has decided against it. It has moved in the opposite direction. This is our largest closest trading bloc. We should be looking at what Australia has decided and following its lead in this because it does not make sense for New Zealand as a smaller economy to try to remove this and have even less protection. It is harder already for industry here in New Zealand.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."