Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I cannot do better than repeat the words of New Zealand Steel and its very clearly expressed concerns about this bill when it described why this bill takes New Zealand backwards and undermines the interests of New Zealand producers facing unfair competition from overseas. It said: New Zealand Steel does not support the Bill. In our view this bill as it is currently drafted:"—and it has not changed materially in this regard—"(i) is an unnecessary and radical shift in New Zealand's trade policy: there is no principled reason why New Zealand producers should be expected to compete with goods illegally dumped here below their cost of production offshore; (ii) will result in a materially weakened anti-dumping regime which does not protect local producers and which may chill investment in manufacturing capacity. In that regard the Bill moves away from what is prescribed in the WTO anti-dumping rules which do not require an unfettered 'public interest' exception; and (iii) is a significant threat to New Zealand industry. The Bill will in its current form result in unintended and significant consequences including the chilling of investment and possible closure and job losses for many major businesses unless amendments are made as outlined in the submission that follows."—and those amendments were not made.This legislation is not only unnecessary it makes the situation worse for major New Zealand producers of goods that face dumping risks. This opens New Zealand Ministers up to being heavied by some of the biggest players in the world. There is a changing world dynamic. China is quite rightly taking its place as one of the global forces in the world. It was until the 1800s one of the major superpowers in the world. It went through a period of relative decline. The ascendency of America saw it as the ascendant global power. Russia was up there for a while. Russia fell. China is on the rise and it truly is one of the world's superpowers. With those powers also come responsibilities and those responsibilities should be able to be met if they comply with World Trade Organization rules.We know—not from what the Government has told us because this lacking-transparency Government is often hiding the true reality of what is happening from New Zealand. We only know that there were threats against New Zealand corporates as a consequence of the suggestion that New Zealand would investigate whether there was dumping of steel within New Zealand because Vernon Small at the Dominion Post broke the story. It is pretty obvious if you read between the lines that the reason he was able to break that story is that there are people within the arms of government who do not like what is happening under the governance of National in respect of issues like this.Hon Jacqui Dean: Oh God.Hon DAVID PARKER: No that is correct. That is correct. The Government is still redacting and refusing to disclose to the public the correspondence relating to threats that are alleged to have been made against New Zealand exporters into China in the kiwifruit industry and the dairy industry if New Zealand investigated Chinese steel imports and looked at whether we should have anti-dumping additional tariffs on imported steel as a consequence. Is that something that New Zealand should be able to look at? Most clearly it is.As New Zealand Steel says in this same submission there is between 400 and 700 million tonnes of excess steel production in the world every year at the moment. Other countries like the United States and the whole of Europe have actually decided that some of the steel exports from China are being dumped on overseas markets. China has excess steel-making capacity and it is selling—according to the Americans and the Europeans—into other countries at less than cost. The tariffs in America in respect of some subsets of steel like stainless steel have been increased to as high as 160 percent. The higher tariffs that have been introduced in Europe if my memory serves me correctly from what I looked at last night have ranged from about 18 to 60 percent. The New Zealand Government has not been willing to look at it despite complaints from New Zealand Steel.What is the effect of this legislation on it? The effect of this legislation is very unwise because it makes it easier for large players in the world—and I am not saying that China would ever do this but we know from our history that big players occasionally do whether it is the United States or Europe we have seen their actions in respect of some of their exports over the years as well. We know that some of these big players do throw their weight around and try to pressure New Zealand saying: "Oh look if you do something over there we're going to prejudice you in some other area of trade."This bill sets up a system that encourages it because it introduces discretion for the Minister not to prevail with either an inquiry or anti-dumping duties even if there is evidence that they would be justified. That is bad law and that is why Business New Zealand as well as New Zealand Steel have come along together with other submitters and said: "This is wrong. This is wrong for New Zealand manufacturers." Then the Government says: "Trust us. Trust us." Well why would we trust this Government when its record on exports is so absolutely appalling?We have a country that is investing far too much in selling houses to one another at ever-inflated prices—which is where so much of the investment capital is wasted in New Zealand—and not enough in the productive sector that grows exports to the rest of the world. That is why New Zealand's productivity growth is virtually zero. Our productivity is not going up. As a consequence of that appalling record on productivity our exports as a percentage of the economy are going backwards—backwards.When the Government was elected in 2008 it promised to increase New Zealand's exports from 30 to 40 percent of GDP. What has happened? It is the opposite: they have gone backwards. They went back to 26 percent of GDP; they are around 27 percent of GDP. What has the Government done? It has actually changed its targets. Have you noticed that? It has changed its targets. It has put "getting to 40 percent of GDP for exports"—you never hear it talking about that. Now its new target which is just about meaningless says it wants a certain percentage of our exports to be covered by free-trade agreements. Well yeah good. We actually like free-trade agreements. We do not like the Government selling out—Melissa Lee: Really? You didn't vote for TPP.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well actually they bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) into this. I am glad they have.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No that is outside the—Hon DAVID PARKER: No Mr Assistant Speaker. They cannot yell out "TPP—put that on the record." and you deny me the right to respond to that point Mr Assistant Speaker. The TPP is different from the Chinese free-trade agreement that we negotiated because under the Chinese free-trade agreement we did not trade away the right of a future Government to ban overseas buyers of our land but the National Government has in the TPP. Even now it refuses to try to renegotiate that having broken the bipartisan approach on trade in respect of that important aspect of sovereignty the Government members sit there and pretend that they are superior. They cannot escape the fact that exports are going backwards that their failed policies—after 9 years in Government—have exports lower as a percentage of GDP when they promised to increase them from 30 percent upwards to 40 percent of GDP.This is very poor legislation. Business New Zealand is right. New Zealand Steel is right. This is going to take New Zealand manufacturers backwards over time. The Minister is creating pressure points that can be used to distort what should happen when dumping is found to occur."