Robertson Grant: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 As the Associate Minister of Commerce resumes his seat I say that I have heard a rumour that that Minister did not come down the river on a cabbage boat. I have heard that rumour. And all I have heard tonight confirms to me that that Minister very much did come down the river on a cabbage boat. It may well have been the last cabbage boat but he certainly came down the river on it because the very last thing he told us demonstrated that he simply did not understand what this bill the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is about.  
Throughout this evening we have seen from Mr Banks a level of competence that should not surprise me but that is worrying in the context of this bill. Throughout Part 1 there are numerous references to what the Minister needs to do—what the Minister must do. The Minister may initiate a safeguard investigation. That is what we are told. Do we think Minister Banks is competent to initiate a safeguard investigation? I note the Minister did not actually respond to the questions from Maryan Street and our Green colleagues on the meaning of the word “safeguard” but I can help with a definition of “safeguard” which is not contained in this bill because there is no definition. One of the definitions of “safeguard” is “a document authorising safe conduct”—“a document authorising safe conduct”.  
 A similar kind of safe conduct might be a declaration of somebody’s donations for an election. That is a safeguard document. It is a document that safeguards our democracy. It safeguards the transparency of what is going on in an election be it at a local body level or be it at a national level. That is a safeguard document. That is what the Minister in this bill is charged with actually creating and initiating—a safeguard document. Has Mr Banks demonstrated anything tonight that would indicate he is competent to initiate such a thing? Has he demonstrated by anything in his recent behaviour that he would be able to do that? He has not in my submission and that is one of the important roles of a Minister under this bill.  
Another one of the important roles of the Minister is initiating a review around safeguards. I refer the new Minister in the chair the Minister for Economic Development to clause 20(3) which says: “The Minister must notify the decision to initiate a review of a safeguard measure and that notification must state the date on which the review was initiated.” It must state the date. I have significant concerns from what we have seen both from the Minister tonight and from his previous record about his ability to recall the date on which the review was initiated under clause 20(3). Mr Banks who would be the Minister referred to under this bill would not have the memory I think to be able to know what date it was. Clearly he has been very confused about dates in the past and there is significant confusion about the dates of fireworks displays versus when he got donations. It is very very difficult to remember those dates and extremely difficult to remember trips in helicopters although he does appear to remember training other people to fly helicopters. Perhaps that is something that he should have stuck to.  
The Minister under Part 1 has a number of significant responsibilities. But I think the biggest failing we have seen tonight by the Minister was actually in being able to articulate what this bill is about. I find—and I may run out of time for this—in these situations that it is often good to follow the journey of an issue of something that is covered by this bill. What this bill is actually about is what happens to a domestic industry if there is dumping—if there are imports that come in. We can follow a particular import on a journey. Shall we choose a particular import? Are there any suggestions? 
Dr David Clark 
: A cabbage. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: “Cabbages” I hear. So if we follow the journey of cabbages being imported— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Chinese cabbages. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well they could be Chinese cabbages; Chinese cabbages are one of the things. If we follow the journey of a cabbage under Part 1 of this bill we would discover that a cabbage may come into our country by a number of means. A cabbage may come in by air or it may come in by sea. It could come in by helicopter but it is unlikely. You could not fit that many cabbages in a helicopter especially if Mr Banks was flying it. But a cabbage may come in and one of the ways a cabbage could come into this country would be by boat. The concept of a cabbage boat being part of an import into New Zealand is perhaps something that people might find strange. But what we can say categorically—the one thing out of the saga of recent weeks that we can say categorically—is that Mr Banks did not come in on a cabbage boat and certainly not on the last cabbage boat he tells us. He denies that he came in on a cabbage boat but cabbages do come in. So in the context of being able to protect a domestic industry in this case the growing of cabbages we have the possibility of people dumping cabbages with us off a cabbage boat.  
I just say as an aside that if one were to look up “cabbage boat” on the internet one would discover that it is largely a 1970s-style snack which I think is confusing in the context of Mr Banks’ earlier comments.