Dean Jacqui: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1877] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am speaking in the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which I believe is a very timely bill to be considered by Parliament. 
The purpose of this bill is to bring our temporary safeguard measures both up to date and in line with international rules of trade. This bill was introduced in September 2008 by the then Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel; the changes to the bill were designed and introduced to the House by the current most excellent Minister of Commerce Simon Power. The changes are designed to promote efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes. The legislation when passed will provide protection where and when it is necessary to help New Zealand businesses stay competitive in what is proving to be a tough economic environment. 
I said that this bill is timely. I reflect on the early 1990s when I understand—I was told—a complaint was made with regards to a large amount of men’s and boys’ underwear that was brought in from China. I do not know whether members will recall it— 
Todd McClay 
: It’d be too small for Rotorua. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I thank the member for that. All jokes are accepted. 
If we allowed mass importation of a product that is used by roughly half the population as in men’s and boys’ underwear—if that product were brought into New Zealand in such large volumes—it would indeed have a bad effect on New Zealand industry and probably more important on New Zealand employment. At this time with New Zealand’s economic situation I do not think we can afford to leave that without protection. That is why I believe that this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is indeed timely. I would hate to see the factories whose job it is to manufacture underwear—I think there is one in Palmerston North there is one in Christchurch and there may be one in Auckland—and their workers placed under pressure at the moment. I do not think that would be helpful for New Zealand. 
The bill makes five main changes. The first change is that the Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for safeguard investigations rather than temporary safeguard authorities which will be disestablished under the provisions of this bill. I understand that the temporary safeguard authorities undertook four investigations. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Before the dinner break I had begun to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which was introduced to the House in the latter part of 2008 by the then Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. Then our very good Minister of Commerce Simon Power introduced some changes earlier this afternoon that have been included in the bill. 
Briefly for the benefit of my colleague who asked how the speeches were going I say that I had raised the spectre of the flooding of the New Zealand market in the early 1990s with men’s and boys’ underwear. This caused problems and was dealt with by way of the temporary safeguard authority process which was the practice then. The purpose of this bill is to bring the process a good deal more in line with current jurisprudence and international law. I was reflecting—because I think it is worth reflecting—on the perils that would befall New Zealand manufacturing if something like that were to happen again. If a cheap product mass-produced for a mass market—as underwear for men and boys was back in the 1990s—were to be introduced to the New Zealand market what would the effect be on manufacturers and more pertinently in these times on workers in the factories? For that reason alone I believe that the introduction of this bill is very timely. 
By way of background I will say a few words on what a safeguard is. It is a temporary duty or levy that can be imposed on imported goods. It is considered an emergency measure. It is applied at the border and is designed to protect domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in imported goods resulting from unforeseen developments. If that is not the case with New Zealand’s economic conditions today then I cannot think of a better way to describe it. 
The bill as introduced makes five main changes. The Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for safeguard investigations rather than the temporary safeguard authorities that I mentioned before in relation to the underwear from China. Those authorities will be disestablished under this bill. It is worth noting that I believe only four complaints were made to a temporary safeguard authority so it would be more streamlined for the Ministry of Economic Development to have responsibility for safeguard investigations. Underlying that the Ministry of Economic Development already has expertise in trade rules and resources whereas it can be difficult to have the temporary safeguard authorities immediately available due to the low number of cases. The purpose of a safeguard is to provide immediate protection so it makes sense to have a system that works in a timely and streamlined manner. 
The second change relates to the time frame of a safeguard investigation which will be extended from the current 30 days to 75 days and in some cases may be extended even further out to 85 working days. This extension of time brings New Zealand into line with the World Trade Organization’s requirements for an investigation. This reduces the risk of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement or indeed a review which can be a costly and resource-intensive process. The third change is that the Minister of Commerce will have the authority to impose a provisional and then a final safeguard duty without taking it through a lengthier Cabinet process. 
The fourth change is that the bill specifies in clause 12(1)(e) the individual considerations to be taken into account when determining whether a safeguard duty is in fact in the public interest—and the public interest is a major consideration in a complaint. Some of these considerations might be “(i) the likely effectiveness of a safeguard measure in assisting the domestic industry: (ii) the alternatives to a safeguard measure: (iii) the likely effect of a safeguard measure on the market (including on consumers): (iv) New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals:” which are particularly important to New Zealand in 2009 and going forward and finally “(v) the strategic importance of the domestic industry.” I venture to say going back to my earlier illustration that the manufacture of garments could be argued to be a particularly important domestic industry. 
Finally and this is my last point the bill repeals the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 and replaces it with a regime that is consistent with World Trade Organization rules. This bill brings our temporary safeguard measures up to date and into line with international rules and I commend it to the House.