Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill and I want to acknowledge the member who brought the bill to the House Mr Peeni Henare whom I have a lot of respect for. I see that the select committee that I chair the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has been nominated. If the bill does get to the select committee although we have a big work programme I can assure you that we will make time to examine this bill.The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the importation of goods made in whole or in part by slave labour. I guess our key message would be that it is impossible to physically identify goods made by slave labour so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable. The bill therefore makes a mere cosmetic change that if enacted would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers who these days are very informed in terms of the goods and services that they use. New Zealand's anti - slave labour laws are already in broad consensus with international standards and norms. The main provisions of the bill amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Clause 5 amends section 2(1) by inserting the words: slave labour means labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Clause 6 amends the Act by inserting in schedule 1 after the second item: "Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by slave labour."I guess the main debating point that I would make is that it is clear this issue is something we all struggle with—not just here in New Zealand but around the world. There is no doubt about the abhorrence of slavery. The problems are many and varied. The traditions of servitude and forced labour in many societies prove to be extraordinarily hard to eradicate. However we just do not see that this bill is the solution in and of itself to a number of these issues.The problems with this bill start with the definition. It is simple if we have a very narrow definition that would be associated with what I call a historical image of say slave ships. We can all have a mental image of the abhorrence of the slave trade and slave ships. But the moment we widen that definition as the member's bill does we have some real problems with trying to target what is legitimate and what is realisable from what is illegitimate. It is deeply in contention by many many developing countries and it would lead to massive disputation were we to proceed down that track.The second fundamental problem behind the definitional issues is that the very success of the spread of economic development and the growth of the global supply chain associated with its compounds are difficult. Many different products from so many different countries are incorporated in a final product meaning that we have got a very complicated and complex supply chain around the world with many different countries providing services and products that come together to make one product.I want to use an example of what I just referred to and that is the production of sugar. With that high-risk product which would emerge in numerous foodstuffs all imported into New Zealand how would we ever be able to differentiate between products made from this wide definition of slavery and products made simply by poor people? We know and we understand that all around the world unfortunately there are labour markets where people are paid a far lower rate than for example our minimum wage here in New Zealand. It is simply impossible for customs officers to physically identify goods made by slave labour so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable at best.Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it has ever been before. A single product is often made by various parts from various countries with different labour standards. It is nearly impossible to identify which aspects of a product might or might not have been made under which labour standards or in which part of the world. The bill makes a mere cosmetic change that if enacted would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers who are informed. If we were to pass the bill into New Zealand law it is doubtful whether we would be able to police it or make it effective. Whether it would have any effect at all it is admirable that we pay attention and give voice to this issue but I think we need to look for real action that will have a real effect.The bill is unlikely to add to New Zealand's anti - slave labour laws which are already broadly consistent with international standards today. It must be taken in the context of a 21st century world. There is no doubt that any MP in this House would support an action that would have a meaningful effect upon slavery—to prohibit it to stop it and to drive it out of countries elsewhere. But this bill will not do that.Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it was back in 1930 when the United States originally banned slavery. That legislation was passed in 1930. If we were in the climate of the trade trade law and trade rules of the world that were in place in 1930 then this bill might have some effect.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."