Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chairperson. Thank you for calling on me. I would like to introduce a tabled amendment. The tabled amendment is proposed for clause 13 new section 10F to replace subsection (2). The new subsection reads: Imposing the duty is in the public interest unless any of the short and long term costs of imposing the duty to downstream industries wider supply chains employment consumers and local communities around adversely impacted production sites are likely to materially outweigh the benefit to domestic industry of imposing the duty." This amendment widens the scope of what can be looked at in the public interest test. Our problem with the public interest test is that it is far too narrowly drawn. Actually what we are missing is many of the concerns that we have been hearing about so far in this debate and the issues that have been talked about by different submitters.Let me look at the additions to the wording one by one. Firstly we believe that we need to look at the short term and the long term. The rules do not specifically call for a long-term perspective. The reason that this is important is that as various submitters have said once you lose a business—once it goes out of business because of predatory pricing forcing a company out of business—that is a long-term effect. You cannot just replace those fruit trees overnight. You cannot just build up a business overnight. Once it is gone you are left with a hollowing out of a community. You are left with shareholders who have lost their money. You are left with founders who have lost their houses. You are left with skilled workers who no longer have jobs and often move away to different areas. You cannot suddenly replace these enterprises by a short-term measure.You have to look in this public interest test at the long term because it is only in the long term that you can understand the dynamics of what generally happens. A colleague previously described the legislation as being naive. What we would be doing in this case is we would be setting up an incentive for a predatory foreign producer to lower its prices until the domestic company was driven out of business and then raise its prices again. You can understand that effect if you look in the long term and therefore the requirement to look in the long term in a way of calculating the public interest is we believe essential.If I can just draw on one of the submissions—this submission is from Business New Zealand and ManufacturingNZ—it says: "Once value is destroyed … it takes a long time for an economy to replace [a] large employer (we have so few of them [left] in New Zealand …". So what we are talking about here is a necessity of understanding a dynamic situation rather than a snapshot in time and the public interest test does not deal with that.A second issue introduced by this amendment is to look not only at the downstream producers which is a very narrow definition and instead to look at the wider supply chain because it is only in understanding the linkages between firms that can often be very complex and across different industries that you can understand what happens when you lose a manufacturer. If you lose a manufacturer often the supplier who supplies that manufacturer is also supplying other businesses in other sectors. So if you just look at downstream industries then you miss the dynamics of the supply base. And therefore this amendment proposes adding in consideration of the effect on the wider supply chains into the public interest test.Again if I may draw from a quote from the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association: "… manufacturing in New Zealand is a diverse sector companies often are closely connected in supply chains providing demand inputs and services for each other as well as building shared skills and capability in our workforce." Now if you do not look at the broader supply chain issues then you miss those connections. So therefore our amendment introduces a concept of wider supply chains.Thirdly our submission also requires that the public interest test looks at employment which at the moment it does not in section 10F. It requires that we look at local communities that exist around adversely affected production sites. Why is this important? Because local communities often depend on their local employers not only for jobs but also for so many other community benefits. They are the beating heart of communities. If we lose our local businesses if we lose the manufacturing businesses that tend to have higher skills higher wages higher value added then the future generation will become only a generation of flipping hamburgers in McDonald's. We need to retain those businesses with the skills. They are vital to the lifeblood of a community. That is why the amendment that we have put down includes the impacts on the local community that have to be considered within the public interest test.We have outlined in this essentially chapeau clause of section 10F(2) additional considerations that must be included in the public interest test. We have a consequential amendment that I shall come back to which adds to the list of the specific issues that need to be addressed in that test and they are largely heralded by the amendment that is tabled in new section 10F. Thank you."