Mallard Trevor: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair. So do I when I shave. I think we might be at a historical moment in the Parliament at the moment. Before I get into the detail of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill I say that people do not get two maiden speeches but they do sometimes get two valedictories. It may be that tonight we have seen the second valedictory for the Hon John Banks. I want to refer to the comment he made about the young backbenchers from the National Party and their contribution. I want to say that Tau Henare Paul Hutchison—who although he does not look it is older than I am—and John Hayes are the young backbenchers to whom John Banks was referring who have made contributions today.  
I say to John Hayes that I hope he gets John Banks’ job. I think there would be some justice in that. He is seen as a fair person. He is seen as a person who understands the issues and he made a contribution on this legislation that understood it much better than the Minister did. I do want to ask the Minister what the effect of this bill is on the trade in cabbages. What is the effect on trade in cabbages and their transit on rivers? What is the effect of this bill on the import of cabbages and is there unfair competition with cabbages that are transported down the river on boats—cabbage boats?  
I want to ask the Minister specifically about the amendment that he is proposing to clause 18(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 where he wants to omit “1 or more” and substitute “1 or both”. I want to ask him what he is referring to when he is substituting both for one or one for both or two for one. Is he talking about cheques? Is he talking about products? Is it two lots of $25 million or what? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No this bill is about checks and balances. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is about checks and balances. There is no doubt that this is about checks and balances. How do you spell “checks” in this particular case? Does it have a “q” or a “c” in the middle of it? Is there a “k” in it or a “q” in this check and which bank balance is affected? 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member whose name fails me who has just taken his seat needs to understand the Standing Orders because the Standing Orders are quite tight around the Committee stage of bills. He should be talking to Part 1 in a perfect world. Going on to the Supplementary Order Papers or anything is probably OK but it has got to be relevant to the provisions of the bill in the Committee stage as it has come out of the select committee. I put it to you under the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just ask members to reflect and deal with the detail of Part 1. That is where we are coming from. I know members can be very clever in the way in which they do that but I also need to remind members that we need to be within the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify for you lest the point of order raised by the Minister cause any confusion that a member is entitled to debate a Supplementary Order Paper that amends Part 1 during the debate on Part 1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order that has changed I think since the last time this member was in charge of a bill when the Supplementary Order Papers used to be dealt with at the end rather than as part of the process. I think that changed about 20 years ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that that in fact is correct.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Your own member is speaking. Give him a fair go. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you for the help. I want to refer you to clause 5 of the bill. This is the clause that says that the Act binds the Crown. I think that there could not be a truer thing said at the current time than that ACT is binding the Crown. In fact the head of the Government I think is totally tied up by ACT at the moment. He is bound up almost in a way that he is being dominated. He is being dominated by ACT. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member is behaving like a buffoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated now. Can I just say to members that points of order are to be terse and to the point. It is not an opportunity to have a go at another member. That in itself is out of order and I would just caution members about that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to refer you to clause 6 of the bill and in particular clause 6(1)(c) which makes it clear that the report—and we are waiting for a report in this particular matter—is to be made “available on an Internet site free of charge and the Internet site address”. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It is dotcom? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well that is the question. What happens if they are on Megaupload and the address is a dotcom address? Does that count as being available or not available in the current circumstances?  
Chris Hipkins 
: They could make it available by sending a helicopter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well you could get a helicopter view but I am not sure— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have to ask myself why am I wasting my time in this Parliament when the parliamentary Opposition— [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I remind members on my left that when there is a point of order on the floor there is no sound at all from any other member. 
Hon John Banks 
: People at home who are interested in what is happening in this Parliament want to hear from people like the Green Party. The Green Party member at the back of the Chamber has been seeking the call for a while and they want to be able to hear his questions and get succinct answers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am on my feet. 
Hon John Banks 
: We don’t want— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon John Banks 
: —this howling and carping all the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I am on my feet. I am the Chair and I will recognise the member when I do. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two points of order with you. The first is that points of order are to do with order and large explanations of what are preambles to a point of order will generally lead to disorder. The second is that the prerogative around who is recognised to speak is solely yours and for the Minister to be challenging your rulings or your selection of speakers is totally out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I have already ruled on that for the Minister and he is aware. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to refer you again to clause 6(1)(c) about internet addresses. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What does it say? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What it says is that a copy of the report is—“or will be” is struck out—“available on an Internet site free of charge and the Internet site address.” What I want to know is whether Megaupload a dotcom site will be eligible for these purposes. I would like the Minister’s opinion on whether a dotcom site will be eligible for these purposes and I want an assurance from the Minister that no previous consideration will be taken into account when that decision is made as to where this will be available and where the report will go.  
I would now like to refer you to clause 10 of the bill which goes to the questions of “access to information relevant to safeguard investigation”—I just want to emphasise those words “safeguard investigation” because those are important and we will be coming back to that issue—and “treatment of confidential information”. I want to ask whether when information is confidential the chief executive—because that is the person who is mainly going to be dealing with it—says “This is confidential.” Or does he say “I don’t know.” and “I’ve forgotten.”?  
What does the chief executive say when he has information that he does not want to get out because he thinks it would be disadvantageous to the country? Does he make clear the reason? Is he fair? Is he democratic? Is he transparent? Or does he just say “I forgot.” and “I can’t remember.”? What is the standard we expect of our chief executive when dealing with this legislation? Do we expect someone to be transparent and honest or do we want them to say “I forgot. I can’t remember.” and then blame a lawyer for encouraging them to tell lies? 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know this bill inside out and back to front. I invite the member to refer very specifically to clauses or parts of the bill so that I can then take a call and answer any intelligent question that he may pitch to me.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. That is not a point of order. But I ask the member to be careful in the way in which he is delivering his address to the Committee.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Notwithstanding the fact that you Mr Chair ruled out the Minister’s point of order I will refer him to clause 10(1) and in particular clause 10(1)(a) which goes to the treatment of confidential information and which says: “All interested persons are entitled to access all information relevant to a safeguard investigation except for—(a) confidential information (unless the submitter of the confidential information consents to the confidential information being made available);”. Well what is clear is that in a number of cases people might give information that a chief executive the recipient of the information might prefer to keep confidential and the people who are giving that information might prefer it to be out there. Skycity if it had any information in this area I am certain would want to be transparent. I think Mr Dotcom with the information if he had any in this trade area— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Government members responsible for this bill want to make progress tonight by having relevancy around the debate. There is no relevancy— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order and the Minister is misusing the point of order privilege.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to ask the Minister about differential pricing and dumping. I want to ask the Minister this. If there is a product that is valued at say $3600 for one and someone gets five of them and a whole pile of food and pays $2882 would that be regarded as dumping? Would that level of discount when a product is valued at $3600 there are five of them—maybe that is $18000; five times $3600—and a pile of food and the charge is only $2882 be regarded as excessive discounting? Would that practice be regarded as dumping and what would happen if someone who was involved in that approach spoke to a Minister in order to get a special deal?