Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to oppose this bill and in some ways I do it with a heavy heart. We supported this bill at its first reading because we wanted to explore the idea of a consumer surplus that might come out of this process. Unfortunately when we came to examine the detail in the Commerce Committee we could see that the test that was being proposed by the Government was wholly inadequate—wholly inadequate. Unfortunately there was no prioritisation within that process and no clarity about how it would be applied. We in the end decided that it would actually put the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs at risk in trade discussions because there would be no likelihood of a clear ruling for the Minister to go by in trade discussions and that may lead to undue pressure when it comes to renegotiating trade agreements or to talking about non-tariff barriers and other measures.I want to discuss a few of the aspects of that uncertainty and let the House understand the debate we had in the select committee in order to come to this view. One of the things I should say though from the outset is that submitters were overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. Those businesses that are in the market place in New Zealand could see how they would be harmed through the application of this legislation. But they stressed—and Oji Fibre Solutions is one such company that came before the select committee and said: We're not asking for special treatment here—we're not asking for special treatment. What we are asking for is a level playing field." The World Trading Organization (WTO) rules are there to create a level playing field. They are there so that companies can compete fairly on the world stage.We are an exporting nation. We need to compete as a country on the world stage if we as a country are to pay our way in the world. But the way to undermine our domestic producers in that battle for supremacy on the world stage is to dump cheap products on the market that undermine their profitability and send them to the wall. That was the risk that was outlined to us in the select committee by steel companies—New Zealand Steel—and by export companies in the fruit and produce area like Wattie's. We had a range of submitters come to us and say that this will harm domestic companies and it will cost jobs.That is without looking at new companies—because those are the big companies that can represent their interests on the world stage which can have the debate about whether this is a fair law and whether it sets a level playing field. But what about small companies that have got innovative technologies? When the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment goes out and says "Will this dumping harm any existing New Zealand businesses?" how big is its scope? Does it have in its mind's eye those little businesses—those micro-businesses—that have a great idea that could succeed on the world stage only to be dumped on to have their capital withdrawn and to have their businesses fail? That is not a fair place in which to do business.The genesis of this bill we are told was around the Christchurch earthquakes when there were exceptional circumstances and there were reasons why New Zealand might wish to take cheap goods from overseas that had been subsidised by other Governments or that were surplus to requirements and were being dumped at a price below fair market value. That was a crisis situation and we saw in this House that Parliament—Parliament—had the nous to be able to deal with that situation and say: "We will make an exception here. This is not going to harm our domestic producers because it is so grand in its scale and the need is so desperate that we will let this stuff come into New Zealand at a cheaper price." When that situation arose Parliament stood up and dealt with it.Unfortunately this legislation says that a Minister on a good day can give a nod and a wink and say "This thing should be dumped on the market." no matter the consequences on our domestic producers—no matter the consequences. They have the ultimate discretion. Then we ask: "Well surely there must be some protection for the Minister. There must some protection for the Minister in this. There must be some regime in place where it will be measured as to what constitutes something that might harm domestic producers because the words are in there. We will look at what it does to domestic producers." Here is the list of factors that will be considered when deciding whether dumped goods should be allowed into New Zealand. Normally WTO rules say that there are to be no dumped goods because that is unfair trading practice. But here this Government is saying "Oh yeah maybe we will. Maybe we will let cheap stuff in. To hell with our domestic producers." Here are the factors they are going to consider: focus on prices product choice and availability product and service quality the financial viability of the domestic industry employment levels and competition in the market. Those are I think if I am not wrong eight different factors that we considered. We asked for a prioritisation order: which of these factors will be considered more important because they are directly opposed many of them. Is dumping OK in this circumstance? "Ah well we will look at those factors and we will weight them in each individual case." I think was the best answer we got—not very convincing I am afraid.I should have started from the outset by congratulating the Minister on her elevation and I apologise for not doing that. But this Minister has been sold a pup with this bill. This is a rough start being asked to defend dumping that creates an unlevel playing field that allows overseas competitors to destroy our domestic producers in this country due to this Government's short-sighted desire to say: "We brought you this cheap product or that cheap product here or there." The interesting thing was all of these submitters whom we heard who were opposed to it amongst them of course too were Business New Zealand ManufacturingNZ and Catherine Beard—I found myself nodding along to Catherine Beard in a way that I have never found myself nodding along to Catherine Beard before—but they understood and they expressed clearly how damaging this could be for New Zealand.Another consequence of this legislation is the uncertainty it creates. Australia has twice looked at similar legislation—twice—and more thoroughly than our process allowed for. They twice looked at similar legislation and resoundingly rejected that legislation because they know it will harm their domestic industry. They prefer a level playing field not one tilted in favour of multinationals no. In Australia they look after their domestic industry domestic jobs and they want a fair and even-handed market. What we heard from some of these submitters was about their parent companies when deciding where they should invest new plant say a new steel mill. Would they put that into Australia where they know there is going to be a level playing field or would they put that into New Zealand where no one can say what the outcome of this assessment would be when the Minister gets his or her hands on it to decide whether suddenly it is in consumers' interests to undermine the domestic market? That is the issue that we have before us.Unfortunately we could sense around the table in the select committee the concern because these are big players who came to see us who came to express their concerns. Business New Zealand of course does not criticise the Government lightly. It does it only when it is deeply concerned about the impact on domestic producers. That public interest test is highly highly subjective—as it has been outlined by the Government. The Government will have huge powers and that will create pressure on the Minister to capitulate—to save face. Say for example if we were dealing with a difficult trading partner overseas who was introducing all kinds of anti-trade mechanisms and there was pressure coming on the Minister has pressure on her that was not there before.This is unfortunate and this Government can fix this. It is not too late. Ms Dean expressed in her initial contribution a desire to bring to the legislation some amendments as yet ill-described that in some way may go towards remedying those concerns. But I think that if they were well developed and clear we would have heard about them in her speech. These concerns are serious. These are very very serious concerns and we have no idea how that test is to be weighted how it will be applied what effect it will have upon investment in New Zealand as companies get the scares because they do not know what is going to happen in this uncertain environment.The other thing of course—and related—is the extra costs on business that this will introduce. This legislation make no mistake will add additional costs to business because there is uncertainty now. There will be regulatory uncertainty that was not there before. Businesses will have to stump up and deal with this uncertainty. They will have to price it into their products. This will bring costs to New Zealand businesses. This is a terrible piece of legislation. The Minister has been sold a pup and it is New Zealand jobs and domestic producers who are going to be put at risk by putting this bill through the House. Labour will oppose this bill from here on in and we ask the Government to seriously consider doing the same."