Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to speak to the Committee stage of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. Today I want to discuss three areas throughout the bill. The first one is the proposed amendments in clause 16 which is the expansion of the suspension period. What we found through the submission stage of the select committee was that members who actually came and spoke to their submissions were quite concerned that parts of these provisions were going to expire on 30 May this year. They wondered what this Government had been doing with its time and the fact that we were and are today weeks away from provisions in this bill expiring.The actual suspension period is now going to be drawn out for a further 2 to 3 years. What we are wondering in that sense and on behalf of those submitters who came through is why they should have confidence in this Government. The Government has already had 2 years to get this right and to make sure there is a level playing field on behalf of New Zealand businesses. It has had that time to investigate and to take officials' advice. Why should they have confidence that in another 2 or 3 years - plus there are going to be a system and provisions that are actually going to protect their trade? What they are asking is why they should have confidence in this Government when this bill already has in its provisions gone outside of its origins.We also heard from the industry and stakeholders who had concerns about some of the standards. The question was: what standards? We know that we have had plasterboard come in from Thailand that was deemed to be standard plasterboard—well who sets those standards? Who sets them and are they standards that the industry itself is actually happy to maintain? So that begs quite a few questions around what the standards are and who is setting them. What came about from that too is that we know that the cost of building materials is high but that is another conversation entirely for another time. We should be talking more about the anti-competitive behaviour and the domination of certain players within our New Zealand market.One of the issues that also arose which we talked about was the domestic market threat here in New Zealand. One of those examples—and we know this all too clearly—is cement. So when there has been too much cement made in one country then it comes into New Zealand and it totally puts at risk our New Zealand domestic market. That was quite a huge concern. We listened to a submitter talking about other areas and about two products that would be at absolute risk for New Zealand businesses when we are making legislation in this House and when new Ministers such as Jacqui Dean come in with a Supplementary Order Paper that says that this is OK. Well it is actually not fine.New Zealanders are telling us and the big players did come and tell us that they have a huge concern about this bill—how in terms of the regulatory impact statement that they read through itemised throughout was the absolute risk to New Zealand businesses. We feel—and when we say we feel"—on this side of the House we put through a minority view to indicate and articulate the absolute concerns that we have. Having a look through and listening to further members in the Committee of the whole House today talking about the current issues in terms of allowing the Minister to have that decision-making process kept on her shoulders I do also want to remind the Committee that in the area of having to waive provisions within legislation we did that already through this House. This was when it came to the Canterbury rebuild and there was an absolute need for building materials to get there quickly and try to help rebuild our Canterbury area. We had the rights and we waived those. So we wonder what it is that says that we now do not actually as a Parliament continue to waive those rights in the best interests of our rebuild and emergency situations like that.I also want to pick up on what David Clark said. He said that this provision inside the bill does actually create and give the Minister a lot of power. She gets to decide on behalf of New Zealand businesses what is best for them. I can say that submitters—excuse me Minister Dean but a lot of this uncertainty and mistrust has arisen from the fact that this Government has done one thing with the start of this bill and now the bill has turned into quite a bad piece of legislation. What we are seeing now is a bill that could have done something for our New Zealand businesses but has not."