Cosgrove Clayton: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 To reiterate my colleague Maryan Street’s sentiments the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is a bipartisan bill; I took over from Maryan as our trade spokesperson. Traditionally the bill has always been a bipartisan issue. That is a principle that I will adhere to but can I make a couple of observations. Mr Banks has come into the House tonight— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He couldn’t resist it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh absolutely! Well for some reason this is the second time in 2 weeks where I have followed Mr Banks in a speech and the ammunition and fodder is just too good to resist in that somebody left the crypt door slightly ajar yet again and the old dinosaur came out and decided that he would take credit for everybody else’s work. The interesting point is this: he made a far better effort than he did almost a week ago tonight when his first salvo in his professional performance as a Minister was to introduce a piece of legislation that I will not go into in any detail about at all because it is not worth it but just suffice to say that the bill repealed 31 pieces of legislation that were spent and effectively repealed anyway. That was an absolute doozy so we have made progress I say; we have made progress tonight. A week later Mr Banks has gone back to the crypt dusted off a few old books and a few bits and pieces and somebody said: “Banksy”—to quote him—“we’d better stick you out on a pole and give you a bill to go back into the House that has some degree of substance in it.” 
I have to say in all seriousness that this bill does have a high degree of substance. This may not be the sexiest piece of legislation to come before this House but it is vitally important and I give credit to the last National speaker actually Dr Paul Hutchison and my colleague for highlighting the safeguards and the necessity of this bill. It is a bill of substance. That answers another question as to why it did languish since 2009. Yes it was introduced by a Labour Government in September 2008. Colleagues on the other side might recall they then won an election and there was a change of administration a couple of months later but the reason this bill of substance languished was that it actually had substance in it. It was not a political slogan it was not the usual sort of National Party slipshod like the Minister of Justice’s old sort of “lock ‘em up throw away the key”—all good populist stuff that you could rev a few people up in the provinces over. No no this probably does not have a lot of political capital that you can use to get a 5 6 or 7-second grab on the 6 o’clock news and beat up on somebody. No this is a bill of substance. This is not the sort of hollow bill that we normally get: normally a couple of pages long a good slogan on the front a political pamphlet but actually it does nothing. 
This is a bill of substance and that is why of course it languished for 3 years because they just wanted to get all the propaganda out and all the sort of hollowed-out stuff—the political pamphlets and the slogans. This is an important piece of legislation. Mr Banks would do well not to trivialise it because what it does do is it brings us in line and makes us consistent with the World Trade Organization. I know there are members in this House and in other places who deride the World Trade Organization. Mr Banks made one point—we all sat up and took notice because it was the only valid point he has made in his last two contributions in the Parliament—in that the rules-based system of the World Trade Organization is indeed important. It is important because those countries that are vulnerable now have a regime where they can take disputes to an institution internationally have their case heard and have judgments made. Of course we were after 100 years colleagues I think a recipient of that regime in the Australian apples case— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: 97 years. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Ninety-seven years my colleague says. I believe that the Aussies our brothers and sisters over there—our best mates whether we like them or not—are still resisting our apples but we had a judgment. We could go to an international institution make our case have it heard and have a valid decision made. That is why a rules-based system I would argue is important rather than those who deride the World Trade Organization as some sort of unrepresentative body even though it is represented by ambassadors who in the vast majority of cases are appointed by democratically elected Governments and take their positions and their decisions from capitals made up of democratically elected Governments. So I support this bill. 
Debate interrupted.