Hutchison Paul: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1916. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I must say that it is absolutely vital to New Zealand that our exports are ever-expanding and trade is fundamental to New Zealand. It is something that the Hon Phil Goff certainly for most of his speech seemed to forget. He does wonder why it has taken a year or two for this bill to come through. But the previous Labour Government had adequate time—in fact it had 9 years—in order to put this bill through if it really wanted to if it was really serious about trade if it was really serious about ensuring that we were protected at the borders. But it did not. At the last moment of that dying inept Government it was actually flicked in by a Minister who is not absolutely lily-white as was suggested by the Hon Phil Goff. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She stood down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I just mentioned that she was not exactly lily-white. That is all. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Are you being mean about me? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would never be mean to you not at all. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I stood down. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well maybe that was the case but whatever. It was appropriate at the time that you did.  
But on to the bill there is no question that it is vital. Speaking to Part 1 of the bill the purpose is to enable New Zealand to apply safeguard measures and provisional safeguard duties. The idea is that these be in accordance with the World Trade Organization regulations which of course we need to ensure. We have an ever-changing pattern of more dependence on a wider spectrum of countries that we have free-trade agreements with and dumping is a very real possibility. But it is interesting to point out that of all the years of the previous legislation there have been only four cases that have been investigated and only one of them was actually imposed. It is not something that is used frequently. In fact the submitters to this bill of which there were only five did wonder whether we really needed to have this bill at all. But on balance we felt that yes we did that dumping could occur and that it was vital and relevant that this did happen.  
I do note that the chamber of commerce was concerned about a variety of issues and one of course was the issue of time allowed for extending an investigation from 30 days to 70 or even 85 days. It supported that whereas in contrast one of the other submitters felt that it should be only up to 60 days because otherwise the long investigation might upset its business operations. The fact is that extending it to 60 or even 85 days allows the opportunity for a very thorough investigation but it need not take that long and I am sure that the Associate Minister of Commerce—the very competent Minister Mr Banks—would ensure that any investigation was done highly expeditiously. He may wish to talk on that particular matter because it is vital. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as well his views—[ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I cannot hear the member. There is too much—order! I am on my feet—discussion going on. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you. I would be very interested to hear his views on the fact that some of the submitters had felt that it was a question of balance as to whether we would have a bill at all but indeed it was appropriate that we do.