Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

I te tuatahi, ka tautoko ahau i te tangi mōteatea ki a Tūī Hauiti Parapara, tētahi o ngā kaimahi o Te Whare nei, kua hinga i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei; e kara, haere, haere, haere. Whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Firstly, I endorse the expressions of grief accorded to Tūī Hauiti Parapara, one of the workers of this House who passed away in days just past; farewell dear friend, depart, return. I bring the focus of the contributions back to those of us of the House—greetings to us all.]

I am proud to bring this bill to the House this evening, as it represents a genuine opportunity to not just make a positive change here in Aotearoa New Zealand but to make a positive change globally. This bill has the potential to reposition Aotearoa New Zealand at the forefront of progressive social change again. Our history is filled with the great examples of brave, progressive social policy. This year we commemorate 123 years since the women’s suffrage petition was received by this House. More recently, in 2013 the marriage equality bill was received and passed by this House. Although this bill might not be a world first, it will go some way to restoring our reputation as a responsible and caring global citizen.

This bill seeks to prohibit the importation of goods produced by slavery into Aotearoa New Zealand, preventing slave owners profiting from their crime and encouraging the ethical production of goods throughout the world. Both the United States and Belgium have passed similar legislation, and it is now time for us to follow suit.

This bill is no stranger to this House. In 2009 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee considered the petition of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid and 17,000 others requesting that this House legislate against the importation of products made by slave labour. However, the Government did not care enough to do the right thing. Later that year the bill came to the House thanks to the Hon Maryan Street, but, sadly, the Government once again was not brave enough to do the right thing and prohibit the importation of goods produced by slavery into Aotearoa New Zealand. Late last year, through what some might call luck and others call destiny, the bill was drawn from the members’ ballot once again, giving the Government yet another chance to do the right thing.

This bill presents the New Zealand Parliament with an opportunity to explore in good faith how free trade and human rights might be accommodated in a principled and thoughtful way. There is no doubt that this bill represents a position of ideology, but I do not make any apologies for that. Nor do I apologise for bringing this bill back into the members’ ballot and into this House, for we on this side of the House—the Labour Party—believe wholeheartedly that this is the right thing to do.

This is a position that Aotearoa New Zealand should be taking from here on out. Our country regularly claims the moral high ground. We take democracy from Western civilisation, yet we are not prepared to be brave enough to take a stand. I ask the House to allow democracy to take its role with this particular bill. I ask this House to accept this bill, vote for it, and allow it to go through the democratic process, which allows for robust debate and allows for submissions to be heard on such an important issue. In a time when trade is important to our country, are we prepared to encourage trade from a position that accepts that slave labour is OK in the modern world? Are we, as Aotearoa New Zealand, prepared to do that?

Slavery was abolished in Britain in the 18th century, and the ban on slavery is a foundation stone of modern international human rights law. Despite this, slavery continues in West Africa, Asia, and South America. In fact, some estimate that 21 million to 36 million people are enslaved worldwide, generating approximately $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers. Of this, sadly, about 22 percent are children.

I bring this bill before the House in the hope that our country, with a proud history of trade and with an eye to the future prosperity of not just our country but globally, will take a stand as a responsible global citizen in the world. I bring this bill in the hope that it will progress through the democratic stages that bills in this country pass through, to allow for robust debate, for submissions to be heard, and, hopefully, for this particular bill to be enacted into law. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge the member who brought the bill to the House, Mr Peeni Henare, whom I have a lot of respect for. I see that the select committee that I chair, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, has been nominated. If the bill does get to the select committee, although we have a big work programme, I can assure you that we will make time to examine this bill.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the importation of goods made in whole or in part by slave labour. I guess our key message would be that it is impossible to physically identify goods made by slave labour, so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable. The bill, therefore, makes a mere cosmetic change that, if enacted, would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence, which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers, who these days are very informed in terms of the goods and services that they use.

New Zealand’s anti - slave labour laws are already in broad consensus with international standards and norms. The main provisions of the bill amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Clause 5 amends section 2(1) by inserting the words: “slave labour means labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised”. Clause 6 amends the Act by inserting in schedule 1, after the second item: “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by slave labour.”

I guess the main debating point that I would make is that it is clear this issue is something we all struggle with—not just here in New Zealand but around the world. There is no doubt about the abhorrence of slavery. The problems are many and varied. The traditions of servitude and forced labour in many societies prove to be extraordinarily hard to eradicate. However, we just do not see that this bill is the solution, in and of itself, to a number of these issues.

The problems with this bill start with the definition. It is simple if we have a very narrow definition that would be associated with what I call a historical image of, say, slave ships. We can all have a mental image of the abhorrence of the slave trade and slave ships. But the moment we widen that definition, as the member’s bill does, we have some real problems with trying to target what is legitimate and what is realisable from what is illegitimate. It is deeply in contention by many, many developing countries, and it would lead to massive disputation were we to proceed down that track.

The second fundamental problem behind the definitional issues is that the very success of the spread of economic development and the growth of the global supply chain associated with its compounds are difficult. Many different products from so many different countries are incorporated in a final product, meaning that we have got a very complicated and complex supply chain around the world, with many different countries providing services and products that come together to make one product.

I want to use an example of what I just referred to, and that is the production of sugar. With that high-risk product, which would emerge in numerous foodstuffs, all imported into New Zealand, how would we ever be able to differentiate between products made from this wide definition of slavery and products made simply by poor people? We know and we understand that all around the world, unfortunately, there are labour markets where people are paid a far lower rate than, for example, our minimum wage here in New Zealand. It is simply impossible for customs officers to physically identify goods made by slave labour, so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable at best.

Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it has ever been before. A single product is often made by various parts from various countries with different labour standards. It is nearly impossible to identify which aspects of a product might or might not have been made under which labour standards, or in which part of the world.

The bill makes a mere cosmetic change that, if enacted, would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence, which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers who are informed. If we were to pass the bill into New Zealand law, it is doubtful whether we would be able to police it or make it effective. Whether it would have any effect at all, it is admirable that we pay attention and give voice to this issue, but I think we need to look for real action that will have a real effect.

The bill is unlikely to add to New Zealand’s anti - slave labour laws, which are already broadly consistent with international standards today. It must be taken in the context of a 21st century world. There is no doubt that any MP in this House would support an action that would have a meaningful effect upon slavery—to prohibit it, to stop it, and to drive it out of countries elsewhere. But this bill will not do that.

Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it was back in 1930 when the United States originally banned slavery. That legislation was passed in 1930. If we were in the climate of the trade, trade law, and trade rules of the world that were in place in 1930, then this bill might have some effect.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.