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

It is a pleasure to finish my call on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill again, Mr Henare—someone whom I personally have a lot of respect for.

💬 Hon Member: What about his rugby ability?

That is outstanding. It goes without saying. I just want to say that the spirit of the bill is right. I think we would all agree in this House that we want to see human trafficking and slavery rubbed out right throughout the world. The problem with this bill is that it is just too wide in its interpretation. We live in a world now that has got a sophisticated, complicated global supply chain, and the real challenge would be for us to identify and say what products may have been produced in countries where slave labour is used or where slave labour has contributed to the production of an item.

Just a very quick example of that would be sugar. Sugar—if it was an at-risk product—is obviously produced in many countries around the world. We do not know whether or not slave labour has been used to produce it in some of those countries. Maybe there is a strong chance that it has been. But the fact of the matter is that if we in New Zealand try to ban products being sold and ban people from having access to those products that have sugar in them, you can see the challenge that we would be presented with in terms of how we would ban those products. So although I think the spirit of the bill is right—I commend the spirit of the bill—in a practical sense this bill cannot be used in any real, meaningful way to try to combat slave labour or identify products that have actually been produced or manufactured with the use of slave labour. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, sponsored by my good colleague Peeni Henare, and can I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House.

This is a very worthy bill, which cuts to the heart of a great evil that prevails in this world, unfortunately, in this day and age, and that is slavery. It seeks to prohibit the importation of goods produced by slavery. As we know, there are those unscrupulous operators who profiteer from slave labour, and, indeed, we do import goods that are produced by slave labour.

It is almost ironic that we have just had the Government reject a worthy bill to guarantee a minimum wage for contractors—that has been rejected. But I am not surprised, because, once again, the Government has shown its complete ineptitude at navigating its moral compass on behalf of New Zealand. Here we are again: what have we heard from the Government in terms of this bill so far? I have reviewed Mr Mitchell’s speech that he has just given and all we hear are excuses, excuses, excuses. All we hear is that “Oh yes, slavery is abhorrent but—but—it’s too difficult to define, it’s too broad, and the supply chains are too complex. How will we be able to differentiate between what is produced by slave labour and what is not?”. We get the same excuses coming forward from the Government, so it really just rings hollow.

Their rhetoric rings hollow, because what we know is that this is all about their ideology and the principles that they stand for. If this bill had some sort of free-trade agreement dimension to it, well, the members opposite would be doing cartwheels and doing whatever they could to make sure that it gets over the line. But a worthy bill that is all about taking a stand as New Zealanders, where we take a stand and we show leadership from this Parliament against the evils of slavery—what does the Government do? It says: “Oh, it’s too hard, too complex. Oh no, we can’t do it. It’s a worthy cause, slavery is not OK—but no, sorry, we can’t go there.” Well, that is not good enough—that is not good enough.

I was hoping that this bill would be an Amazing Grace moment for this House. I was hoping that there would be some enlightenment that would elucidate the Government so that they would—my colleague Peeni Henare, he is a modern day William Wilberforce. He is leading the charge against the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the perpetuation of slavery in these modern times, through us banning the import of these goods. I was hoping that this would be an Amazing Grace moment for this House, but, sadly, they have not taken up the call from my colleague here. Alas, they have not. That is very sad because we should be taking a stand. This is a worthy piece of legislation and we do need to take it seriously. That is exactly why this bill needs to go to a select committee.

The USA has implemented legislation to this effect. Belgium has passed legislation to this effect. So if it is good enough for those major countries to implement such legislation, then we should be investigating it. We should be looking at their examples as to what they are doing. So, sadly, yes, I was hoping that this would be the Amazing Grace moment where this House would come together and we would take a stand for our country and think of all of those millions of folks around the world who are victims of slavery and take a stand against that, but, alas, it is very disappointing that this Government is opposing this bill. But I do support this bill and I support my colleague Peeni Henare. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. I would first like to thank the member Peeni Henare for conceiving and working up this bill, which does address an important issue. Let me address, though, why this is challenging. Firstly, there is the inability to identify slave labour components. In a complex multi-source logistics and manufacturing global supply chain how do you identify what was done in a slave labour environment and what was done in a standard environment? Secondly, there are the real risks of being caught up in trade restrictions and being challenged by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Thirdly, the case is made—and I heard it just a moment ago—that Belgium and the USA have such legislation. Well, the USA has actually always had slave labour legislation since the Tariff Act of 1930, but only recently has it closed the loophole that still allowed products to be imported if they otherwise could not meet consumer demand—the consumer test of 1930. Even so, after many years of legislation with little impact it too struggled to identify the sources of slave labour. I think we should also reflect on the fact that the USA is currently having that legislation challenged in the courts as well.

Belgium has also been mentioned. Since 2003 Belgium has had a social label for products and services that meet the ILO covenants, which include rejection of child labour and forced labour. The Belgian social label requires chain management of the entire production chain, down to the raw materials phase. For example, for a T-shirt, it is not just the sewing workshops but also textile factories and cotton fields. Because this is too expensive and complex, the Belgian production chain has been looked at in what is called a delimited fashion. That assesses a social analysis of the whole production chain using volume, weight, costs, and risk. This is a work in progress for Belgium as well. The social label in Belgium is guaranteed by the Government. It is underwritten by Belgian law for socially responsible production, and it is awarded by a committee called the Committee for Socially Responsible Production. A recent report on the Belgian experience shows that few businesses take it up, consumers do not understand the value of the label, and it does not significantly affect consumer purchase choices.

I think there are other tools that we can bring to this problem. Firstly, I think we can support anti-slavery measures through the WTO and the 1998 International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Secondly, we require ILO provisions in all our free-trade agreements. Thirdly, expanding the issue of slavery beyond trade to include slavery in all forms via the United Nations. I want to reinforce that we are absolutely supportive of the intention and principles of anti-slavery, and would welcome engaging with the member on steps forward that learn from the approaches that other countries are taking, and which help us fine tune and develop new tools that we might use. I commend this contribution to the House.

Marama Fox.

💬 Marama Davidson: Marama Davidson.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Davidson. I really apologise.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, whose name is Trevor Mallard. Kia ora. I want to stand and strongly support my wonderful Tāmaki-makau-rau colleague Peeni Henare and this Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, which basically seeks to prohibit the importation of products—stop getting them in here—that have been made in whole or in part by slave labour.

I want to, actually, pick up on my colleague Rino Tirikatene’s speech—where on earth are my words—on the concept of New Zealand as leaders of the global world. Because, absolutely, the products and the type of work that we are trying to prohibit definitely impacts on indigenous people around the world. So New Zealand can and should—of all the nations, we are well placed to stand up and say “We do not accept what part we play in oppressing workers around the world. We do not accept that as a country.”, and we are well placed to do that because we do not need to accept those products that are oppressing entire communities, entire nations around the world, including indigenous peoples and communities, and including poorer communities. As an indigenous rights spokesperson for the Green Party I am pleased to stand up and support the bill, including on that notion.

I want to go back to some of what my colleague on the National benches Dr Shane Reti was just saying around the difficulties of the law. What is important—what is important? This is human rights leadership legislation. We have to keep taking these steps to uphold New Zealand as a country that upholds human rights. This is what is important about this bill. The very notion of putting this legislation in place makes several statements that are incredibly important. It makes the statement that we will not stand for people being oppressed, in terrible working conditions, being paid little or nothing, and being kept in really oppressive conditions to produce these products. We will not stand for that.

But by doing that, by passing this bill, it is actually about the community discussion that will follow. It is about the discussion that did follow when the Belgian and US legislation, similar to this bill, was put in place—that is actually what is also important. So we can argue the definitions of slavery and we can argue the details of the bill—and we should—but the principle and the leadership, which will then be followed by the community discussion on what we uphold as the direction for our world to go in, is what is important. That community leadership is what I wanted to also touch on.

As well as being a spokesperson for indigenous peoples around the world and for the changing of power relationships and upholding that the world that keeps a few people really comfortable and a whole lot more—a whole lot more—literally breaking their backs to keep a few people really comfortable, is not a world that this nation Aotearoa New Zealand stands up for and supports, and that we want that to change. That is an important step for New Zealand to make, and it is also because we have prided ourselves as a country upholding human rights. We are proud of our membership in the United Nations as a human rights State—we have done all of these things. So this is an important bill and one that I am very happy to support.

The last point I want to pick up on—how much time have I got?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just under a minute.

OK. It has been raised by the Government benches about the difficulty of tracing back to see whether products have been made by slave labour. In my research, there are ways and steps that we can take to actually do that. We can make proactive steps that are not always mandatory, and can help: things, for example, around social labelling systems. We can support the communities and the industries taking those steps, as well. So I just want to finish up by supporting indigenous and poorer working class communities, upholding our human rights reputation in this country, and getting through the practical challenges.

I would just like to take a short call on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Peeni Henare, the member who brought the bill to the House. He is a good member of this House, and he has got a genuine intention to do well for this country, but this bill, unfortunately, does not achieve a purpose that he would be proud of in his legislative career. This is a bill that I think the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, summed up more eloquently in the sense that it is a statement of intent rather than a statement of fact about the ability to do anything that would be serious in that area and have the effect that the member bringing this bill to this Parliament would like to see.

A number of members have gone through the difficulty in the definitions and just how you define slave labour. We are in a very modern manufacturing world that has a lot of supply chains, and there are a lot of different products and definitions of what slave labour could be, so that could be an issue.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Did someone talk about supply chain?

Is there a problem from New Zealand First? Yes, be quiet in the cheap seats over there. The nature of the bill has got some major issues.

The previous speaker, Marama Davidson, tried to pronounce this bill as something wider than it actually is, and I think that member needs to look at what it is actually about. You know, in many cases you could say that there are some aspects of the system that Labour and the Greens support that do not insist on freedom of choice. The union movement, for example, has a major impact on the ability of individuals to do what they would like to do. They are coerced into acting in the interests of the majority, not in the interests of their individual requirements. You can actually take it to a very wide scale if you wanted to, and that could be a danger to the labour and green movements, which are so based on those things as part of their base of support.

When you look at slave labour, nobody wants to see slave labour in any form. I do not think there is any debate about that in this House. But it is not what the previous member said. She was saying that there are only a few people in the world who are gaining from billions of people who are in slave labour. That is not the case. You know, people may have different working conditions, they may have different income levels from us, but that is part of the growth of those countries. Not everybody starts at the same level. China, for example, which brings millions of people up to our standard of living every year, has increased its standard of pay over many years, and the vast bulk of the Chinese population is seeing huge gains through industrialisation, globalisation, and being part of the world economy.

It is easy for the labour and green movements to say that something is slave labour because it is not under the terms and conditions that they perceive somebody should be paid in New Zealand. That is the difficulty of this—there are so many transactions going on in the world, there are so many people who are gaining through the economic system of the world, and we should not be saying that there are major issues in that regard, because there are not. There are a lot of people who are actually transitioning from a subsistence lifestyle into a lifestyle very much like ours where they have that standard of living.

There are so many difficulties with this definition. We understand what the member is trying to do, and nobody is against sending that message, but this bill does not achieve that, and, unfortunately, it will not get the support of this House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and I do commend the member who has put this forward. I have to go back a couple of contributions from that side of the House to acknowledge Mr Reti and his considered debate in the House tonight. An analysis of actual detail—how refreshing from that side of the House—instead of being told how complicated it is, how broad it is, and something about supply chains: beautiful. You have picked that up really well.

Let us just look at some of the facts here. What I want to do is acknowledge Mr Reti’s contribution and take some of the wording from the Tariff Act 1930 from the US and its recent update. Let us see what the US is trying to do: “ ‘Forced labor’, as herein used, shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the worker does not offer himself [or herself] voluntarily.” What a definition. What a great place to start for the member who spoke prior, David Bennett, to come to the select committee and say, actually, what Mr Peeni Henare has in his legislation may not be on the money, but look at the precedent from around the world and the countries that have acknowledged that this is a problem. In fact, Mr Reti’s contribution was so good that it belied the fact that there are specific solutions and there are specific attempts. Yes, they are complicated, but that is not a reason—it is absolutely not a reason—to not support sensible legislation to combat slave labour.

New Zealand First, as you can tell, supports this legislation. New Zealand has been an advocate for labour rights for most of its history. In fact, it was just last week that we had the New Zealand Business and Human Rights Forum come to speak in Parliament and use the facilities. At that forum’s launch it was said: “New Zealand businesses are increasingly recognising that respecting human rights is not only the right thing to do – it’s also good for business.” This bill should be unanimously passed tonight because I do concede the point around definition and where we proceed to from here, but we need legislation to begin that battle and to encompass the efforts of the World Trade Organization trade agreements.

Actually, I will go through some of them. For example—and let us not confuse the issue here—New Zealand First completely opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because it is a bad trade deal, but in it, at least, the US was trying to work towards “the highest-standard, most progressive [work standards] in history. It’s got strong, enforceable provisions for workers, preventing things like child labour. It’s got strong, enforceable provisions on the environment, helping us to do things…” to protect people. The United States is seeking an enforceable labour obligation that would require countries to uphold international labour standards in their laws and practices as reflected in the 1998 International Labour Organization declaration, and Mr Reti spoke to that.

We have a framework. We have something to begin the debate and this House—this Parliament—needs to bring it into legislation to make it meaningful, to make it binding on the House, so that we can not only look after workers in New Zealand but also protect businesses here and look after people from around the world. Thank you.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema. I stand in opposition to this bill, but I want to congratulate the member, whom I have a great deal of respect for, Peeni Henare—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Congratulate him on his luck.

—on having the bill drawn but also on having very noble intentions in bringing this measure to the House. I absolutely agree and concur with the intention of that respected colleague across the Chamber.

We agree on this side that slavery is absolutely abhorrent and that goods produced under slave conditions are morally unacceptable. However, we have before the House—and this is where I differ with “Professor Tabuteau” who is currently leading the Chamber—I differ with him in that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will withdraw.

I differ with the member who just resumed his seat—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now sit, and then he will stand, and now he will withdraw and apologise to the member.

I withdraw and apologise to the member. I differ entirely with the member who spoke previously, in that I think that a bill that has unenforceable measures should not be passed by this House tonight. Given this is a member’s bill, it is not beholden on Government members on this side to find a way to make the unworkable workable; it actually behoves the member who has introduced it to introduce legislation that is practical and enforceable.

This is a Government that does take slavery very, very seriously. I refer the House to the case of the Oyang 70, a Korean fishing vessel that tragically sank offshore in 2010 with the loss of six lives of Indonesian crew members. Those crewmembers were kept in conditions that were very comparable to that of slavery. They were working under very harsh conditions, they were subject to beatings, they had their passports taken off them, they were mistreated, and they were not properly remunerated for the work that they did. Everything about their conditions that they were kept in was equivalent to slavery. So I am proud of the fact that this Government has taken action in a practical and pragmatic way on that particular issue, and, as of April this year, fishing vessels that operate in New Zealand waters have to be flagged as New Zealand vessels, and, therefore, New Zealand labour laws and human rights provisions apply.

I think, in its intention, this bill is good, but we have heard some of the practical difficulties of enforcement. I would like to refer to another commodity. We have heard about sugar, which is something that our former trade Minister Hon Tim Groser used last time this bill was introduced—or the last time a bill of this nature was introduced to the House in 2009. There is another commodity—a precious commodity in the world—cocoa, which is produced under a wide range of conditions. We have the very excellent Wellington Chocolate Factory based here in the central business district of Wellington, which produces a highly ethical product. It carefully checks that its cocoa is not only organic, and it is not only fair trade, but it is also ethically produced by staff who are properly paid for the work that they do. It also ensures its sugar is fully organic, and when it imports it into the country it audits that all the way back. It even goes so far as to use a wind-powered sailing vessel to make sure that its product is completely ethical. The problem is that very fine product costs $15 a block for a quantity half the size of the Whittaker’s competitors from further up the country.

So what I am saying is that it is not physically possible to perform a scientific test on a product like cocoa—or sugar, or any number of other commodities—that proves how it was made and whether those conditions it was produced in were ethical. Customs would not be able to enforce this at the border. It would not be able to provide a test, and if you want to have a very good, ethical product that can be sold as an export overseas, and is a high quality product—which I enjoy myself—unfortunately, what that means is an audit trail going back that would end up incurring significantly increased costs on ordinary New Zealanders, perhaps those who can least afford to pay them. I urge caution with regard to that.

I think a better approach to take on this would be a diplomatic negotiations approach. We are represented in the International Labour Organization and we are represented at the World Trade Organization. We do have the moral high ground in this country. We can encourage and, in fact, put conditions into the agreements that we negotiate that enforce others to adopt humane labour legislation. I commend Peeni Henare for his intentions in this, but, unlike Mr Tirikatene, I do not think that this is the new Amazing Grace—we have not seen a second coming of William Wilberforce. It is a well-intentioned measure, but it is highly flawed, and I recommend that it should not pass.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take the second call on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, and I want to thank the member Peeni Henare for bringing it to the House. Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu: it is small, but it is perfect. What I like about it—and I think this is the best use of that whakataukī, actually—is that it is really clear and really straightforward and really simple. The Greens are proud to be supporting this bill.

The tragedy of modern-day slavery and forced labour is that it still affects something like 21 million to 29 million people in the world, according to the International Labour Organization. We believe that everyone deserves fair work conditions and fair pay. What this bill does is it takes a clear moral stand against slavery and bonded labour. Whether we benefit from slavery directly or indirectly, we still need to take a strong stand on it.

A couple of months ago the Global Slavery Index was announced and Don Lord, who is the Executive Director of Hagar New Zealand—the human trafficking and slavery awareness organisation—said that slavery was increasing here in Aotearoa New Zealand, up from what they had estimated to be about 600 in previous years to about 800 this year. Although that on a global scale is very small, it is still something that we should be very worried about. Mr Lord also went on to say that “New Zealanders should also be thinking about the goods they purchased to ensure they came from ‘clean’ supply chains.” There are ways of doing it; it is called certification. We do it for fair-trade goods all the time. Mr Lord said that “It’s definitely something we as New Zealanders need to become more aware of, we need to … make conscious decisions.” That is what this bill is about. It is about triggering a whole way of ensuring, firstly, that consumers are able to see whether the products they are buying have come through a supply chain that relies on slave labour, and, secondly, that those products will be prohibited from being sold here.

I recognise that this bill is not perfect. There are some issues around the definition of bonded labour or slavery. There are probably some parts of it that will need to be ironed out during the select committee process. That is where we rely on our democratic process and our people. We trust in the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to submit on these bills, once we pass the first reading, so that we can make better informed decisions and also have the debates about what the best way is to implement this.

So this is a perfect bill. This is a bill that basically addresses a huge issue in our world, and we should be taking a moral stand about it. I get a bit distressed when I hear—it is just sort of like an ideological response—from the other side of the House, basically saying that this is unworkable. I do not believe that that is true. If we have the will, and if we trust in our democracy, then we will actually end with a bill that will do some marvellous good for consumers in New Zealand. Better still, it will make a difference for people who are bonded and who are slaves, because if we do not buy that stuff, then the demand for it starts to fall away. That is what we need to be doing. I do not want to be part of a supply chain, as a consumer, where the products are produced through slave labour. This is our way of being able to draw a line in the sand and say no, we will not allow those sorts of products to come into this country.

We are totally supporting this bill. We would encourage the members on this side of the House to support it also so that it can go to the select committee where it can be improved and debated and discussed and we can have our experts tell us how best to change it so that it is totally workable and we can end slavery in the world.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. In reference to comments made by the member who just resumed her seat, Denise Roche, is it not curious that she said it was ideological to point out the practical difficulties in implementing this bill, and then went on to say that if only we had enough belief, then the bill could work? Some members might think that the latter was ideological and the former was practical, but in the world of the Green Party things can sometimes get a little bit messed and muddled.

I would like to join members in tributing the author and introducer of this particular bill, Mr Peeni Henare. Nothing that Mr Peeni Henare brings to this House could possibly be poorly intentioned. I will say something else for this bill: it is much, much better than the lost luggage bill, vastly better, and I commend—

💬 Hon Members: Aw!

—oh, that is a bit unfair—I commend the member for bringing a bill that does have good intentions and does, at least in theory, seek to solve a serious problem.

We have heard a little bit about William Wilberforce and Amazing Grace, and I would like to join with Rino Tirikatene in commending that film to any members who have not seen it. It is a fabulous narrative of an important part of this nation’s cultural history and the efforts of a parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, in ending slavery. However, that is about where I part company with the bill, and it comes down to the practical difficulties of actually tracing the origins of the components in a particular product.

If we cannot talk about William Wilberforce, I would like to talk about another great thinker, Leonard Read, who is the author of an essay that I would commend to all members of the Committee. The essay is called “I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read”, and it explains the difficulties in identifying all of the people engaged in manufacturing something as simple as a pencil. Throughout the essay, if you care to follow it—I will not give you the whole thing—he traces the copper that holds the rubber on top of the pencil. It had to be mined somewhere; somebody had to manufacture the mining equipment; somebody had to drill for and transport and refine the oil that fuelled the mining equipment—and that was just to extract a small part of the copper that held the rubber on top of the pencil. He then went on to talk about the timber involved, the paint, the graphite—or the lead, as people call it—and every other aspect of distribution, retailing, logistics, and so on that goes into the consumption of one single pencil.

Even a product that simple has so many contributors to its construction that it is impossible for anybody to truly trace the origins of something as simple as a pencil. Of course, most products we consume are far more complex than a pencil. The point that Leonard Read sought to make when he wrote that essay is that no Government department would ever be able to have knowledge of, to anticipate, and to plan the manufacture of something as simple as a pencil. And so it will come to pass, if this bill is to become a law, that as wonderful as the fine men and women who—

💬 Clare Curran: What’s the alternative? Do nothing?

—work for the New Zealand Customs Service are—we are getting to the alternative, Ms Curran. Just be patient.

💬 Chris Bishop: Good things take time.

Absolutely. The Customs Service will not be able to trace the origins of every aspect of any product and all of the people involved in its production.

Our Government needs to focus its efforts on doing a few important things well. Can I make the suggestion—as many members in opposition to this bill have already raised—that there are a wide range of consumer information devices, brands enabling consumer choice, and people who specialise in marketing the ethics of their products, including Paul Foster-Bell’s wonderful chocolate, which, actually, provide the kind of information consumers seek in order to make ethical choices far more efficiently than the fine men and women of the New Zealand Customs Service ever will. For those reasons—they are not ideological; they are purely practical, a distinction I hope that Denise Roche will understand one day—I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity to reply. Can I thank the Hon Maryan Street, who—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no. Order! Can I just ask the people on the cross benches to settle down. We will start this time again. Thank you.

Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe. Thank you very much. Can I start by thanking the Hon Maryan Street, who attempted to bring a bill like this into the House a number of years ago. Interestingly enough, looking through the Hansard and looking through that debate, I am not exactly surprised to hear what we have heard from the Government this evening. In fact, it is almost a cut-and-paste attempt to try to belittle this bill.

Trade Aid presented a petition signed by 17,000 people in 2005. That was over a decade ago. I would imagine, and, in fact, if that petition were to run again—and this is an idea for us to consider—I daresay there would be more than 17,000 people who would support this bill or the intention of this bill, and I want to thank them for their efforts in years gone past.

As I look across this House I wonder how different it would be if people told Kate Sheppard and the women’s suffrage movement: “That’s too hard to do.” I wonder how different this House would look. I wonder how different New Zealand would look if members in this House told my esteemed colleague Louisa Wall that the marriage equality legislation was too hard to do. I wonder how different New Zealand would look if, in the face of such odds, my colleague backed down. We are fortunate that she did not.

I wonder too, then, from the House, to New Zealand, to across the world, what the world would look like if David Lange had backed down in front of the major superpowers of the world instead of standing up for nuclear-free Aotearoa New Zealand. Those are three examples of brave positions taken by socially progressive parties and socially progressive politicians in Aotearoa New Zealand to make a change here in this House, across Aotearoa New Zealand, and, indeed, in the world.

I take the point by Mr Tabuteau, and I do want to thank New Zealand First and the Green Party for their outright support of this bill. I take his point, and I believe in it. Human rights, if adhered to, if promoted, are in fact good for business. When customers walk through a jewellery store and see a diamond, I wonder what they think about that diamond and where that diamond has come from. The blood diamond trade is well documented. If we say that it is just simply too hard to take a stand against such an abhorrent trade, then I am afraid this world is going to be a poorer place. This world will be a poorer place if we back down from taking a stand. In a time when trade is as important to Aotearoa New Zealand as it was in the time of my ancestors, I wonder whether our country—our Government—is brave enough to redefine the landscape of trade moving into the future. I wonder whether it is brave enough.

In terms of the contributions this evening, although I do thank many members across the House for their praise of my athletic skill on the rugby field—and I am sure I heard some mention of my good looks—I am saddened to hear that the Government is not brave enough to support this bill and allow democratic processes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member cannot accuse another party of a lack of bravery.

Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In closing—I understand my time is nearly up—I want to finish with the words to a song. The Leader of the Opposition knows all the words to this song, I can say.

Old pirates, yes, they rob I,

Sold I to the merchant ships,

Minutes after they took I,

From the bottomless pit.

I hope that this country takes a stand against slavery right across the world. Tēnā koe.