Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12116] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to hear from the senior Government whip that the Government is in a good space! But I have to say that I felt like that speech was a somewhat patronising contribution which is a shame. I do not think those Kiwis out there watching the debate in the House today necessarily tuned in to hear the senior whip tell them what they would and would not understand of the Green Party’s contribution. I think members are perfectly entitled to raise issues in whatever language they choose and people will judge that on its merits as they will judge the previous speaker’s speech. 
I rise to talk briefly on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill in the second reading. Obviously Labour supports this bill because it was the good work and steerage of Jim Sutton and the Hon Phil Goff that saw the majority of this agreement fall into place. That demonstrates as well that some of these negotiations started as early as 2005. Now we are looking at supporting these measures which will allow the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement to be ratified. 
To give a bit of background which has probably already been mentioned by some of my colleagues I tell members this deal expands on the New Zealand - Australia Free Trade Agreement signed in February 2009 and it essentially cuts the trade barriers between Malaysia and New Zealand. 
I will talk a little bit in greater detail about the issue of an export-led recovery because it is something that we have heard a lot about from the Government and it is relevant to this debate. In all of these debates we hear the upsides and the downsides of free-trade agreements. I will talk about the merits of the Government talking solely about an export-led recovery without talking about the framework that exporters are working within because I believe that is relevant. I think it was on 8 September 2009 that Bill English said: “We’re looking for how to make sure we get a sustainable export-led recovery.” This agreement in my view is only part of a solution in that regard. Sadly the National Government has failed to look beyond free-trade agreements at other measures to assist New Zealand exporters. For instance—and this is probably the most important measure I want to speak to—National’s refusal to even consider examining monetary policy will I think limit the extent to which new potential exporters will enter into the fray. John Key and Bill English have both said that they think we have the best monetary policy in the world but if they took the time to speak with struggling exporters who see their gains wiped out by very volatile exchange rates I think they would see the issue a little differently as Labour does. 
For those with an interest in this issue I really recommend their looking at the speech that the Hon David Parker made on this issue recently and also the one made earlier on this year by Phil Goff when he said—and it was quite a historic move on our part—that the consensus on monetary policy was over and for good reason. We have a relatively low level of exporters in New Zealand comparative with the number of industries and entrepreneurs that we have in this country and it is time that we start asking questions about that. 
National’s closed mind on monetary policy has not only been challenged by Labour; it has been challenged by the IMF which I always quote with a few disclaimers. It recently issued a report that stated that inflation targeting was a necessary tool but not a sufficient tool for economic stability. If indeed the National Government’s sole focus was economic stability through controlled inflation one would think it may have taken that into consideration when looking at the forecasting Treasury delivered to it over the increase in inflation that would be generated via its latest Budget. This forecasting predicts some of the highest levels of inflation we have seen in some time—5.9 percent from memory—which will have a significant impact on many New Zealand householders. But that of course is an ongoing debate. 
The IMF actually advocated additional use of monetary tools including the exchange rate and limiting the amount banks can lend against the value of property. That suggests that other tools are available and that perhaps we should be looking more broadly at some of them. 
Paul Quinn 
: Stick to what you know best; it’s certainly not economics. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I look forward to hearing Paul Quinn’s contribution on this debate. He obviously wants to give the House a diatribe on his view of economics. 
But before he does that I will talk briefly about the foundations that need to be laid at the same time as a free-trade agreement is signed. I do not think it is just a matter of the Government facilitating these kinds of agreements and then stepping back. In fact I think the agreement with China was a very good example of how we can aid our exporters to enter into a massive and difficult market with success. We did that in 2008 by running a nationwide China roadshow and also launching a Government website with information on the free-trade agreement and assistance on doing business in China. I think that was an incredibly important move towards assisting our exporters in that regard. Given that we are such a small market I think it takes the Government to invest in some of those measures. 
What is National doing to help New Zealand businesses make the most of opportunities in Malaysia? I guess one of the best indicators we have is what measures have been put into the Budget and I have to say that not only is there very little but actually the Government is scaling them back. In the 2009 Budget for instance National cut funding to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise by $101 million over the following 4 years. That is another example of where a cut in investment in the long term will lead to a reduction in New Zealand’s potential growth so it is a short-term band-aid fix that sets us back for very minimal savings. There have also been budget cuts to New Zealand’s Market Development Assistance fund. That stands in direct contrast to what was quite a considerable investment by Labour in this area. In fact in its last term the Labour Government increased the funding for Market Development Assistance for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise from $6 million to $54 million—again in recognition that collectively investment in this area would reap even greater gains. 
Investment in this area is one thing; it is also incredibly important to make sure that New Zealand has an appropriate brand to trade on. We have several significant exporters who can of course trade off their name. Zespri is one of them. One of Zespri’s successes has been the fact that it has been able to trade as a single export desk. It does not have a multiple range of exporters all marketing different brands of kiwifruit for instance and that is something we have to keep an eye on; it is something that is under threat. In the same way New Zealand’s brand becomes a brand across a whole range of products for small exporters. They capitalise and trade off our brand because in and of themselves they may not be significant enough to trade solely on their own brand. This means that brand protection around New Zealand is incredibly important. Not only has the National Government depleted some of its investment in the marketing on behalf of our exporters but also it has done some damage to New Zealand’s brand. 
I reflect briefly on the three recent issues in which New Zealand has made national headlines—I will make that four as there may have been some redemption in regard to the All Whites. That one I am proud of. The All Whites have got us into the international headlines. The second most recent one is the Prime Minister’s vasectomy—not something I personally wish my country to be known for. That made international headlines on the world stage. Then there was the lack of respect the Prime Minister showed by making cannibalism jokes at an inappropriate time—again not something that I would wish my country to be known for. Finally there are the proposals from the Government for the mining of parts of New Zealand’s most precious conservation estate. Again that was noted in the  
Economist  
and the  
Guardian 
 as undermining our brand. These things do not help the New Zealand brand and they do not as a consequence help our exporters. I do not think they help any of us as individual citizens who might be proud of our record and of our reputation. 
I extend a challenge to the National Government and say that it is not just about signing free-trade agreements; it is about supporting our exporters and making sure the appropriate statutory framework is in place for them to be a success. That means reviewing our monetary policy. It is also about our brand.