Graham Kennedy: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12113] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I listened last night to the debate on the Hong Kong free-trade agreement and the ensuing debate on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill with considerable interest. Members may recall the comments I made last night on the Hong Kong agreement where I critiqued the format of the national interest analyses that the Government currently produces when it addresses free-trade agreements. I challenged the Government to I would say come clean on the impact on free-trade agreements on imports and the New Zealand domestic economic sector particularly the manufacturing sector. I called on the Government to drop the euphemisms that it employs such as negative adjustment effects when it really means company failures and job losses. I asked the Government to be more specific in its national interest analyses in the future to drop the ideological fixation and to acquire a certain new-found objectivity. 
I appreciated the response that my remarks elicited from particularly Maryan Street which I thought was very thoughtful and constructive but also Mr Su’a William Sio’s acknowledgment of those concerns. I actually recall in the 2009 debate on the ASEAN free-trade agreement similarly constructive comments from Pete Hodgson. It is clear I think that Labour unlike National shares to some extent the Green Party’s concerns over free-trade agreements at least as they are currently structured and promulgated. I note also of course the Maori Party’s position. As we have just heard from Rahui Katene the Maori Party is literally split over the issue of free trade and I sympathise. 
It is clear to us I think that National however is regrettably mired in a neoclassical orthodoxy. Most of its members prove unable to emerge into the sunlight of a new economic model. A few of them would not even recognise a new model if they tripped over it—and I say that more in sorrow than in anger. I invite Tim Macindoe to prove me wrong within the next few minutes. Labour on the other hand is caught between a legacy and a hard reality. The legacy is a commitment to liberalise the economy from the 1980s—the shadow of Rogernomics still shades its world view. The hard reality is recognition that all is not right with globalisation as it is currently prosecuted and promulgated. So Maryan Street calls for rejigging of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee procedure and greater transparency. The Green Party appreciates that and thinks it is a very constructive proposal. I call upon the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee chairman to respond equally constructively. 
So what do we need? I would suggest we need at least six new things. The first is an examination by the select committee of the structure of the national interest analyses themselves as they are currently used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The second is agreement that in the national interest analyses and in the submissions equal attention should be given to the import sector as to the export sector. The third is that there should be greater transparency in the New Zealand Government’s negotiating process with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade reporting to the committee during the negotiations rather than after them as a fait accompli. The fourth is the adoption of a longer time frame for negotiations so that New Zealand’s domestic economic interests have more time to make a proper input into the committee’s deliberations and for that matter the negotiations themselves. The fifth is a more detailed analysis of the effect of “negative adjustment processes” on the manufacturing sector. The sixth is equal attention being given to the effects of free-investment provisions and to the free-trade provisions and there should be separate sections in the national interest analyses to that end. 
The Green Party submitted a minority view in the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill as members know. We advanced three critiques of the agreement. First the underlying theory on which the Government rests its commitment to free trade is misguided in the sense that it is not necessarily the case that both parties to such an agreement will benefit even in comparative terms let alone in absolute 
terms. Secondly the resulting skew towards economic growth is injurious to our medium-term employment stability and also to our long-term economic resilience. Thirdly free-trade agreements are misleadingly named. They should be called free-trade and investment agreements. 
Our submission to the committee’s report was a shortened version of our written views. I have here a longer version setting out in more detail our critique of free-trade agreements as currently pursued. I seek leave to table this document for the benefit of the House. Is that possible? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The process for doing that is that the member raises a point of order then seeks leave. My advice would be that he should do that at the conclusion of his speech. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I shall do that. I conclude by assuring the House that the purpose of our party’s critique of trade policy is not to be perennially negative as ACT is wont to assume from time to time depending on which ACT members are sitting there; the purpose is to generate a reasoned debate over New Zealand’s trade policy and the place of the country’s trade policy in the global economic context. I recall the ASEAN free-trade agreement debate last year when the Green Party made it clear that we were not against trade per se just against the current manifestations of it under the current agreements. It seems the Labour Party to some extent at least shares those concerns. The Green Party will give an undertaking that if we can start afresh with a new look at trade policy we will be very constructive in cooperating on the committee with not just Labour and the Maori Party but indeed National as well. 
I seek leave of the House to table the longer version of the Green Party’s minority report on the Malaysian free-trade agreement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.