Locke Keith: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4485] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I thank other members for their comments. As Pete Hodgson said the Greens are not at all against trade or trade agreements; we are against agreements that reduce tariffs to nothing across the board in an ideological way rather than in a practical way. We are against agreements that open up New Zealand to foreign investment in an across-the-board way—be it investment in production services or whatever. That is our concern because we believe that the motivation of the other parties in this House is more ideological than practical. 
If we look at the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area in practical terms we see that there are some advantages for our exporters. We often refer to our dairy exporters gaining greater access to overseas markets and perhaps getting more returns. But at the other end our domestic manufacturers will compete against very low-wage economies. In the ASEAN area Viet Nam has expanded quite dramatically as a manufacturer and exporter as have some other ASEAN countries. Thailand is another country that exports either actually or potentially quite a bit our way. There is a serious problem in that our manufacturing industry is declining quite rapidly. Our manufacturing associations are much more cautious about these agreements than the export sector is. The clothing and textiles industries are losing much of their skills base. If we want a really well-rounded economy with at least a minimum amount of skills in textile and other manufacturing industries we have to be careful not to expose our manufacturers to the full blast of competitors from very low-wage economies—economies with which we are to be partnered under this agreement. 
The other criticism which was made in submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was whether this time of a world financial meltdown was the right time to have a free-trade and services agreement that covers in particular financial services. Under such an agreement we would have to allow a financial instrument—be it a futures contract or one of those funny names that have come up in the American-led financial crisis—operated by a Malaysian or Singaporean firm to be introduced into New Zealand. We would not have control over it. 
At the present time we are trying to work out ways to regulate the financial industry. President Obama is doing something on financial regulation this week. This agreement goes in the opposite direction. The Greens have been saying that there is some good in these free-trade agreements. That is true. We are not totally against this agreement. But hold on is this the time to be throwing the doors wide open to these different financial services in particular? There have been discussions on these matters in this Parliament over the last few days. We even find it hard to control the Australian banks making huge profits from having their mortgage rates way above the official cash rate which is determined by the Reserve Bank. It is even more difficult to control some of the banks and financial services people in the ASEAN bloc which is even more distant from us and operates in a different framework from that of our Australian brothers and sisters. 
I turn to the point raised by Maryan Street about making sure we promote democracy in Burma. The Greens are at one with that member with Labour and with most members in the House in going all out in promoting democracy in Burma and opposing the current trial of Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of the democracy movement in Burma who has been unjustly held in prison for so many years. When it comes to the economic dimension of our relationship it is true that under a measure brought in a few years ago imports from Burma are free to come into New Zealand. The Green Party is not for a total ban on imports from Burma although we note that the European Union and America have certain restrictions on imports. The European Union for example has banned the importation of timber and gemstones from Burma because they are used by members of the junta to enrich themselves and they use that enrichment against the people. The Green Party here and the green parties in Europe support that ban. Those sorts of targeted sanctions have some validity. The United States has targeted sanctions on the assets of the Burmese junta in the United States. It has frozen those assets it has placed certain restrictions on investment in Burma and it has placed certain restrictions on imports from Burma. Economic sanctions can be a useful complement to the political pressure placed on Burma. The political pressure on Burma takes the form of strong criticism but there is also engagement. The United States engages with the junta. It is not an isolationist policy; it is an engagement policy. It is also a policy that involves economic pressure. 
Under this agreement we have to give preferential treatment to Burmese junta members who invest in New Zealand. If those generals who enrich themselves from native timber or whatever want to invest in any New Zealand company they have the absolute right to do so under this agreement. This agreement actually gives them more rights than they had before whereas the United States and Britain have been taking away the rights of the junta. Similarly the agreement gives New Zealand companies more rights to invest in Burma in collaboration with the junta and against the people who are often used as slave labour. Some of the big projects in Burma are done with slave labour. That is an apt term because those people have no rights. They only get fed and they are housed in camps and all the rest of it. They are effectively slave labour. This agreement if Parliament supports it today gives extra rights to New Zealand companies that are involved in investing in slave labour. The question of slave labour has come up at the select committee. The Government was quite opposed to our developing a clear stance on slave labour because it was seen to be too vague and indefinable. There was quite a discussion on slave labour at the select committee. The Trade Aid organisation which was promoting a ban on slave labour got short shrift from the Government on that unfortunately. 
The question of tobacco came up in this debate. The anti-smoking organisation Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was very strong in its submissions. It did not say that there should be absolutely no trade in tobacco. The Green Party does not say that at the present time there should be absolutely no trade in tobacco. ASH said that we do not include trade in machine-guns and things like that in a free-trade agreement; we can have exceptions. We can still have trade but we do not need to give preferential treatment to certain types of trade. Tobacco arms and things like that—the “bads” in our society—can be separated from a free-trade agreement to eliminate tariffs. That was all that ASH said. That is all the Green Party says. 
When we put the “bads” outside the agreement it gives us flexibility if at a future time we want to put restrictions or some sort of qualification on certain types of tobacco or on all tobacco that is imported into New Zealand. It will not create difficulties with the country where that tobacco comes from. It may be that not much tobacco is coming from ASEAN at the present time but we will not get into the battle of whether a particular restriction put on one type of tobacco which say has more nicotine is a trade restriction. We will have more freedom to put on the restrictions we want—although we might still be constrained by some World Trade Organization provisions. 
Tobacco is traded in an entirely different context because it is a harmful product. World society is trying to reduce consumption of and trading in tobacco. We are not trying to reduce the price. With all other goods the concept is that by trade we reduce the good’s price to the consumers. We are not trying to do that with tobacco. It is a different concept altogether. I think the Green Party’s position on that is quite sound. Thank you.