Cunliffe David: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21394] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I would like to thank the member who has just resumed his seat and to acknowledge the previous speaker the Hon Ken Shirley for what I thought was a useful intervention as well. The Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is a fairly technical bill that reads into law the changes to the tariffs schedule brought about by the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. 
The debate is an opportunity to note the high level of bipartisan support for this type of trade agreement which is relatively widely held in this House—perhaps for the listeners unusually so. There is broad consensus in the House that multilateral trade reform is always the “first best” option when one is a small remote country reliant upon good transparent rules regarding international trade law for one’s prosperity. Successive Governments have done their best to further that agenda with success that indicates that New Zealand’s diplomatic service and trade diplomats in particular punch above their weight. It is also recognised that in these difficult days it takes some time to bring fruition to a multilateral agreement. For that reason complementary regional and bilateral agreements have a role to play of which this is one. 
I would like to address the objection brought about by the Green Party because it is a fundamental one in any debate on international trade. It is answered by the theory of comparative advantage—that is even if a country is the weaker player in every industry it is still better off by trading so that it exports what it is relatively good at producing and imports what it is relatively poor at producing. I find myself in strong agreement with Ken Shirley on the point that it is obscene that various developed countries—and probably the European Union is the most notable—protect themselves from low-cost imports from the Third World. The benefit to those protectionist countries is far greater than the benefit from the aid that flows south to the developing world. That is a sad truth and it is one that successive New Zealand Governments have worked to overcome. So that is all I think relatively bipartisan across this House and I acknowledge the work that the former Minister for International Trade Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has also done. That work was carried on in great spirit by the Hon Jim Sutton and it was recognised by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
But there are some differences between the two sides of this House. There is a tendency on the right to believe that simple market opening will deliver the kinds of gains that New Zealand needs to be a prosperous economy in the 21st century. On that point this side differs. We say that market opening is a necessary condition but it is not a sufficient condition. It must be balanced by active development of the capability of our exporters to deliver the goods—in other words to drive through the opening that has been created and to form the kinds of partnerships with our overseas partners that will derive value back to New Zealand. That is a new agenda. It is required that we have the statistical capability to measure it that the national interest analysis follows it and that we have the support through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and others to implement it. This debate is about reading into law the tariff preferences created by this agreement. This is a good bill and I urge its adoption.