Nash Stuart: Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Nash Stuart: Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:4943] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 That was an impassioned speech from Mr Bennett. I tell him that his passion for international trade just shone through there—fantastic! I stand in support of this legislation. As Mr Bennett said we usually stand together as a Parliament on free-trade agreements and international trade agreements— 
Hon Member 
: Most of us. 
STUART NASH 
: —most of us. It is fantastic legislation and I take my hat off to Tim Groser. He is a good man and a very experienced trade negotiator but—come on! I would like Mr Bennett to give credit where credit is due for goodness’ sake. New Zealand’s next Prime Minister Phil Goff— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
STUART NASH 
: —oh sorry; will it be Bill English—was the man who negotiated this bill. Phil Goff went overseas and spent considerable time and energy negotiating this bill on behalf of New Zealand. Part of the vision for Helen Clark’s Government was to increase our international competitiveness our international trade flows through free-trade agreements. This legislation is fantastic and I tell members—and I tell Mr Bennett—that the agricultural sector loves it. I have a quote from Federated Farmers: “Despite all the doom and gloom in the other sectors it strategically sets New Zealand up for the long haul and farmers appreciate that.” Farmers really appreciate what Labour has done for the New Zealand economy and finally farmers know that Labour is the party of the land. Labour is the party of farmers; in fact all one has to do is have a look at what we did around Fast Forward. That was a fantastic initiative that pumped $700 million into recognising the value of our agricultural sector. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What did the Nats do? 
STUART NASH 
: That is a very good question. What have the Nats done for farming? What have the Nats done for the agricultural sector? I tell Mr Bennett that they have not done much at all. I know that he appreciates what happened in farming under the Labour Government. He did very well. But what has happened under the first year of the National Government? I tell him: “Oh mate—it is not good. Lion Red!” Let us face facts: agriculture forestry and land-based industries are still the backbone of this country which is why these sorts of free-trade agreements are absolutely fantastic for the country. But the business has changed. The business of agriculture the issues the challenges and the opportunities have changed and now it is about developing international contacts international links and international partnerships. 
Phil Goff has a vision for New Zealand. He went out as Helen Clark’s trade negotiations Minister and negotiated this deal with vision with foresight and with a plan of where we wanted to go. It was aspirational. It was aspirational as opposed to the actions of the National Government which has cut adult community education. Adult community education according to PricewaterhouseCoopers was worth $7.4 billion to the New Zealand economy yet National has cut it. Those were people who were going to train themselves to become better New Zealanders and to contribute to the economy and in export industries as well but National has cut funding. Where is the aspiration there? 
This legislation is truly aspirational because it is about putting New Zealand out into the international market and getting our brands out there. When Phil Goff negotiated this agreement he did it with vision and with aspiration and he walked the walk. As I mentioned I support this legislation for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that it covers an area comprising about 500 million people—500 million people. That is a hell of a big market. 
Chris Hipkins 
: A lot of customers. 
STUART NASH 
: It is a lot of customers and a lot of these people are entering the age of consumerism for the first time. There is a recession going on in the developed world but in the developing world a whole lot of these 500 million people for the first time have money in their pockets and they want to buy what New Zealand can produce. When they see the New Zealand brand they understand what it stands for and their market is a hell of a big market. This region actually contributes $1.4 trillion to global trade. It is a significant trading bloc. In fact it contributes about $4.7 billion or about 10 percent of all New Zealand’s exports and of that about $2.2 billion is from dairy actually so even our largest company even Fonterra can benefit hugely from these free-trade agreements. 
As Mr Bennett said the value to New Zealand of this market since 2000 has increased by over 100 percent. Over the 9 years of a Labour Government trade into this market increased by well over 100 percent. In fact in the last 3 years of the Labour Government trade increased by over 24 percent—that is there was 24 percent growth under the Labour Government. That is how aspirational this legislation is because Phil Goff the next Prime Minister of New Zealand knew that this was where our future lay. He went out there he courted global trade and he got this agreement up and running. It is fantastic and aspirational. We import $7.5 billion worth from these economies; this legislation is hugely beneficial to this country and this economy. 
As I mentioned this legislation encapsulates a huge part of Labour’s vision for New Zealand and that economic vision is around greater economic international development. Sustainable economic growth for this country can really be achieved only through greater international agreements and engagement. Let us face facts: we are a country of just over 4 million people. If we can get it right here we can take it international. We do not have one large company that has not grown because of international engagement. This legislation will allow that to happen. This legislation will allow some of the 97 percent of companies that are now small to medium sized enterprises to get out there and make it happen. It is absolutely fantastic. In this day and age of globalisation economies the size of New Zealand need to develop country brands and a whole lot of brand attributes that sit against Brand New Zealand. We did that very well under Labour. 
Chris Hipkins 
: “100% Pure”. 
STUART NASH 
: “100% Pure” and 100 percent fantastic. I fear for this brand though when people like Rodney Hide stand up and doubt climate change. Goodness me they think climate change does not exist. We have people like Nick Smith who go to international conferences and in the space of about 6 months we become the laughing stock after having been the leaders. How aspirational is that? It is a shame. It is a shame for our exporters— 
Chris Hipkins 
: It’s disgraceful. 
STUART NASH 
: That is a much better word. It is absolutely disgraceful. We need to develop international brand attributes that do not go against the brand that Labour has worked so hard to develop over the last 9 years. Then what happens is that companies go out and leverage their own brand against Brand New Zealand. Do members know who does this? It is New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise manages New Zealand’s international marketing and development. It goes out there and finds the channels to market and the customers and it makes it happen. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Didn’t its funding get cut? 
STUART NASH 
: What happened to its funding? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Its funding got cut. 
STUART NASH 
: By $10 million? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Something like that. 
STUART NASH 
: The member must be kidding me. Has $10 million been cut from our international marketing manager at this time? That is scurrilous. I cannot believe that. Why would the Government do that at this time? Why would it do it when it is implementing one of the most important free-trade agreements? I cannot understand it and I bet that Amy Adams cannot understand it at all. She is sitting there shaking her head in amusement. 
It shows that Bill English just does not understand the economic drivers of this country. It is about sustainable economic development. It is appalling that he just does not understand. The reason this is so important is that 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are small to medium enterprises. They cannot afford to employ their own international marketing managers. They need New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the last thing they need is for it to have $10 million cut from its budget. 
So I am fully supportive of this legislation for a number of reasons. First and foremost this implements a Labour vision for New Zealand. I would dearly love to see the vision and the resources necessary behind the legislation to make it happen. I am very very sad—sad for myself sad for the Government sad for the country and sad for New Zealand businesses because they know that it will be another 2 years and 2 months before the resources to implement this vision are put in place. Thank you very much.