Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10875] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: 
 When will negotiations begin on a free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the United States now that Australia has completed its own deal with the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Trade Negotiations) 
:  
The starting date for any negotiations depends on the United States’ agreement to enter such negotiations and the relative priority it sets between countries expressing an interest in this area. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade correct when he said on Monday that there was now a risk of investment and trade diversion from New Zealand; if so what steps is the Government taking to minimise the consequent economic damage to New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I speak with some authority when speaking on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trade said. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade said that it created both opportunities and risks. The downside risk was that there was the potential for diversion of investment in particular but maybe also of trade. The upside was that growth in the two economies that are our first and third-largest markets would be of benefit to New Zealand; and as the meat industry has said new opportunities will be open if Australian trade is diverted to the American market. What we are doing about it of course is taking every reasonable step to try to enter into such negotiations. But more than that we are working very hard to try to ensure that the Doha development round recommences. That will provide far greater benefits for this country and the world. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What steps has the Government taken to promote prospects for negotiations with the United States of America on a free-trade agreement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand Government has worked very closely with the private sector to build a constituency in the United States in favour of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand. As a result of the work we have done and work the business councils in both countries have done 314 leading US companies have come out publicly in support of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand and 21 senators and 50 members of the House of Representatives have written directly to President Bush urging that such negotiations commence. 
Dail Jones 
: Will the Minister ensure that any trade negotiations between New Zealand and the United States will not involve a quid pro quo similar to Australia’s—where there was a trade between armed servicemen—such as New Zealand armed servicemen serving in Iraq in return for beef sales to the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can absolutely give that assurance and I must add to that that I was appalled at the implication in the Leader of the Opposition’s comment that the reason we had not achieved it was that we had not sent troops to Iraq. This country under this Government will never trade the lives and the safety of New Zealand personnel for a commercial advantage. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the economics editor of the  
Australian Financial Review 
 who wrote: “By the traditional standards used by economists to rate these sorts of agreements the Australia - US free-trade agreement at the best would be given a bare pass. As likely as not it will be judged a net cost to Australia.” and would he be prepared to trade away Pharmac the Overseas Investment Commission our nuclear-free status our GE labelling regime or any of the other things on Robert Zoellick’s wish list in order to get a free-trade agreement with the United States of America? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are several points in answering that question. Firstly the member needs to be corrected. The pharmaceutical purchasing arrangements between Australia and the United States were not part of the agreement reached. Secondly while disappointment—and strong disappointment—has been expressed in many quarters in Australia about the fact that the trade agreement did not progress as far as was hoped for and anticipated in agriculture clearly the Australian Government anticipated there was a net benefit to Australia. That is why it has signed the agreement. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will he acknowledge that the main reason New Zealand is not on an equal footing with Australia in achieving a free-trade agreement with the world’s most powerful and prosperous economy is his Government’s bungling of foreign affairs and defence issues; and if he will not acknowledge that what is his explanation for New Zealand being left behind? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I certainly will not acknowledge that because it is simply not true. While the ACT party and the National Party have said they wanted to trade off our nuclear-free status for such an agreement I note the comment made by the US deputy chief of mission David Burnett this morning. He said the nuclear issue has “been overblown. I don’t think it plays much of a role frankly.” He added: “We’ve certainly never directly linked the two issues—nor would we ever put forward a quid pro quo.” So the net answer is that they would trade away New Zealand’s right to make sovereign decisions as an independent nation and not get what they are looking for anyway. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister if he could not acknowledge the fact what is his explanation for New Zealand being left behind? He has given the House no explanation for why New Zealand has been left behind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is prepared to make a brief comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am happy to add to that briefly if I could perhaps refer to David Burnett again. When he was asked why Australia got it he said that Australia rated highly as the United States’ ninth-largest trading partner. The two-way trade between Australia and the United States is $41 billion; the two-way trade between New Zealand and the United States is only $8 billion. Clearly size played a significant and probably the crucial role. Size does matter in this case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why does this Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade continue to hide behind the diplomatic politeness of foreign countries when commenting on other countries and refuse to acknowledge that relationships between New Zealand and the United States are in fact at a serious level; because if they are not why after the Prime Minister explained to President Bush in her pull-aside at APEC on October last year the seriousness of investment diversion to Australia should New Zealand be excluded from a deal has it continued to refuse to include New Zealand in a deal; what is the reason? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from the assertions of the Opposition spokesperson the relationship between New Zealand and the United States is very very very good. I deal regularly with the Secretary of State and his deputy and they in turn have talked very positively both about the role that New Zealand plays internationally in security and stability and in terms of the role that New Zealand plays as a good international citizen. The reason the United States is entering into agreements with other countries is sometimes strategic—but most often in its own interest in terms of size of trade. In that area it is hard for New Zealand to compete.