Dunne Peter: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1625] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In a roundabout way the previous speaker when he talked at the commencement of his speech about the people of Ngati Toa—not far from here—and their history as traders encapsulated New Zealand’s history and the rationale behind this bill. He went on to move some distance from that point. But the starting point has to be that New Zealand is a small country at the end of most of the world’s major trading routes that historically has lived by its capacity to trade. We have significant natural advantages but proximity to markets is not one of them. We have capacity in terms of attractive products that we produce but we need willing markets into which to sell those products. 
In today’s global environment where—notwithstanding delays in completing the Doha round or other international agreements—more and more multilateral agreements are being entered into between countries that believe they share a common interest it is only rational that New Zealand looks to maximise its opportunity in this regard. That is why United Future supports the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. 
I was momentarily encouraged when the Green speaker said that the Green Party was not opposed to trade. Then I reflected on all the trade agreements that we have discussed in this House over the last few years and I could not think of one that the Green Party had actually supported. I also recalled his leader making a comment at one stage in 1999 that New Zealand’s biggest export was soil—windblown by erosion—and that if we stopped international trade we could cut international air travel in half because all those trade negotiators would not be flying back and forth and therefore the polluting effects of aviation fuel in the upper atmosphere would be minimised. So I thought for a moment that we might have been seeing a change of heart but it was not to be. 
I listened to both the previous speakers and one of the points that came through—which is one that is always raised when these types of agreements are being debated—was the question of what essentially is in it for the various partners. When we look at this agreement we might ask: “New Zealand Chile Singapore Brunei Darussalam—what is in it for New Zealand?”. There is the opportunity for us to have access into markets that we might not have access into in the same way at the moment but the downside risk is argued to be that we have to accept products services and all sorts of things coming the other way. 
About 18 months ago in the Legislative Council Chamber next door I hosted a three-way discussion between the ambassadors for the United States and Mexico and the High Commissioner for Canada to commemorate 10 years of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. One of the key messages relevant to this bill that came forward at that meeting was the mutuality of benefits to all three countries over that 10-year period. Each country had benefited from the agreement perhaps in different ways but no country could report that it was worse off as a result of having concluded that agreement. 
I think that is the lesson here. We know the advantages we have achieved from some of our bilateral trade agreements going right back to the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia which is the obvious one. But this is the first multilateral agreement of its type that we are seeking to conclude and it recognises the common interests we have already with Singapore the various ties we have with Brunei and the fact—as the previous Chilean ambassador to New Zealand Mr Appelgren was so fond of reminding us of—that Chile is our nearest neighbour to the east. This is about bringing together a large regional agreement between countries that already have some interests in common and countries that have a willingness to expand those trade and political partnerships. 
The format of the bill is exactly the same as with other trade agreements. The amendments it makes are to the Tariff Act and that is entirely as it should be. They have come after the consideration by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee of a national interest analysis and in some cases the draft treaty. The bill will go back to the committee for some period for the consideration of submissions and I wager that in this particular situation we will hear many of the arguments from the same sorts of groups that have been rehearsed in respect of every previous trade agreement and not a great deal of light will be shed on events as a consequence. 
I also make the point that in the last Parliament the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee carried out an inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the countries of Latin America. The Government response to that report which was tabled in the House just recently acknowledged the importance of New Zealand’s developing trade relations with all of those countries and with Chile in particular because of the opportunities that are there for us in terms of countries of similar latitude and geography and countries where the markets that we might be seeking to promote are likely to be favourably viewed. This agreement bringing Chile into the fold as it were as far as New Zealand is concerned is in my view extremely welcome. 
The way of the future will be these types of agreement. New Zealand is already negotiating with China we have agreements with Thailand Singapore and Australia and there is talk of more and more regional cooperation. We cannot pretend particularly as a country of our type and size that we can somehow stay outside that set of new environments. We live by trade. We will perish if we are unable to trade effectively in the future. I say to those people who criticise this legislation as implying a loss of sovereignty or a surrender to the evil power of the multinationals to look at what is happening elsewhere. Last night a group of us had dinner with the delegation from the European Parliament. 
One of the issues I raised in discussion with a number of people—from new Europeans such as the Poles through to some of the more traditional members of the European Union—was how in this new European environment is national identity preserved? How can people who have spent the best part of the last couple of hundred years fighting each other come together in a political and economic union that is sustainable and viable? And the answer I received from those people from Britain Poland Austria and other countries who were at our table was that culture and language is the distinctive thing. The Germans are no less German because they are in the European Union. The British despite people like Margaret Thatcher are no less British because of the European Union. The national culture preserves that identity. I say to those therefore who worry that somehow we are surrendering culture and identity through these agreements that if anything we are providing the opportunity to strengthen those links. 
So we welcome this bill. We will certainly be supporting it. We are confident in the advantages it will bring to the New Zealand economy and we look forward to the bill being passed and the relevant agreements coming into effect as soon as possible.