Graham Kennedy: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2639] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Let me begin if I may by paying tribute to Minister Tim Groser for his personal skill and that of his predecessors Phil Goff and others in endeavouring to advance New Zealand’s national interest in the trade negotiations. I also express my considerable appreciation to the previous speaker Pete Hodgson for his very thoughtful and constructive comments that I should say were inclusive in the sense of seeking to strike up constructive debate on this quite complex matter. I appreciate his concerns about Green Party policy on the question of trade. He is correct when he observes that the Green Party is not anti-trade per se; in fact we simply harbour considerable concerns about certain aspects of certain free-trade agreements. We believe that some of these agreements do not meet the required standards to attract our support. Let me respond constructively and advance the debate by offering our views on this matter. I looked to the stated purposes of the free-trade agreement as they are set out in the national interest analysis I looked to the report of the relevant committee which identifies the stated reasons for the free-trade agreement and I listened to the Minister this afternoon. In a sense the Minister summarised the report—because I do not have much time. He stated: “We are a small export-driven and trade-dependent economy.” Increased market access is critical to stimulate our economic growth. That in essence is the rationale for all free-trade agreements whether it is the free-trade agreement with China the ASEAN-Australia agreement or others. 
The first fundamental critique we have to offer is what we take to be the obsessive concern about economic growth and commercial opportunity which we do not hold as having the same absolute untrammelled uncritically questioned value that the Government does. We do not dispute the need for a sustainable economy; we do question the need for economic growth if it risks being unsustainable. That is the fundamental premise to be debating. It is not drawn out properly in the national interest analysis. 
Let me be more specific. To respond to Mr Hodgson I say that the Green Party is composed of rational individuals who will be prepared to switch policy if our concerns are properly refuted or decently answered. Let me offer four questions for the Government—and for that matter Labour—to answer convincingly. The first is the following. Why does the national interest analysis not include in the “disadvantages” section an estimate of the increased volume of trade in tonnage not currency and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that will ensue as a result of that increased tonnage? 
This is the second question. Many of our domestic manufacturers are in a precarious economic position currently finding it difficult to compete with the lower wage structure of their Asian competitors. We in the Green Party are concerned that the further phasing out of protections envisaged in this agreement could well lead to more factory closures in New Zealand. On 3 March the Minister of Trade Tim Groser welcomed the recent free-trade initiatives as “good news for the New Zealand economy”. He dismissed concerns that free-trade agreements including the China agreement and for that matter the ASEAN one would do businesses in New Zealand out of work. He stated that those concerns had “zilch” to do with free-trade agreements and international trade. So the second question to the Minister asks him to please define “zilch” and explain why there is no causal relationship between free-trade agreements and business closures in New Zealand. 
This is the third question. The services and investment provisions in the agreement are also of concern. Under this agreement firms based in the ASEAN countries must be allowed to provide the full range of financial services here even those instruments that are currently under such scrutiny and criticism around the world. The agreement locks in light-handed regulation of the finance sector and capital markets which is at the root of the global economic crisis. So the third question asks whether the Minister agrees with that observation—and if not why not? 
Finally we in the Green Party are concerned at the agreement’s application to Burma in view of the call for economic sanctions of the Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. At a time when the United States and the European Union have responded to that call with sanctions New Zealand firms under this agreement are being encouraged to invest in Burma and these investments are being given further protection. So the fourth question asks what the Minister has to say to Suu Kyi. Will she be satisfied with his claim that this is good for the New Zealand economy—is that enough? Thank you.