Hayes John: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:1998] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise also to support this legislation primarily because we on this side of the House want to see a free economy and a free trading system. A free economy and a free trading system is the only way to create wealth and prosperity which this country badly needs. Prosperity alone will give us the resources to pay for better services to the community and better services for those in need. The attack on private enterprise by the Labour-led Government through its highest tax structure has made certain that nothing will be available for improvements in the social services area for some years to come. We need to get the private sector generating wealth not just to put more money in pockets but so that we can give more money to those who need help: the old the sick and the handicapped. This trade agreement will make a minute impact on economic growth but because it will make a positive impact on economic growth we support it. 
I suspect that the trade agreement has actually cost more to negotiate than it will deliver. If we refer to the national interest analysis we see clearly that this agreement will cost us about $472000 each year to operate. Of that $150000 annually has been set aside by the bureaucrats for their administration fee. Then we will lose some money from tariff revenue to the tune of about $320000 for Chile and about $1800 for Brunei. The gains from this agreement are estimated to be about $2.2 million in reduced duties paid by our exporters to Chile and about $50000 in reduced duties to Brunei. The total gains as a result of this agreement look to be $2.25 million and the cost is about $472000 so the equation has a positive balance of $1.78 million. Therefore I support it. 
However I come back to comments made by the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith. He has pointed out that this agreement is missing the involvement of Australia and the USA. I do not see that changing under this Labour-led administration. That is a big pity because we could turn this minute benefit into something of serious significance for our country. 
We support this agreement because it will help our casein exports and facilitate coal exports to Chile. It should also make it easier for our business people to operate in Chile and Brunei. It is also worthy of note that benefits will accrue to New Zealand if the other partners to the agreement enter into new trade agreements with other parties and gain greater benefits than the agreement provides for at present. Those benefits will eventually accrue to New Zealand. But I warn people in my electorate that we will have increased competition from both Chile and Brunei in the areas of forestry and wine. The value of this agreement—$1.78 million annually—is less than 50c for every man woman and child in this country. It really is a pretty poor effort for a huge amount of work. We must seriously focus our trade negotiations on agreements that will deliver bigger benefits than this one will. But this is certainly a start and that is why we support it.