Shirley Ken: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21391] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill and will be voting for it. We recognise that trade is the lifeblood of the New Zealand economy. I acknowledge the good work that Minister Jim Sutton and his officials have done. 
We believe that trade should be a non-partisan issue. It is in the interests of the New Zealand economy as a whole to promote freer trade in a global sense. Obviously like others we would prefer to see multilateral trade agreements. There are serious advantages that multilateral trade agreements have over bilateral agreements. They are fairer in a global sense. If we think about the work—the glacially slow work—made at the Tokyo round followed by at the Uruguay round and now at the current Doha round it is a disappointment for a country like New Zealand to have the agreements stalled but we keep plugging away. Successive Ministers in successive Governments of all persuasions have been consistently promoting New Zealand’s interests at international fora in getting and working for freer trade. Overwhelmingly it is in our enlightened self-interest to do so. 
One of the problems with bilateral trade is that the more powerful nation actually has advantages over the least powerful nation. But it is all progress along the way. This particular agreement with Thailand is not perfect. Other speakers have commented that it has limitations. All trade agreements always will have limitations. But each step is a step towards freer and more open comparative trade. That is why it is certainly in New Zealand’s interests to advocate for freer trade based on comparative advantage and it is for that reason that we have to accept that although we may have an advantage overall there will be adjustments. Some of the adjustments may carry some pain. Certainly if we have areas of quite high protection or relatively high protection—perhaps in clothing and textiles—then we do not have the comparative advantage so yes we may lose some jobs in that sector. But New Zealand First and the Greens have to understand the point that to the extent that the overall New Zealand economy will be stronger other jobs and opportunities will open up that will more than compensate for that. One of the great advantages of trade is that both parties benefit and the collective benefit actually creates greater prosperity not just for the countries involved but for the world at large. A rising tide lifts all boats and that is what freer trade can do. 
The other thing to note of course—and I think I mentioned it at an earlier stage in this debate—is that throughout history no two openly democratic nations that have traded with each other have ever gone to war. I put out the challenge to members to name two openly democratic countries that have traded together that have ever gone to war. One of the best ways of building global securities is actually to open up for trade but the xenophobic arguments from the Greens and New Zealand First are the very arguments that create instabilities and problems in an international sense. 
In the big-picture view I think that one of the greatest obscenities in the world is the way that wealthy nations in Europe and North America insist on free trade in areas where they have comparative advantages based on high-tech goods and the like yet deny developing countries the same opportunity—in fact engage in massive subsidisation and tariff protection against the developing Third World. It just so happens that although New Zealand is not characterised as a Third World nation structurally our economy is more representative of being so with our heavy dependence upon agricultural goods. So it is true that we would benefit but so would some of those poverty-stricken nations of Africa and the like. That is why I take exception to the Greens’ argument that says: “Oh no no. We should give these countries more aid.” and then they come to this House and vote against opening up with trade. 
There is no better way to assist people to lift their standards of living and to gain prosperity than to trade with them. I find it an incredible hypocrisy and contradiction to promote more aid on the one hand but to deny the opening up of trade on the other hand. Yes by our standards some of those countries may well operate sweatshops and employment conditions may be a lot harsher than we would accept but the way to lift those conditions is to open up trade and with growing prosperity those other social standards and the like will rise with it. That has been the experience throughout the ages in all economies. Not to do that is to consign those nations to continuing poverty and everyone effectively is the loser. 
So without hesitation ACT certainly supports this bill. We acknowledge its shortcomings such as the lack of a proper breakthrough in services; I understand that the Thais have agreed only to initiate negotiations in 3 years’ time. I am constantly confused by the Labour Government’s race-based laws if you like. Here we have it again with favourable treatment for Maori. That should not be necessary. All New Zealanders should stand alone. Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course we know that this Labour Government did a similar thing when Maori corporations were given a lower taxation rate. We are actually glad they have a lower tax rate but we would like everyone to have a lower tax rate. We are not against Maori corporations having a tax rate of 19c in the dollar; we believe everyone should have a lower tax rate and there should not be differentiation based on race. To put that into an international trade agreement as we have here is certainly in the eyes of ACT party members a very very strange thing to do. 
Another good area concerns timber. Although we might be affected by clothing carpets and textiles Thailand is potentially a very significant market for New Zealand’s timber particularly sawn timber and other products. I understand that we face some very high tariffs there of 20 to 30 percent or thereabouts. The Minister could perhaps clarify that. This agreement and the conditions the bill creates will certainly be a major breakthrough and favoured by many sectors of the New Zealand economy. 
In conclusion I reiterate that the ACT party will support the bill. We think that it is a quite small step in trade liberalisation but all such steps are supported by the ACT party.