Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13396] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I was willing to listen to Dr Norman continue his speech so I hope that he takes another call. It was not my intention to thieve the call from him. 
In beginning my address I acknowledge that a lot of cooperation generally sits around trade matters within this House and I think it is worth noting that for the wider public. When all the politicians from this House are out and about we consistently hear people asking why we do not agree more often on various issues. Trade negotiations are an area where we tend to see a certain level of cooperation for the benefit of New Zealand ultimately and I want to acknowledge that first up. However I do also point out that even though this is an area in which we probably have some broad agreement cross-party John Hayes can still find several areas where he would like to chip in with interjections and I am sure that I will not be safe from that either during my address. 
I also acknowledge that this trade agreement is unlike I believe one of our last agreements where we had a significant amount of debate and discussion within this place and in the media. That was in relation to New Zealand’s free-trade agreement with China. Obviously there are significant differences between that agreement and what we are looking at here. In particular Hong Kong already has very liberal trading laws that offer duty-free imports for all countries. But the closer economic partnership we are discussing today still offers additional benefits for New Zealand. However I will highlight a little later on those areas that were identified as being of some risk to us and acknowledge those areas. 
It is also important to note that Hong Kong is our ninth-largest export destination—at least it was in 2009. I think we frequently tend to home in on large Asian export destinations for New Zealand but it is important to acknowledge that there are particular industries that benefit from our arrangements with places like Hong Kong despite it being much smaller in comparison with the Chinese market. 
A significant amount of time goes into these negotiations. Although in this Chamber we might be presented with a relatively small bill at the end of the work this particular trade agreement held its roots as far back as I believe Jim Sutton originally. That alone points out— 
John Hayes 
: Yes he sat on it and did nothing. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —it did not take John Hayes long—the amount of work that goes into these agreements. Of course Phil Goff who has his stamp on a number of these agreements from when he was the trade Minister put a lot of work into this agreement and I want to recognise that at this point. 
Although we have already acknowledged the benefits of this particular closer economic partnership it is important to note the challenges that such partnerships can pose for our own internal markets. This one is different in that it has been acknowledged up front that Hong Kong as a market is more heavily focused on services rather than on the cheap manufacture of goods which has in the past been an area where we have seen our local manufacturers undercut. Very early on in the piece New Zealand acknowledged that in order to survive in an increasingly globalised world we were going to have to accept that that was going to happen and not only try to cushion that as much as possible but also identify those niche markets where we could continue to carve out a space for New Zealand as a value-added economy and one that can focus in on those areas where we have real strengths. I believe that research and development is emerging as one of those areas for this country. I would touch on the dairy industry but perhaps I will wait for Dr Norman to continue his contribution on that area instead. 
We must acknowledge that New Zealand manufacturers of footwear and textiles are probably the ones that will be facing the greatest risk from this closer economic partnership. Some of those manufacturers have already fallen on hard times during the recession. Some local members of Parliament would have seen the pressures that those companies are facing. Historically those pressures have been accumulating through various other trade agreements and I do not think we could say that any one of those agreements in particular triggered them but they do have a cumulative effect on some of our manufacturers. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I’m not rude like that member; I let people finish. I have manners. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: And very soon I will give the member a nod when I am handing back the baton to the Greens. I have one final point that I want to draw further on which was a point made by my colleague Maryan Street in relation to an aspect of this closer economic partnership. The partnership has an environment agreement with shared objectives between New Zealand and Hong Kong that are aimed at improving the environment and enhancing the capacity and capability of each country’s Government agencies research organisations academic institutions and businesses in order to address trade and environment matters. I would like to hear a little more discussion within the Committee of what in practical terms that will mean for New Zealand but as a starting point I think it is incredibly important to acknowledge that we need to negotiate and entrench in these agreements those areas of most value and worth to us not just in economic terms but in terms of our country’s ideology. Environmental issues are some of those but also our labour laws and practices and our values in that area must be entrenched in these agreements. 
That is why I am particularly pleased that the closer economic partnership contains a labour memorandum of understanding. It states that although labour laws should not be used for protectionist measures—obviously there are a number of reasons why that cannot be the case—they should also not be weakened or reduced in order to increase trade and investment. Obviously that refers to the undercutting or loosening of labour laws or a race to the bottom as it were. It also provides a framework for New Zealand in which to raise concerns on labour issues with Hong Kong. 
I am particularly pleased to see this because whilst spending some time doing work with an international non-governmental organisation in a voluntary capacity over the years I saw numerous cases of very loose arrangements by corporates in the US in particular. For example corporates that had significant contracts with companies operating in the Philippines stated within their own internal organisation that their expectation was that labour laws be upheld within the company they were contracting in and that the labour laws of that country be upheld but we frequently saw that that was not the case. Yet who has the greatest lever to ensure that even the Philippines’ labour laws are upheld other than the company that is holding that contract in its hands? Who has the power to say that if labour laws and minimum wage terms and conditions for workers are not upheld it will not continue to maintain the contract? Obviously it is the company and if it is not the company it must be the country that maintains that level of responsibility. 
I am loath to burden or load too much weight on to the notion of corporate responsibility because I think there is a fine line between corporate responsibility and State neglect so I think it is important that we have equal measures of both and I think this closer economic partnership proves that it is possible to insert a country’s values around labour laws as a whole into one of these agreements. On that note I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate. I look forward to hearing the remainder of the contribution from my colleague Dr Norman.