Dean Jacqui: Tariff Act 1988 Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Tariff Act 1988 Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10799] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Tariff Act 1988 Repeal Bill with an air of confusion as to why this bill has come to Parliament. It seems to me that this is— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Finishing the job. It’s an old agenda. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Political theatre! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Indeed I am in agreement with my Labour colleagues on this. This is an old agenda and I believe it is an agenda that previous Governments and this Government have moved well away from. The Government is working successfully in terms of trade for both our importers and exporters. 
When I looked at this brief bill a couple of things struck me. The first thing that struck me was that in terms of trade this is an “all bets are off” type of bill. This bill is like New Zealand taking off its overcoat and exposing everything it has to offer to the world whilst still dealing in trade terms with fully clothed opponents. To me that did not seem to be a very good thing to do. The bill seems to give away any trade advantage that New Zealand has and we are an exporting nation. Exports are incredibly important to New Zealand and will continue to be important. 
Another aspect of this bill that struck me was that previous trade Ministers and our own Minister of Trade the Hon Tim Groser are working extremely hard to negotiate free-trade agreements. The word “negotiate” really captures where New Zealand is at in terms of trade these days which is that we engage with countries like Hong Kong China and the ASEAN countries in negotiations that are not just about tariff rates but also about other aspects of trade with those countries and doing business with them. That might include things such as rights for workers educational opportunities for both countries and other such things. Tariffs may form a small part of those negotiations but I would not have thought it was a very smart move for a small country in the middle of the South Pacific that is very dependent on trade and on forming trade relationships with other countries to just say: “OK come in; it won’t cost you much. We’ll pay a tariff on goods going into your country.”. 
This bill may work for importers but certainly tariffs remain for exporters. As I have already said we are a country that relies very heavily on exports. The repeal of the Tariff Act would put New Zealand at a huge disadvantage. We would open the door to tariff-free goods yet our exporters would still face tariffs from our trading partners. The other problem is that we would lose the protection that we currently enjoy under the Tariff Act—that is we would have no protection from a sudden influx of goods into our country. It has happened before; we are well aware of it. Chinese T-shirts or underpants come to mind. Without the protection of the Tariff Act I fear that New Zealand would be exposed—possibly the wrong word—to that kind of influx of goods with little protection. 
I am curious about a term used in the bill and in Sir Roger Douglas’ speech in reply I invite him to explain it because I can make neither head nor tail of it. This is a short bill luckily and I refer to clause 4(2). He might explain the phrase “shipment includes loading into an aircraft; and to ship and cognate expressions have corresponding meanings”. I cannot understand what that term means. I am very interested to hear what Sir Roger Douglas makes of it and I invite him to give us a very clear and full explanation of it. I strongly oppose this outdated outmoded and damaging bill. Thank you.