Hodgson Pete: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2637] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 There seems to be a remarkable outbreak of peace across the Chamber on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. But I am aware the speaker following me will be from the Green Party and I want to make some remarks to which I hope he or she will respond. 
I should start as the Minister of Trade Tim Groser did and acknowledge the history of this agreement. I acknowledge its beginnings in Singapore with the work of the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith and the work of Jim Sutton in ASEAN and in many other parts of the world—most notably China. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Phil Goff in various parts of the world and his role which he mentioned in getting the political closure on this agreement last year. As a member of Cabinet at that time I remember well the sense of excitement as we moved closer to that agreement because of its importance to us. I will not reiterate all the figures that have been given by other speakers but if this is our third-largest export market and our combined average growth rate over the past 3 years from New Zealand to those markets has been 24 percent in the absence of a free-trade agreement then that is a remarkable achievement. 
It is an achievement that one assumes will be improved on what it would otherwise be without the presence of that free-trade agreement. I want to acknowledge as indeed the previous speaker has the extent to which trade has changed over recent years. This is not quite the same analysis as that of the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but a different one since he has already given his. I do not dispute anything he said but I add some observations around the role of agreements on trade and the environment to the contributions in the House. Such agreements even 12 years ago were considered completely impossible simply a challenge and something that would bog down the agreement in tradable goods. Indeed moving to services was itself quite big but it is now an ordinary feature of our free-trade agreements. 
The other thing that has happened in recent years and continues to develop is that on the New Zealand side the internal processes we use are just becoming better and better. We ought to acknowledge the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Business New Zealand and of the various groups that interact in that process. I refer to for example the trade union movement and many others that interact in the course of negotiations. The awareness within the New Zealand economy as to how these negotiations are going or not going gets better and better; the awareness that negotiators have on the particular effects of this or that clause on a particular company such as Fisher and Paykel Appliances are becoming more and more obvious; and the very vulnerable sectors—and there are some; textiles clothing and footwear come to mind but there are others—are taken into account in a fairly free way. Then of course an agreement must be struck. An agreement is never struck so that there is only one winner because that would not be an agreement. The other side would not come to the party; there has to be give and take. I am acknowledging that I think we have a more and more elaborate and open consultative process. 
It is interesting that that consultative process does not involve the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and maybe it should. It does involve Cabinet. Cabinet is given updates as these various negotiations come along and it seems to me a reasonable proposition that it ought to be the case that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—or another select committee as is relevant—is also briefed. Maybe with some agreements the Primary Production Committee should also be briefed. One reason why a select committee would not be briefed is that it does not have any natural expertise. But you see neither does Cabinet except perhaps for the trade Minister of the day the foreign affairs Minister of the day the primary production Minister of the day or the Prime Minister of the day. But generally speaking Cabinet is not comprised of experts and neither is the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I put the idea on the table that it would help us as a group of parliamentarians if one or two of our select committees were briefed as a matter of routine to the level of detail that was deemed appropriate so that people could be questioned about processes progress and outcomes. 
The other comment I make concerns the Green Party. I do not believe the Green Party is anti-trade but it certainly has misgivings about trade that are not shared by other parties. I think that if the Green Party was represented on select committees and was privy to information that National or Labour had whenever they have been in office—and both parties have been—then that may not only assist the Green Party’s understanding of the process but also enhance the process itself because the Green Party is thoroughly capable of coming up with suggestions or propositions. I would like Green Party members to respond to that if they want to. 
I make another comment to the Government. I am not convinced that this remarkable agreement involving a series of trading partners collectively bigger than China will be as well supported by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise as the agreement with China has been. I do not know that that is the case; I hope I am wrong. I note that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—which of course I generally perceive to be a very good outfit—needs the support from this Government to ensure that our exporters have the opportunity to take advantage of this agreement as it comes into force. That was the case in China. There are stories all over the place about New Zealand businesses making progress—some slow some fast—in various parts of China and the role of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in that progress. I think the role of beachheads in various parts of the ASEAN community needs to be explored. Generally speaking New Zealand Trade and Enterprise might need to be bulked up in response to our free-trade agreements having essentially been bulked up. It used to be a big deal when we got ourselves a free-trade agreement with Singapore which has a population of just over 4 million people. That pales in significance when we consider what progress we have made with our third and fourth-largest partners and what progress we might make when the Obama administration has had an opportunity to consider its trade policy with our second-largest export partner. If the New Zealand export community is to ensure that it maximises its effects in these easier-to-access markets then it will need a degree of support from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. With those remarks I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation. I hope for its rapid and seamless passage.