Katene Rahui: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2640] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The figures at the core of this ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill are staggering. We are talking about a free-trade area with approximately 566 million people a combined gross domestic product of US$1.9 trillion and global trade of US$1.7 trillion. It is not easily ignored. This region represents one of the most economically dynamic markets in the world. Even in the Aotearoa-ASEAN relationship trade and exports have grown an impressive 24 percent per year over the last 3 years. This is certainly a massive undertaking. 
The agreement signed on 27 February this year did not just formalise a commitment between Australia and New Zealand; the agreement also involves Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand and Viet Nam. Amongst the key guiding principles of the agreement is the objective to move towards deeper economic integration through the progressive elimination of all forms of barriers to trade in goods services and investment. It is designed to inspire and promote the facilitation of trade and investment as well as measures of economic cooperation. It is also intended to be comprehensive in scope covering trade in goods services and investments. 
This all sounds good in principle and even more promising for practice but here is the thing: the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of our own local regional and national social progress and environmental enhancement. The Maori Party’s mantra is that we support fair-trade agreements as opposed to free-trade agreements. What do we mean by “fair” instead of “free”? The Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand works with the following definition: “Fair Trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to and securing the rights of marginalized producers and workers—especially in the South.” This is a big difference from what we would expect of conventional international trade. This bill provides for the application of preferential tariff rates for goods manufactured or produced by parties to the agreement and for the ability to set different tariff rates of duty for the parties. It provides for the application of transitional safeguard measures to be applied on imports originating from agreement party countries and it will enable the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies authorised to issue New Zealand certificates of origin for goods exported to party countries. 
At its very core the agreement includes investment intellectual property rights competition policy financial services and telecommunications. There is nothing wrong with that but alongside the conventional concepts of free trade we in the Maori Party also want to see demonstrable evidence of fair trade as a just and environmentally sustainable alternative. We want to see attention paid to labour and environmental justice issues and to human rights. The fair-trade movement would enable items to be produced with only a minimal impact on the environment with the cost of environmental sustainability being a key consideration in the equation. Importantly although there are clearly advantages to exporters if a fair-trade framework was applied it also enables an opportunity for both producers and consumers to challenge unfair trading practices. At its heart it is about balancing the profits and benefits of international trade with the strengths of grassroots development and economic justice. Yet in this ASEAN free-trade agreement just as in the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement the treaties on labour and the environment are not sufficiently robust to guarantee minimum standards or commitments to establish minimum standards on labour issues or environmental standards. 
In terms of labour law New Zealand manufacturers and businesses in further removing tariffs on imports into New Zealand are further exposed to competition that they may be unable to match given the differences in wages between New Zealand and ASEAN countries. Of course it is not just at home that we need to be thinking of the impacts of this new ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. We need to also be considering the likelihood of low pay unsafe working environments poor living conditions and exclusion from the decisions that affect the lives of the populations living in the 10 member countries of ASEAN. How will this free-trade agreement make any difference to their poverty and suffering? What opportunity have they had to participate in the decisions around this agreement? How does it assist these countries’ producers to escape the cycle of poverty? When we think of the second issue—the environment—it is arguable that New Zealand’s current environmental laws are sufficient to protect the natural estate. As we know Maori have raised concerns with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and genetic experimentation the Conservation Act 1987 the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and fisheries legislation. We are hardly in a position to stand strong about our environmental laws. 
Another of the measures introduced in the bill is the undertaking that there is nothing in this agreement that prevents the New Zealand Government from taking any measure it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori given its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. This is interesting wording and it is clearly not sufficient to ensure the Government will act in accordance with such obligations. If recent events are anything to go by we have every reason for caution. Just yesterday in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee we were told that the scheme was unfair on Maori who will reclaim 600 hectares of pre-1990 forests in Treaty settlements. Under the terms of the emissions trading scheme landowners are liable if they deforest more than 200 hectares of pre-1990 forest land. The Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group told the committee that the bulk of Maori forestry is pre-1990 and of course the Auckland super-city situation is even more conclusive evidence that Treaty of Waitangi obligations are easily and quickly discarded when the rule of the majority interest prevails. 
Finally I believe that the timing of this bill coming into Parliament this week is particularly significant. This weekend New Zealand starts a Fair Trade Fortnight symbolised by the “Go Bananas for Fairtrade” campaign. As a country New Zealand imports the highest per capita number of bananas in the world but the majority of banana plantation workers are unable to earn enough to live on and to support their families with some earning less than $3 a day. So it is the humble banana that I have been thinking of when considering the local cost of production in contrast with the corporates that dominate the global banana trade. Will ASEAN offer a better deal for producers? Will there be security of long-term contracts? Will we see an investment in local community development? How will working conditions improve as a result of the agreement? Will any changes be made to achieve fair and stable prices for produce? Will there be knowledge acquisition of a scale necessary to compete in the global economy? With all of these questions on our mind we are unable to vote in support of this bill.