Robertson Grant: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12155] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the third reading of the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. We have had an extremely interesting debate today. Although the matters we are debating in this urgency motion call into question the meaning of the word “urgency” the opportunity we have been offered here today has been useful. I congratulate members on all sides of the House for their contributions particularly Dr Kennedy Graham. There is a broad consensus between National and Labour on the issue of free trade although there are some differences in emphasis and nuance. The Green Party has a different view and I think it is good that Dr Graham has taken the opportunity to put those views out there. As I have said in earlier speeches I certainly share some of the concerns he raised about an absolutist approach to free trade. Free trade is not magic and it is not the panacea for all things. To my mind it is an important part of our economic well-being and it is part of a global economy in which people can get the benefits of their labours but it is not everything. It should not be put up on a pedestal as being in some way or other above and beyond rigorous analysis and that analysis is what Dr Graham brought to the debate today. 
As a number of other speakers have mentioned this is a high-quality bilateral free-trade agreement. It makes a number of positive moves in advance of the ASEAN free-trade agreement. I think it is good when we are working on free-trade agreements to build on what has been done earlier. The ASEAN free-trade agreement offers a lot of potential for New Zealand exporters but in a number of key areas this agreement brings in tariff reductions well in advance of that period of time. As with other agreements there are phased tariff reductions in the Malaysian free-trade agreement but 95 percent of those reductions will take place on the day that this agreement comes into force once the House has dealt with it. That is a very impressive achievement of which all of the officials not only those from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but also those from other departments who have been involved can be justifiably proud. The final phase of bringing in tariff reductions will be by 2016 and that will get us to as was stated earlier 99.5 percent of the tariffs being removed. 
This is indeed an excellent agreement. It is one that offers huge scope for manufacturers exporters and service providers. Our trade with Malaysia has a large component to do with the export of goods but it also has a growing component around services and a historical connection to services particularly in the education area. There is a lot in this agreement that New Zealand can be proud of and a lot that we can also see an opportunity to exploit. As was stated in earlier readings the 0.5 percent of tariffs that remain are mainly as a result of discussions on cultural and religious matters particularly to do with alcohol. I restate the comment I made in the Committee stage that I believe the way the national interest analysis describes New Zealand’s enthusiasm for 100 percent of the tariffs to be removed is a little unfortunate. The recognition from both Mr Groser and Dr Graham in the earlier part of the debate was that we have to respect other countries where there are issues particularly those of a cultural or religious nature. I think that brings us back to my concern that New Zealand has from time to time in trade negotiations taken a very absolutist stance. That is not only potentially difficult in terms of our respect for other countries’ cultural and religious beliefs but also from a negotiating point of view it has sometimes put New Zealand in a less than advantageous position when we have pretty much given everything away while still trying to negotiate. 
The other aspect I want to reflect on again is the importance of the environment and labour cooperation agreements which are of a treaty status. They sit alongside the free-trade agreement and are to be considered together as being the engine room of the next stage of our relationship with Malaysia. In the past those agreements have sometimes been seen as just add-ons that were there to placate people who think we need free trade to be more than just free trade and that it should be seen in a wider economic context. I take comfort from the Minister’s statement that he understands that environment cooperation and labour cooperation are now an important part of our negotiations with other countries. There are a lot of opportunities for New Zealanders in the environmental area in terms of services and I think that the environmental cooperation agreement can be used for leverage for those service providers. We also need to learn from the Malaysians because all over Asia at the moment issues about sustainable development loom large for Governments and for people. We need to be there contributing our skill and technical knowledge learning from what has been developed in those countries and making sure that as part of our ongoing relationship with these countries we have strong environmental standards and strong labour standards. New Zealand can be proud of the fact that we have led the way in making those a part of free-trade agreements. 
I conclude by again congratulating the Minister of Trade and indeed previous Ministers Phil Goff and Jim Sutton on having brought us to the position where we are today. I hope that the Malaysia free-trade agreement will not only see an increase in wealth for New Zealanders through increased exports and services but also see a deeper stronger relationship between New Zealand and Malaysia across trade environment labour and other fronts.