Nash Stuart: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Am I wrong? Have we just heard from the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee? I know it is late and he is probably tired. It is probably past his bedtime but goodness me that was the most lacklustre speech I have heard in this House for a long long time. Jonathan Coleman is very lucky because we thought his speech was bad but then John Hayes stood up and Jonathan Coleman’s speech looked fantastic. His speech was a piece of oratorical art compared with that member. It was outstanding. John Hayes stood there; it was a long low cold boring quiet monologue about nothing. We try to listen to some of these speeches because some of these things are quite interesting. They are in the national interest. The Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill is good for New Zealand; it is great for New Zealand. It is not like some of the other bills. They are important but this is good for New Zealand. It is good for trade and it is good for the economy. The chair of the select committee—I think he was standing; it was hard to tell—spoke in a low quiet monotone. It was painful. Thank God that is over! Thank God we are almost at the end of the night. It was like pulling nails. 
I do stand in support of the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This is the fourth bill that I have spoken on today that is Labour legislation. This is something that Phil Goff did. This is Jim Sutton’s work. This is in fact the third bill in a row that Labour has done all the work for. It is unbelievable. We are in urgency 18 months later on Labour bills. Where is the innovation? National members have the nerve to say that Labour did nothing in Government yet we are on the third bill in a row that was a Labour bill. 
This bill amends the Tariff Act 1988— 
John Hayes 
: He’s worse than his Uncle Walter. 
STUART NASH 
: The member has come to life! It is about time. Why did he not do that 5 minutes ago? As I was saying this bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 in order to implement the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur last October. The bill’s amendment will allow for transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances to imports from Malaysia. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has no right to criticise anyone’s speech yet he is sitting there doing so. It is unbelievable. Someone should send him the YouTube clip or wherever the debate is shown and show him how bad his speech was. I think he needs a few lessons. 
Malaysia has a large and growing population of more than 28 million people and it presents ample opportunities for additional trade investment and other economic linkages. We all know that if New Zealand is to develop sustainable economic growth then it must follow a policy of export-led growth like that promoted with this agreement. It must work to foster an economic environment whereby key competencies around export strategy are encouraged in any way shape or form. Mr English has stated that it is his Government’s goal to drive an export-led recovery and I quote: “We’re looking for how to make sure we get a sustainable export-led recovery.” In my view three things are holding back New Zealand companies from optimising their export growth in countries we have free-trade agreements with like Malaysia which this bill fosters. The Government’s actions are increasingly suboptimising any chance New Zealand has of increasing its economic growth through further development of the export sector into countries like Malaysia which this free-trade agreement is about. There are three things holding back New Zealand: one a lack of affordable capital; two a lack of true export competency; and three an outdated monetary policy. 
Let me expand on these a little more. The first is a lack of affordable capital. 
John Hayes 
: No no don’t bother. 
STUART NASH 
: Mr Hayes may learn something. He may have been in foreign affairs for a long time but he did absolutely nothing. It took a Labour Government to negotiate all the free-trade agreements that have been passed since National has been in office. Every single free-trade agreement that has been passed under the National Government is as a result of the work that Phil Goff and Jim Sutton did. How dare the member sit there like a big oaf going on about how Labour does nothing. They were all done by Labour and Mr Hayes knows that. 
I turn to the lack of affordable capital. Only 10 percent of all business loans are unsecured in this country. That means that 90 percent of all loans are secured against the assets of the owner of the company often being the family home. This attitude and access to capital will never allow the country to address the issue of the fact that we overvalue capital and undervalue labour in this country. Basically that means that we prefer to employ cheap labour rather than spend money on capital in order to improve productivity. My question is how New Zealand companies wanting to expand and to take advantage of the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement can access affordable capital. Investment in capital does not lead to fewer jobs but rather to greater efficiencies more jobs as companies grow and more important a greater propensity to scale up for export growth into countries like Malaysia which is what we are talking about at the moment. That is fundamental if the vast majority of companies are to take advantage of this Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. 
The second thing the Government has suggested it will do is sell Kiwibank. This is the Government-owned bank set up by the last Labour-led Government that by its own admission in the banking inquiry has saved New Zealanders about $1 billion in interest—about $1 billion due to competition—and this Government wants to sell it. Selling Kiwibank will be a huge disservice to the people of New Zealand and to companies in the export business hoping to establish a beachhead in Kuala Lumpur. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Selling Kiwibank has got nothing to do with the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. I did indicate to the member to bring it in. The member John Hayes is exactly right so come back to the subject. 
STUART NASH 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and Malaysia. I think it is a very important agreement. I think it has the opportunity to really grow our economy. But I see that in terms of optimising this agreement and allowing New Zealand companies to grow there are three barriers to real market optimisation. They really need to be addressed or this free-trade agreement will really not benefit the vast majority of New Zealand companies that could be in line to do so well out of this agreement. 
As I was saying 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are classed as small to medium enterprises. That means they have 19 staff members or fewer. Very few of these companies can afford to employ full-time international marketing or marketing development managers let alone open an office in Malaysia a country with a different language legal system and business culture. So we need an agency that is our eyes and ears in the global markets. I ask members to tell me whether this Government is taking any action to help New Zealand businesses make the most of this opportunity in Malaysia. No it is not. However let me tell members that Labour understands the value of assisting exporters to get into markets like Malaysia and optimise their ability to take advantage of this free-trade agreement. In its last term the Labour Government increased New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s funding for market development assistance from $6 million to $54 million. Now there is only just under $10 million available in the International Growth Fund. About 6 months ago I asked the retiring chief executive officer of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise whether his organisation was New Zealand’s international marketing and market development organisation. His response was: “If only.” 
The third point holding back New Zealand’s economic and export market development into Malaysia is our current monetary policy. Can anyone in this House tell me how a company can effectively forecast and business-plan when it does not know whether the exchange rate will be at 0.55 0.65 or 0.75? 
John Hayes 
: Have you heard of forward cover? 
STUART NASH 
: They cannot and if Mr Hayes thinks they can he should take his head out of the sand. No wonder we had such poor performance when that man was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Goodness me that is a bloody disgrace! The Labour Party has made a commitment to business to review current monetary policy legislation because we believe that it is not beneficial to New Zealand’s economic growth it will not allow companies to take advantage of this free-trade agreement and it is not relevant to New Zealand’s economic future. 
The time is now right for change. Business understands that. Labour understands it. The only people in this country who do not understand it are the members on that side of the House. I ask the House who really is the true party of business. Who is the true party of trade? As I mentioned the work for every single free-trade agreement that has been passed while that party has been in Government was done by Jim Sutton and the Hon Phil Goff the next Prime Minister of New Zealand and the only future Prime Minister who knows anything about international relations. He has been at the coalface negotiating contracts on behalf of this country. 
I support this bill for a variety of reasons but I ask members to please not confuse my support for free-trade agreements with support for that Government which lacks any discernable policy that would allow this country to optimise its economic advantage. I commend this bill to the House.