Macindoe Tim: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2651] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As has been alluded to by previous speakers in this debate the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill represents a very significant development in our country’s international trade arrangements. I commend the Minister and his officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the considerable and important work that they have undertaken in their negotiations and in the preparation of this bill. 
In the current economic climate it is especially important for a small country that depends very heavily on export earnings to do all it can to facilitate trade by reducing and eliminating barriers and by reducing costs for our producers and businesses as they seek to operate in significant markets such as those that constitute the ASEAN group of countries. ASEAN represents a market of more than 586 million people and accounts for more than US$1.4 billion in global trade. In recent times New Zealand has secured a significant increase—some 121 percent since 2000—in its exports to ASEAN countries. 
This is a welcome development as a result of which the ASEAN group of countries now constitutes our third-largest trading partner and the third-largest export market for merchandise goods. 
An important outcome of the agreement is that by 2020 there will be no tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the vital markets of Indonesia Malaysia Viet Nam and the Philippines—four major economies in Asia. During the same period ASEAN exports to New Zealand will also increase through the gradual elimination of tariffs. However the agreement provides protection for some important industries especially in the manufacturing sector by scheduling longer phase-out periods for tariffs that are associated with sectors that may be sensitive to the potentially negative effects of adjustments in industries such as manufactured products clothing footwear carpets and certain textiles. I am sure that members will join me in welcoming that flexibility and long-term thinking. 
It was encouraging to hear the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this debate lending his support to this agreement. I acknowledge both his personal contribution as the previous Minister of Trade and the bipartisan approach that has been taken to New Zealand’s trade negotiations in recent times. It is difficult and demanding work and having that consensus on the home front and in this Parliament is hugely important to those who work so hard on our behalf to secure the best deal that is achievable. Trade creates jobs builds vital market access for our products and secures the export earnings that all New Zealanders depend upon for economic growth and our nation’s collective wealth. 
As my colleague the member for Wairarapa noted Asia’s share of global trade has increased markedly in recent years and it is essential for New Zealand to ensure that we are well positioned to take advantage of that development. So it is particularly exciting and impressive to observe that this agreement marks the first time that ASEAN has negotiated a comprehensive free-trade agreement as part of a single undertaking—that is an agreement that spans goods services investment and other aspects of modern free-trade agreements such as intellectual property and competition policy. Thus it really does represent a new high-water mark in New Zealand’s integration with the combined ASEAN market. 
I listened carefully to Dr Kennedy Graham’s address which commenced with tributes to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Phil Goff for their personal contributions to this agreement. It was good to hear him confirm that the Green Party is not opposed to free trade per se and his recognition that trade is critical to the stimulation of economic growth. He posed four questions in relation to the agreement which will no doubt be answered during the subsequent readings of this bill and I trust those answers will be sufficient to secure the Green Party’s support for this agreement. 
I acknowledge Dr Kennedy Graham’s final point which focused on the continuing house arrest of the Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi. There has been longstanding concern in this country about the suppression of human rights in what is now known as Myanmar and it is a concern that is keenly felt on all sides of this House. However in negotiating a comprehensive free-trade agreement with a range of countries of which Myanmar is one of the smallest it does not follow that we are turning a blind eye to that country’s disturbing record on human rights or condoning the incarceration of a widely respected and rightful leader. To the contrary it is to be hoped that increasing trading relations will secure increasing diplomatic influence especially for Australia and New Zealand as we strive to encourage the Myanmar military Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and demonstrate respect for democracy and the rule of law. 
But we cannot ignore the fact that we now have significant trade agreements with a number of countries whose policies and customs we cannot admire or share and if we were to set such a high moral benchmark to all decisions about trading partners that it led us to reject trade with countries that have unsatisfactory Governments we would absolutely kneecap our own productive sectors and economy. That would do little to bring about political change in those countries but it would certainly bring about disastrous changes in ours. Nevertheless I acknowledge Dr Graham’s concern and strongly share his desire to see the long and abhorrent discrimination against the Nobel Peace Prize - winner brought to an end. 
It was a pity to hear Stuart Nash trying to score a cheap point with his rugby analogy about the respective contributions to this agreement of Phil Goff Helen Clark and Tim Groser. In the interests of fairness it would do Mr Nash well to remember that Mr Groser came to this House nearly 4 years ago after a long and distinguished career as a trade negotiator for this country. There can be few New Zealanders who can stand more proudly on the world stage of trade agreements than the Hon Tim Groser. I have no doubt that Phil Goff and Helen Clark would certainly acknowledge his sterling work on our behalf while they were Ministers in the last Government and I imagine that they would urge Mr Nash to reflect on the comments that he made in what has been in the main an otherwise constructive and intelligent debate over a measure of vital national significance. 
Like Grant Robertson I conclude my remarks with some observations about two of the key outcomes of this agreement—that is the memoranda of agreement on labour cooperation and environmental cooperation with the Philippines. The agreement on labour cooperation provides a basis for both countries to promote sound labour policies and practices through an approach based on cooperation consultation and dialogue that takes into account the unique circumstances needs and future aspirations of New Zealand and the Philippines—and I agree with Mr Robertson that these are significant. This agreement it needs to be noted is a treaty and is legally binding and it has been included in the context of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. Under it there are a number of key undertakings of which I will mention just a few. New Zealand and the Philippines reaffirm their obligations as members of the ILO and their commitment to the principles of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. They agree to work to ensure that their labour laws regulations policies and practices are in harmony with international labour commitments and they support the commitments made by the parties to the memorandum of agreement with a view to improving the working conditions and the quality of work life in their respective countries. 
Meanwhile the memorandum of agreement on environmental cooperation with the Philippines seeks to promote sound environment policies and processes by establishing a set of shared commitments a framework for cooperation and a mechanism for consultation which taken together allow the parties to address any environmental issues through cooperation consultation and dialogue. Again I hope that these are measures that will encourage the Green Party to throw its support behind what could become a unanimously supported agreement. Again the memorandum of agreement on environmental cooperation with the Philippines is legally binding and has been concluded in the context of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. 
I conclude by simply mentioning those aspects because they demonstrate the potential of free-trade agreements and international treaties to secure improvements and cooperation across a wide range of geopolitical matters. Again I pay a warm tribute to all the negotiators Ministers and officials for the comprehensive nature of their concerns and achievements. They have done the job well. They have done our country proud. I am delighted to support the measure.