Graham Kennedy: Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Graham Kennedy: Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:4915] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to convey the views of the Green Party in the third readings of the Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill and the Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill. My mind goes back in the first instance to the first reading of the original ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill in which I participated. I was disappointed to miss the second reading but I have since been through the records of the second reading and the Committee of the whole House quite carefully. 
I wish to engage the two main parties National and Labour which I have to say should be regarded in this debate and on this issue—and not for the first or only time—as a conjoint political establishment best regarded as “NatLab”. Their views can be seen in contradistinction to those of the Green Party. 
In the first reading Pete Hodgson sought to engage the Green Party in a debate on this matter and that was something I appreciated. I responded by identifying four concerns that we held and subsequently we developed a fifth concern in the course of the select committee which was also conveyed in our minority report. Those concerns were genuinely addressed in response by National members and Labour members and we appreciate that. In fact a debate was joined and I see it as ongoing. I also see these particular third readings as simply one further step in a broader debate that is to be had and that will not terminate immediately on the issue of free trade more generally. I appreciate the comments made in the first reading by National members Dr Hutchison Mr Macindoe and Mr Finlayson in particular and from the other side by Mr Hodgson Maryan Street and Mr Robertson. 
The House is on notice that the Green Party has expressed these concerns but at the same time we did say that we are not anti - free trade per se; it is just that we require that free trade meets certain fairly stringent standards that we appear to put at a higher threshold than the other two major parties do. I ask myself whether there is anything on which National Labour and Green can unite and I think the answer is well yes. In terms of a very broad and idealistic vision of a future world we no doubt can unite. I think all three parties can unite in a vision of a global economy that meets three standards: firstly that global economy has to be based on green trade pertaining to both the production and the freight of goods and services that are completely sustainable; secondly there needs to be completely open trade—total free trade—and thirdly that trade needs to be fair not only in respect of domestic producers and finding a natural balance of their activities in every country in that regard but also in terms of political harmony around the world in our trading relationships with other parties. So we are united on three broad criteria for a future ideal global economy. We could call it green open and fair or by way of acronym “GOF”. It would be the “GOF” vision but let us recognise that there is only one “F”. If we had another “F” it could become futile so we will keep it at “GOF” with one “F” if members do not mind! All parties can unite on that vision but having identified that somewhat artificial vision we then realise that the reality is way short of it because international trade at the moment is not green it is not totally open and it is certainly not free. 
In the first reading I lamented the excessive obsession with economic growth. Dr Hutchison replied that the Greens missed the point because the issue was much broader than economic growth; it had to do with cultural and political links and so on. My reply to him is that we do not deny that fact and we welcome the broader political and cultural ties with ASEAN but by way of responding in logic we say that those ties do not and should not force us in any way towards a free-trade agreement if that particular agreement does not meet the criteria and standards we have identified. 
Let me proceed in an analytical manner with our five concerns and see to what extent the responses from National and Labour have allayed our concerns. Firstly there was the issue of green trade. We asked why the national interest analysis did not include an estimate of the increased trade volume and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would ensue from free trade. Unless I missed it I heard no answer from National on this point but I heard an answer from Labour. Mr Hodgson said that “if one is to approach climate change one cannot approach it through trade; one has to approach it through the economy and society as a whole.” He also said that “one cannot do it in such an itsy-bitsy way.” We simply disagree. Trade whether it is airfreight or sea freight is a critically important part of the global economy representing somewhere around 2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Trade is likely to become a part of future Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change negotiations so in response I put it to our Labour colleagues that we cannot responsibly exclude trade from our climate change obligations. Therefore we conclude that there is no change on our position on this in light of the response to our concern in the first reading. 
Secondly we had a concern about the manufacturing equilibrium. We were concerned that further phasing out of protections could lead to further factory closures. Mr Finlayson assured us that “The agreement is expected to have a positive effect on exports gross domestic product and employment in New Zealand including in the manufacturing sector.” I think this is simply a case of differing expectations. We do not know what will happen in the future. Future events by definition cannot be proven in advance; only time will tell. We acknowledge the possibility of a positive effect but we deny the certainty of its occurrence. There is no compelling evidence to surrender our objection. Let us look forward to empirical case studies to settle this matter in the future. 
Thirdly pertaining to the financial sector we expressed our concern that the agreement locked in light-handed regulation of finances in capital markets. Mr Finlayson responded: “Under the agreement the existing regulatory and policy settings for … investment would be protected.” He went on to say that the financial services annex of the agreement would preserve New Zealand’s ability to regulate. I interpret this statement to be an assurance that ASEAN companies can operate in New Zealand only in strict conformity with our tight regulatory measures. On that basis the Green Party would be prepared to withdraw its concern subject of course to future verification. 
The fourth issue pertained to democratic protection. We expressed our concern over a lack of targeted sanctions against Myanmar’s leaders. In response Maryan Street advised us that the least developed countries had automatic access and no quota barriers to the OECD under the existing free-trade agreement and that the free-trade agreement did not preclude New Zealand protection. But that was beside the point. Our point was that it precluded targeted sanctions against Myanmar’s leaders. 
The final point pertained to tobacco exemption. We expressed our concern that we would surrender the right to ban tobacco in future legislation on health grounds should we wish to do so. We have been advised that the agreement does not in any way change New Zealand’s current approach to tobacco regulations and nothing in it would contravene New Zealand’s obligations under the framework convention. Those were carefully crafted statements by Mr Finlayson but they equally slid past the point that we wished to be able to ban tobacco in future legislation if the country so decided. So we retain that concern as well. 
It is with a sober realisation of the limitations of the free-trade agreement that we will therefore maintain our opposition. Thank you.