Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12152] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to have another opportunity to speak to this bill in its third reading. In my second reading speech I touched on not only the elements of what makes a successful free-trade agreement but also the context under which they are then for want of a better word operationalised. For me obviously the first starting point for a successful free-trade agreement is that it is well negotiated and that we work through some of the many and varied complications that these free-trade agreements present. We see in the detail of this one in particular some interesting issues arising out of margarine at some point. Also there were exceptions in the free-trade agreement around the trade of alcohol and there were cultural and religious issues. So these are very complex free-trade agreements that are being negotiated and their success revolves around the prowess of our negotiating teams. 
Secondly I also had an opportunity to touch briefly on the environment under which our exporters operate generally in New Zealand and the economic framework and monetary policy we have in New Zealand. It has a significant impact on them as exporters particularly the volatility of our exchange rate. I issue a challenge to the Government to consider that issue if we are truly going to have the export-led recovery it claims. That is the second point I wanted to raise in relation to free-trade agreements generally. 
Thirdly once a free-trade agreement has been agreed as Stuart Nash and others have pointed out in this debate it is not a matter of allowing that free-trade agreement to then sit on the table and just exist. There is a lot of investment that can go into making a free-trade agreement a success for our New Zealand exporters by supporting them and boosting our investment in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to support them appropriately. We can also do that by making sure that we maintain our brand and trade on our brand appropriately off the back of these free-trade agreements. There are other elements that we may not be debating directly as a consequence but that are still incredibly relevant to our success as an exporting nation. 
Before I go on to talk about some of the economic benefits of this free-trade agreement I briefly want to touch on my disappointment at the way Government members in particular have responded to the challenges put up by the Green Party today. I think they were patronising at best and offensive at worst and we should always— 
Grant Robertson 
: It must’ve been Paul Quinn. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Strangely it was not Paul Quinn on this occasion. John Hayes really outdid himself in his contribution this time. The Greens raised some valid issues that are raised around trade almost every time we have this debate. When we are discussing free-trade agreements there are very valid issues around human rights. The first point I would like to make on that front is that I support a negotiated and agreed rule-based global system of trade. Having said that it is also very valid that we think about the implications for a broadening of free trade given our role as a nation that has very strong labour law and that is developed around the impact we can have on some of our trading partners who may not have entrenched in their systems some of the rules that operate in our own. 
I am talking about a level of corporate responsibility being exercised in the way we operate in some of those nations. If the large amount of time we spend talking about how to better negotiate the free movement of butter were spent talking about how we globalise some of the most essential core elements of human rights then we would be a long way down the track to making some vast improvements to labour laws for a starting point globally. So that is just a small point on that issue. 
I come back to the economic benefits of this particular free-trade agreement. I think it has already been mentioned that Malaysia is New Zealand’s eighth-largest export market and that it totalled about $1 billion in trade in 2008. It might be a useful comparison to point out that that is the same amount of debt the Government is adding to New Zealand in order to deliver its tax cuts in the last Budget. I think it probably points to the magnitude of both that export market and that level of debt. In fact we have actually wiped out the benefits of this free-trade agreement in one fell swoop. Between 2004 and 2008 exports to Malaysia grew significantly by 80 percent. It has been estimated that this agreement eliminates tariffs to 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s current exports by 2016. My understanding is that there are exemptions in that for alcohol which I touched on briefly. The percentage of estimated duties that New Zealand exporters would have to pay will be reduced by 86 percent by 2016 which is incredibly significant. It is useful to point out that when we compare that with New Zealand there is duty-free access to 72 percent of imports from Malaysia. I think it is worth making the point that a lot of these free-trade agreements in particular the one with China are free-trade agreements that are primarily beneficial to New Zealand in that regard. 
There was a lot of discussion over whether the China free-trade agreement should have been used as an opportunity for New Zealand instead to prove a point on our political position on democracy labour laws and human rights and whether we should proceed with a free-trade agreement. It is an interesting debate to have but at the end of the day the point was well made that when we have in the same way we have with Malaysia a situation where that country already has very open access to New Zealand markets we are in a sense cutting off our nose to spite our face. Having said that it does not mean that we do not still have a duty to ensure that those issues where they exist are put on the table when the opportunity arises in those diplomatic negotiations or leader to leader or however we choose. That is a trade-off that was made in that particular scenario. 
Finally there has been great discussion over the benefit of this agreement for Zespri in particular. It is an excellent example of where this agreement has been beneficial. I know that one of my colleagues is not as enthusiastic about kiwifruit as I am. I undertake to find out what benefits it will have for nectarines as I understand that that is Clayton Cosgrove’s fruit of preference. 
Grant Robertson 
: His passion. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: There is some passion for the nectarine. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And feijoas. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: He is also partial to the feijoa so I undertake to find out whether that will have a significant impact. 
New Zealand steel lines which currently face a 50 percent tariff will be tariff free. I would have thought that that would be the perfect excuse for the Government to perhaps reduce the enormous subsidies it is putting in place for such producers by the emissions trading scheme. I understand that my generation will be covering off those subsidies for the next 50 years. Given we are removing tariffs for that particular industry and it will make a cost saving perhaps we could balance what is currently an emissions trading scheme that has no incentives to reduce pollution built into it. That might be something that one of my other colleagues might like to pick up on in his or her contribution. Otherwise I reiterate that Labour supports this bill.