English Bill: Urgent Debates — Collapse of World Trade Talks in Cancun Mexico 
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Collapse of World Trade Talks in Cancun Mexico 
[Volume:611;Page:8677] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That speech exemplified the problem. The ACT leader asked the question “What is the Government’s trade policy?” and the question was not answered. For all the bipartisan support for trade the end result of all the learned multilateralism all the head-spinning refined foreign policy is a big fat zero. Nothing has actually happened. 
Bipartisan support is always there because trade is so important to New Zealand. I stand today not just as the leader of the National Party but representing one of New Zealand’s most trade-oriented electorates—the fishermen the farmers the foresters and the support industries that all go with that export trade. We know how important it is for New Zealand. If we are ever going to close the economic gap with Australia which is my ambition strong growth is needed in exports year on year of something like 9 or 10 percent. So it is incumbent on every New Zealand Government to work as hard as it can for trade. 
But I cannot help feeling that we have been somewhat misled domestically about the Government’s progress on trade. One free-trade agreement has been signed since the 2002 election. That was the Singapore free-trade agreement which was negotiated by Lockwood Smith and Jenny Shipley and signed by the new Government. 
Rod Donald 
: What a disaster. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Greens say it was a disaster. That is it. Nothing else has happened. Is there anything in the drawer? That is what comes out of the events of today. There is nothing in the drawer either. There is no trade agreement that has made any progress there is no little revelation around the corner from the US and now there is no hope of a quick resolution of the Doha round. 
I just want to talk briefly about those events. I know that the Minister for Trade Negotiations has spent an enormous amount of time trying to bring this Doha round forward. I believe that if Mike Moore were still in the chair much more progress would have been made because he was an active lobbyist. He did know how to work with the developing countries. He could create an argument that a whole range of interests could sign up to. Unfortunately that has not happened. 
I remain relentlessly optimistic. Whatever happened in Cancun the Doha round needs to get back on its feet because it is in our interests that it does so. The Uruguay round did get back on its feet. I do not think resolving this round is going to be anything like as simple because so many developing countries are exerting a much more assertive influence in the World Trade Organization. 
It is exactly that complexity that we should be wary of. The Prime Minister loves it. She is in her element understanding all the nuances and subtleties of what went on and why. But the fact is it is going to take an enormous effort to get the World Trade Organization round up and going again because the politics of it are now so enormously complicated. That is the limit of being totally wedded to multilateralism. If we listen to the Prime Minister we find New Zealand’s economic fortunes are now bound to the World Trade Organization and getting 149 countries to agree when by any measure that is getting a whole lot harder. We are according to the Government’s policy virtually helpless. If we believe that that is the top priority there is almost nothing we can do about it except carry on as Helen Clark does and function as a well-informed and articulate commentator. We can watch it all go past while the prospects for our primary and export industries fade away. 
What is the alternative to multilateralism? Well there is not any. Let us not be fooled. Through the 4 years of this Government we have had an endless number of syrupy statements that are meant to leave the public with the impression that our relationship with Australia is very good that our relationship with the US is terrific and that that means we are going to get a free-trade agreement some time. Well I can say to the member what I did not say when I was out of the country. I spent a week going around Washington. While I was there I was asked what I thought the prospects of a free-trade agreement were. I was very measured in my response because I do not believe we should bag our country when we are out of the country. But I can tell members that there is no show of a free-trade agreement. There will not be a free-trade agreement with the US. It does not matter whether Mr Zoellick is a nice man. They are all nice people. They are all very interested in and friendly with New Zealand. It is just that we are completely irrelevant to their strategic considerations and they are not going to waste 5 minutes on negotiating a free-trade agreement with us. 
Let us move to Australia. The single-biggest foreign policy failure of this Government was to let Australia go to the table to negotiate with the US without New Zealand. We could have had a CER/NAFTA agreement but the relationship between New Zealand and Australia did not allow that to happen. New Zealand for all the attention it has paid to that relationship over the years let it slip from its grasp. For all the Prime Minister’s alleged brilliance in this area in fact it has turned to ashes. We are not a part of that negotiation it is not a path for New Zealand to a free-trade agreement and the US is not interested. Actually nor is anyone else. China? I heard that when surprisingly the Government did find that the Premier of China was coming there was mention of a free-trade agreement. Maybe we should start doing that with China. Well that is about— 
Simon Power 
: The Chinese-Franco-German axis. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes that is right; what about the rest of them? There is nothing on the trade horizon. That is the awful message I have to take back to the exporters and primary producers of New Zealand. The failure of the Doha round at this point has exposed the Government’s failure in every other respect. I do not blame it for the problems at Cancun. Why would we? I am sure Jim Sutton has put in every effort that he could; so have the trade officials. I am sure the Prime Minister has put in every effort that she could. But when we do not have success in the multilateral forum we have nothing else and that is where Labour has gone wrong. It must cover the strong possibility that the Doha round takes a very long time and does not come out with the result that suits our interests. 
I say to the Prime Minister that bipartisan support for the New Zealand Government’s effort on trade is contingent on her sticking with our national interests. That is the top priority not multilateralism. That is not what we are here for. We are not here to support multilateral institutions first and foremost; we are here to secure trade advantages for our exporters and producers. That is what serves our national interests. If the multilateral institution does not serve our national interests the Government has an obligation to pursue the bilateral opportunities that other countries are pursuing such as Australia which has done so quite vigorously. That is not to say there should be less effort on multilateralism; it is simply to acknowledge that it may well fail and the result may not serve our interests. 
I invite the next Government speaker to reassure us in that respect. New Zealand’s trade negotiations are not one long job application for Helen Clark to the United Nations. That is why she says multilateralism is the top priority—because for her it is. But for New Zealand the top priority is our national interests. So I am looking for that reassurance—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Helen Clark not to talk here about the polling on behalf of the Labour Party. I am looking for reassurance from this Government that it is pursuing our national interests and will do so without fear or favour. [ 
Interruption 
] That reassurance has not been given. I never heard it in the Prime Minister’s speech. All I heard was dedication to the multilateral institutions which have merit but are dreadfully complicated for us to negotiate. Given that New Zealand as a small open economy one of the most open in the world achieving trade gains must be a top priority for the Government and it has achieved none. What could have been a worse result after 4 years in Government than what we have? We have nothing—no trade agreements and none of the relationships we need to bring about critical trade agreements.