Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17376] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I guess those closing remarks by Mr Keith Locke say it all! He would say to New Zealand farmers that they are wasting their time and should not produce anything for the international market. He does not think anyone should buy their products. In his view who really cares that New Zealand is the most efficient producer of dairy products in the world and the most efficient producer of meat and who really worries that trading is how we primarily derive our international income? He thinks that farmers should be focused on supplying the New Zealand population. I guess there was a time—a few hundred years ago—when New Zealand had a population of about 200000 and supplying our population was all that was done in this country. It was local agriculture for the supply of those people alone. The truth is that our production then simply did not reach the potential in the slightest sense of this country. 
I remind Mr Locke that this world has 6 billion people. We need food to be grown in the most effective and efficient places in the world in order to sustain that population. If there was not international trade the world simply could not support a population of 6 billion people. I say to Mr Keith Locke that his understanding of economics as shown by those last comments is frankly appalling. 
Keith Locke 
: I’m not against trade. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He says he is not really against trade but his policies would stop the world being fed. He is simply wrong and his policies are false. 
The second argument by Mr Locke that I feel I have to address is the human rights argument. He said that China is having an Olympic Games and therefore it is a bad time to have a free-trade agreement. What an absurdity! I would have thought the complete opposite of that. China is opening up to the world. Yes there were difficulties in Tibet and interestingly enough this time China understood the world’s message on that and was substantially more restrained than perhaps it would have been in earlier years. 
Tim Groser 
: 1989. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes in particular it was more restrained than it was in Tiananmen Square in 1989 as my colleague Mr Groser has mentioned. So China has learnt that being internationally engaged brings with it international responsibility. Am I saying China is perfect? Obviously I am not. China has a great way to go yet but it has hugely improved compared with how it was in 1989 and in years prior. Almost all of that is because China is now open to the world; the world looks at it and judges it. China has the Olympic Games and this is the perfect time to have a free-trade agreement because it cements into being that opening to the world. 
As for the views of the New Zealand First Party I say to Mr Peter Brown that he should get his story right. His leader said that New Zealand First was opposed to the free-trade agreement because it was not fast enough; he said getting completely free trade in 10 years was not fast enough. I guess I would have to say to the officials that if they wanted a New Zealand First vote they should have negotiated a 5-year phase-out of tariffs and they might have got New Zealand First’s vote then. If that is the argument then Mr Brown cannot say this is a bad agreement because it opens New Zealand up to trade. The story has to be one or the other; it cannot be both. I suggest that Mr Brown talk to his leader and get his story right. 
National does support this agreement for profoundly important economic reasons. Mr Groser set those reasons out superbly. New Zealand’s future is as a trading nation. We have an extremely poor performance amongst small OECD countries and I know the Government knows that. The work by David Skilling shows that amongst the 15 small OECD countries the proportion of our economy that is devoted to international trading is actually the lowest. We should be doing better and we have to do better. The way to do that is to find the points of advantage—to find the trade agreements. This agreement is such an agreement. Indeed I say to the Government that this is a very important agreement and I acknowledge that. When the historians look at the record of this Labour Government they will say this agreement should go down as one of its significant achievements. Why would any party in this House vote against it? Why would a party say to New Zealand farmers to New Zealand businesses and to New Zealand workers that it would stamp out their opportunities?