Hodgson Pete: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13384] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Without wanting to derogate from the importance of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill one iota it is probably worth recording that there is a certain sameness about debates on trade agreements. It is a good thing but there is a certain sameness because after the arguments of the 1970s and more particularly the 1980s this country seems to have embraced free international competitive trade as a hallmark without any hesitation. It has been quite open to it. As a result the two big blobs of the political spectrum Labour and National go around saying how good it is and what potential— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who are you calling a blob? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well it is the two-big-blob theory of politics unlike the model in Scandinavia for example or wherever. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Unfortunate. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member does not want to be called a blob I withdraw and apologise. It was not meant as a nasty comment; it was just a way of describing the political landscape. We go around talking about the importance of trade the rules of origin how we are very pleased about it and the ratchet clause. Then we say that this trade Minister that trade Minister and the one before him—because I think they have always been “hims”—were very good trade Ministers and no doubt trade Ministers yet to be born will be very good trade Ministers too. Then we say that in respect of the Greens we understand and respect their differentiated position but we notice that first of all they are in a minority and secondly they are not exactly against trade. The Greens then get up to say that verily they are not against trade but they are just against trade in this or that circumstance. That is what I mean about the sameness of trade debates. It is something to be celebrated because little enough in politics is agreed across the House and it is better that instead of fighting over everything we fight only over stuff where there is genuine disagreement. This is one area where there is not disagreement. 
However I will make two points which are slightly unrelated. The first is that the Holy Grail of Doha appears to me to be not making so much progress. We are always talking about another trade agreement with a country in South-east Asia North Asia East Asia or wherever it might be or we might go across to South America and fold in the Chileans and so on—and so too with this agreement in Hong Kong which is an advance on an earlier agreement we had with that part of the world. But we notice that the agreement relates to Asia. We notice that it is not to do with Europe or North America. 
I do not want to name-drop but I had dinner on the Saturday before last with a woman called Ann Veneman who was Secretary of Agriculture under President Bush. I do not want to quote her at length because it was a private meeting but she knew trade Ministers from long ago in New Zealand and had met one or two them; she met Jim Sutton for example. That former Secretary of Agriculture was much more interested in trying to get free trade running than was the populace she represented. Deep within those nations is a resistance to trade and it will cost those countries sooner or later. That is my first point. By a mistake of geography we do not sit where Iceland or Cyprus are we sit where Asia roughly begins or ends and therefore we are caught up in the maelstrom of trading activity that is reshaping global economics and where the new hegemonies are rising. 
The second thing I want to say—I will be critical of the Government and its members will no doubt get up to say I have been unfair and unreasonable—is about the support being given to our exporters. Notwithstanding the fact that they are doing famously well at the moment—we have had trade surpluses for the last 6 or 7 months in a row which is excellent news—over the decades our export performance has been less than it might have been. That is why we are facing things such as the Crafar farms debate which we will always face as long as we have a current account deficit. If we cannot pay our way in the world we will start selling parts of our country to the world—there is nothing surer in economics than that. 
With that in mind I wonder whether the Government would consider recommitting to some more effort in this area both through Trade and Enterprise and through other means as well. Notwithstanding the great work done by Tim Groser and no doubt other Ministers from time to time I do not see great effort in many of the great South-east Asian nations. I do not see us moving in a very determined way towards Thailand for example or Viet Nam yet those are parts of the world where the emergence of the middle class is startling. I do not think we are doing enough even in China where under the previous Government plane-loads of business people went before during and after the signing of the free-trade agreement with China. Despite the fact that there are beachheads and offices for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in various cities around China and despite a great improvement I still do not think it is enough. 
Of course many private sector companies do not need New Zealand Trade and Enterprise or some Cabinet Minister to go there to give the Government imprimatur and to open the door. I understand that but for those who can be assisted and who need the assistance that assistance is not always timely or on the mark. I think we should adopt a different approach to exporters. Let us not tell them but rather quietly treat them as heroic people. They often spend 100 days a year off-shore with their heads on someone else’s pillow not their own and that needs to be rewarded. Exporters are different especially small or medium sized exporters that are going through a growth phase moving into new markets or “kicking butt” basically. They really need a good deal of support. I do not think the current Government provides it. The wind-down of some of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise stuff in the last 2 years has not been a good thing and on that matter I am critical of the Government. That said I think this legislation is great. The people who negotiated it are great. I pay my respects to the officials who led it and I hope it has speedy passage.