Shirley Ken: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20609] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is an enthusiastic supporter of freeing world trade. We certainly favour multilateral agreements and endorse the work done by this Government in the Doha round and indeed endorse the work done by the previous National Government and successive Governments in pursuing multilateral trading agreements. That is clearly in the interests of New Zealand as a major exporting nation. We have here of course a bilateral agreement between New Zealand and Thailand. Although bilateral agreements are not as preferable as multilateral agreements in the absence of progress with the Doha round we certainly support any initiative whether it is with Singapore with Thailand or with any other existing or potential trading partner to make moves to free up trade. 
We believe that trade benefits both parties. Indeed the evidence of that is overwhelming. Right through history when trade has been facilitated the prosperity of both parties has been enhanced. Not very many openly democratic nations that have traded with each other have ever gone to war. I challenge members to actually name two openly democratic nations that have ever gone to war with each other. No such example exists in the history of mankind. So not only is trade good for prosperity— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The Second World War; Germany and the US. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Germany was not an openly democratic nation. The member for New Plymouth may have thought Nazi Germany was an openly democratic society but I am happy to tell him that Nazi Germany was not an open democratic nation—it was a fascist State so it does not meet the test. I am very disappointed that a Labour member of Parliament would suggest that the national socialist party of Nazi Germany was operating in an openly democratic society just as the Baath socialist party of Iraq was not in an openly democratic society. Indeed nor is the Mugabe socialist party of Rhodesia—Zimbabwe. My fear is that the “Socialist Party of Helen Clark and Harry Duynhoven” will not be regarded as being in an openly democratic society if we keep on the path we are going down. Anyway that is an aside. 
The ACT party certainly supports free-trade agreements; there is no question about that. In fact there is one party whose position we cannot understand in this House. It is a glaring example of—I cannot say “hypocrisy” so I will not. Parties that badger Governments to increase overseas development assistance on the one hand and then oppose freeing up trade with them are being grossly inconsistent. I believe the greatest obscenity in the world of trade is the way the developed wealthy nations particularly the USA and wealthy European nations are happy to insist on free trade when they hold the comparative advantage but deny free trade to the developing world when the developing world has the comparative advantage. That is the greatest obscenity and distortion with regard to the lifting of living standards amongst the poor nations of the world. 
I guess that in many ways Thailand is regarded as a developing nation. It is making rapid progress and that is good. Certainly its pay rates are a lot less than those in New Zealand and its industrial standards are a lot lower than New Zealand’s but the way to lift them is to actually trade with Thailand. The path to improvement in the social area and the economic wealth - generation area is through trade. Therefore to just say that we should shovel out more overseas development assistance but deny trade is appalling. Yes when we trade with Fiji or Thailand we may well find that some New Zealand industries particularly the clothing and footwear industries will be disadvantaged—unquestionably. That is because overwhelmingly those other developing nations have a clear comparative advantage in things like footwear and clothing. But New Zealand has huge comparative advantages in other areas. It makes sense for a country to trade based on its comparative advantage. That is how both nations will be better off—how both will have greater prosperity—and global prosperity will unquestionably increase with that. So I just raise the incredible inconsistency that we see certainly in the Green Party but also in other hard-left parties and in some groups in society that rail against world trade and demonstrate at the World Trade Organization. I remember a couple of Green MPs—I think one is in the House now—demonstrated. Was it Mr Donald perhaps? 
Rod Donald 
: No it was Mr Tanczos and Ms Bradford. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Tanczos and Ms Sue Bradford went to the World Trade Organization meeting demonstrated and opposed world trade when world trade is the vehicle for increasing prosperity. 
The ACT party is a champion of free trade. We support the Government’s initiative in this area. We think it is doing too little and too late. We deeply regret the Government’s inability to establish a free-trade agreement with the United States. That is a matter for another debate and we all know the reason for the inability to establish that agreement: it is another foolish policy of this Labour Government which is shackling the New Zealand economy. We support this particular bill and we will be voting for it.