Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10930] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I thank you for the privilege of participating in this debate. I think it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of what Dover Samuels said a few speeches back. It is good as we stand or sit in this debating chamber to reflect on those marks around the wall that honour the Maori and non-Maori who served in war and might well have given their lives. But I do not want to talk about that. I want to talk instead about matters affecting our relations with Australia and about the significance of that relationship. 
I felt sorry for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade when he saw it as necessary to issue a media release on 9 February congratulating the Australian Government on concluding a free-trade deal with the United States. New Zealand had again been left out in the cold and our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade signalled in that media release a threat of investment and trade diversion from New Zealand. That was no surprise because our relationship with the United States is a damaged limp-along relationship and our relationship with Australia is close to being at an historic low. Why is that? New Zealand has had a traditional reputation of boxing above its weight and we do that in a range of activities including the arts sport culture and business. But we are perceived as not pulling our weight in our traditional arrangements. We are not pulling our weight in our relationship with the United States and in our relationship with Australia. 
New Zealand of course has wanted to conclude a free-trade agreement with the United States for some time and the United States has robustly I would say rejected those overtures. Charles Swindells the United States Ambassador to New Zealand in a speech that was disrupted by student protests on 8 October last year—his speech was actually published after that event—made it clear that the United States Government was simply not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations at present. He then spoke about issues touching our antinuclear legislation concluding that aspects of the relationship with the United States are simply not cost free. Bilateral and regional trade agreements are of course very much the rage at the moment. A count by the OECD’s trade directorate identified 142 bilateral and regional agreements a third of them concluded just in the past 3 years together with another seven awaiting ratification. The OECD said that another 50 were planned of which more than 30 involve countries in Asia including Japan China India and South Korea—all countries that had previously eschewed regionalism. 
The predicted benefits of the United States - Australia bilateral agreement are undoubted. There are undoubted benefits for Australia. United States officials say duties will be eliminated on more than 99 percent of American manufactured exports to Australia and the agreement could boost trade in that area by US$2 billion. Whilst it is true that the gains for Australia on the agricultural front have been limited the significance of the free-trade agreement is far wider than that. The United States is the world’s pre-eminent country and is a leader in productivity technology and innovation. The historic importance of the agreement is that it will strengthen Australia’s business and investment ties and its political and security relationships with the United States. It will help to make Australia a more competitive and dynamic economy. The agreement extends well beyond agriculture and it covers the important sectors of manufacturing and services. Australia will also gain from the stimulation of greater competition in its domestic markets and the impetus to ongoing economic reform. 
I believe that it is time to reassess our relationship with Australia. It is a critically important relationship. Here are some of the points that underscore that relationship. Australia is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and New Zealand is Australia’s fifth-largest trading partner behind Japan the USA Korea and China. New Zealand is Australia’s third-largest market for manufacturers. New Zealand has $16.2 billion invested in Australia and in turn Australia has over $41.5 billion invested in New Zealand. There are approximately 356000 New Zealanders living in Australia and there are 53000 Australians living in New Zealand. Despite the rhetoric that accompanied the recent meeting between Peter Costello and Dr Cullen and despite the decision to advance three specific initiatives relating to business integration the relationship between Australia and New Zealand has soured. I believe that the relationship can be immeasurably improved if we are prepared to contribute in a more meaningful way on just one parameter. That parameter I would identify is the defence of the region. 
The Pacific Ocean is the medium by which the area’s vital trade is conducted. The exploitation of the commercial value of the sea whether as a means of transportation or as a source of marine resources depends on cooperation. Gross Pacific trade of something like 10 billion tonnes of shipping a year represents 37 percent of the world total so it is a very sizable number. In the New Zealand context international trade is inevitably the key engine that powers the New Zealand economy. The maritime nature of our region the products we export and import and our remoteness mean that that trade is almost entirely seaborne—our seaborne trade is 99 percent by volume and about 90 percent by value. More fundamentally there is a particularly maritime geographic dimension to security and defence in the Asia-Pacific region. It is true—and Mr Goff was at pains to make this point the other night—that National reduced defence spending in the early 1990s as New Zealand faced a fiscal crisis. It took a peace dividend after the Berlin Wall came down along with most other countries including the US and Australia. But by 1996 National had decided to raise defence spending again and announced a $2 billion capital re-equipment programme in the 1997 defence white paper. That was a major increase in spending on defence and in the period of its last term of office the National Government paid for the two frigates the Aermacchi force the re-winging of the Orions and the maritime helicopter replacement programme. 
If I were to single out one defence issue that would make a significant difference to the Australian relationship it would be captured in the word “interoperability”. During the dinner break I had the opportunity of talking to one of the senior Cabinet Ministers in the present Government and he said that for him if he were to single out one defence issue it would be to dismiss the Minister of Defence. That did not seem to me to be a particularly loyal comment to make but it was clearly heartfelt. I think the Minister of Defence should be permitted to continue in the clay pigeon role that he currently occupies. But I would just like in the few moments that remain to talk about the concept of interoperability with regard to a specific example because the present New Zealand Government runs away from that concept. 
A case in point is the history of the Orions. Those aircraft have a proud record of maritime surveillance and they work and have worked in close conjunction with the Australian Defence Force. The New Zealand Government has refused to fund the Orion upgrade known as Project Sirius. The total cost of the project is about $600 million or it was then. The upgrading known as Project Sirius is all about radar profiling which includes the ability to spot life rafts at sea and to find fishing vessels. What would be the consequence of making that change? The first consequence is that there would be interoperability with the Australian Defence Force in that area and that is not there at the moment. The second consequence is that we would be seen to be pulling our weight and the third consequence is that I believe that our relationship with Australia would be rekindled. 
I conclude by urging an unthinking Government to think about those things and not only to say that the Australian relationship is important but also to act as though it is.