Smith Lockwood: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2110] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 We would normally focus on each of the clauses of the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage consideration of the bill and I think we should therefore give some scrutiny to the bill even though we are taking it as one question. 
Of course the title of this bill gives some understanding of the significance of the bill. The bill does not simply talk about a four-way free-trade agreement it talks about a trans-Pacific strategic economic partnership. I think members of the Committee should be aware that this bill is actually of strategic significance. If we look at the detail of our trade with the particular parties that are involved in this trade agreement namely Singapore Brunei and Chile we see that we already have a free-trade agreement with Singapore so there are no tariffs to be dealt with in respect of Singapore. In the year ended June 2004 we exported $36.6 million of goods to Chile and paid $2.2 million of import duties. In the same year we exported $3.5 million of goods to Brunei and the duties were estimated at $52000. 
So it is quite clear that this bill is not about saving New Zealand massive amounts of duty on huge quantities of products that we export to Chile and Brunei. As I say we already have a free-trade agreement with Singapore. This bill is about strategic issues which is captured in the title and in fact also in the purpose clause. It asks how New Zealand really has impact in the Asia-Pacific region on liberalising trade because liberalising trade is of crucial importance to New Zealand. 
What I think successive Governments—because this concept commenced under the last National Government—have decided is that we have to move in a strategic way that helps bring some real momentum especially to APEC. Members will note that all four members so far of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement are members of APEC. The whole idea is to establish a framework such as this that other APEC members in our region can join. If they want to get involved in this trade liberalisation effort this legislation provides for the Governor-General to add by Order in Council other countries to this strategic agreement. That is what is so important about it—it is strategic. We started simply with that little trade agreement with Singapore which built into this strategic development. I hope as we look ahead that other nations will see fit to join this agreement so that APEC members can move towards achievement of the goal of free and open trade for at least the developed countries by 2010. 
The final point I want to make on this legislation is that it is unfortunate that New Zealand’s undertaking in this agreement extends our own elimination of tariffs beyond our APEC commitment of free and open trade by 2010. There was absolutely no need for that. This Government could have agreed to New Zealand’s phase-out of our tariffs. We set leadership in APEC to the effect that we would stick to our commitment to the Bogor goals of free and open trade. We could have had our framework here and got rid of tariffs for countries that join this strategic trade agreement by 2010. There is no reason why we could not have done that. It is a tragedy that the Labour Government has given a signal to the rest of APEC that it does not really care about the Bogor goals in APEC of free and open trade by saying in this agreement that it is prepared to allow tariffs to drag on here in New Zealand beyond 2010. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson what sort of signal she thinks it sends when the tariff phase-out schedule has New Zealand going beyond our Bogor commitment when we could easily—because it does not affect any other members of this strategic agreement only New Zealand—have said that we are prepared to stick to a phase-out by 2010. That would be totally consistent with the Bogor goals of APEC New Zealand would be showing leadership and the strategic value of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement which is what it is all about would be so much greater. I would appreciate the Minister’s response to that.