Nash Stuart: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4621] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I was quite interested to hear the member over there Todd McClay talk about what a wonderful industry forestry is. I know it is because I have worked in forestry for Fletcher Challenge Forests and Carter Holt Harvey. But I say to my mate over there that National has made no friends whatsoever in the forestry industry with the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which we were debating last night. In fact a lot of foresters have called me up and asked what the hell is going on. The emissions trading scheme was in place they were all geared up for it and now the Government has taken another year out of it. National has made no friends whatsoever. 
I move on to this bill the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I rise in strong support of it for a number of reasons. First and foremost this bill implements a major agreement achieved by the last Labour Government. 
Todd McClay 
: Ha ha! 
STUART NASH 
: Well let us give credit where credit is due: Helen Clark and especially Phil Goff took years of work to arrive at such an important agreement. It is a fantastic result for New Zealand and I think that we should give credit where credit is due. I congratulate Minister Groser for being in the right position at the right time— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
STUART NASH 
: Well is that his name? I have not seen him but he does exist. If we listened to him we would think that he had negotiated the vast majority of contracts that we have ever had. In fact did he not sign the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He climbed Mount Everest. 
STUART NASH 
: He did everything! 
Sue Moroney 
: No that was Aaron Gilmore. 
STUART NASH 
: Oh was that Aaron Gilmore? At least Mr Groser was there to pick up this free-trade agreement and sign it on behalf of New Zealand. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STUART NASH 
: I was cut down in full flight while talking about the wonderful things that Minister Groser had done but they were not as good as the wonderful things that the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Helen Clark did in getting the deal under way and signed. 
What tends to happen is that Labour and National attack these things in a bipartisan and cooperative way when it comes to international trade but not sadly when it comes to policy. I will deal with that a little bit later but now I will talk about some of the work that Phil Goff has done on this agreement. Organisations like Federated Farmers have applauded the Hon Phil Goff for his work on this free-trade agreement. That organisation has said: “Despite all the doom and gloom in the other sectors it strategically sets New Zealand up for the long haul and farmers appreciate that”. Farmers appreciate what Phil Goff did for them. The Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce chief executive has commented: “I would like to congratulate Phil Goff and his officials for their hard work and successful outcome.” Alisdair Thompson from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) said: “Overseas Trade Minister Phil Goff is to be congratulated for his work in expediting the ASEAN/CER FTA for New Zealand”. 
All of us in this House at the moment would agree that Phil Goff was an extremely hard-working Minister of Trade and the previous quotes this bill and the free-trade agreement with China are testament to the fact that New Zealanders especially those engaged in any form of international trade are eternally grateful to the Hon Phil Goff and to the officials who did the groundwork on these very important and seminal free-trade agreements. 
The passing of this bill will be the conversion to law of a Labour vision for greater international engagement for New Zealand companies. It will be a great victory for New Zealand businesses with export aspirations. But I must admit that those businesses have been severely let down by the current Budget. I support this bill because it opens up enormous potential opportunities for New Zealand businesses that either are currently engaged in exporting or want to become engaged in the export arena. As mentioned by I think every single speaker in this debate the ASEAN market has over half a billion people and accounts for approximately $1.4 billion in global trade. That is a lot of people and a lot of those people are for the first time entering the age of consumerism. It is absolutely fantastic. 
We all agree that increasing the number of free-trade agreements is very much in the best interests of all New Zealanders going forward for a whole number of reasons. Sustainable economic growth will be achieved only with a much greater degree of international engagement. Of that I have absolutely no doubt. Export growth is the only way forward for New Zealand. We are a market of 4 million people and therefore the ability to grow a significant company in this market is slight if not close to impossible. I cannot think of one large company that has made significant profits without some form of international growth. 
Let me pose a question: how will we get maximum benefit out of this agreement? Let me tell members. Ninety-seven percent of New Zealand businesses are small to medium sized enterprises which means they employ fewer than 20 people. The vast majority of those companies simply cannot afford international marketing or an international market development manager. They cannot afford to relocate sales reps offshore into a market they have no understanding of or control over. Let us remember that we are talking about doing business in countries that have different languages different legal systems different business cultures different mind-sets and different attitudes to business as a whole. This is especially so in the ASEAN countries—I am talking about Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar the Philippines Singapore Thailand and Viet Nam. The languages are different their legal systems are different their business cultures are different the channels to market are different—members will get the picture. Doing business in Saigon is not the same as doing business in Tauranga. Gone are the days when New Zealand business people could turn up with All Black jerseys and hope to clinch a deal. 
One of the major problems with our economy at the moment is the lack of people with international business experience. So what do companies do in a time of recession? 
Todd McClay 
: They change the Government. 
STUART NASH 
: No they do not. That is the wrong answer. I am talking about companies. The best ones increase their marketing budget. That is Marketing 101 but those members would not know that. 
Simon Bridges 
: This member earns too much—look at his ties. 
STUART NASH 
: Actually I remember that member saying that he won Tauranga because he had two ears and one mouth so he listened and did not speak. I suggest that he practise that as he might learn something. 
New Zealand’s eyes and ears—our international marketing managers and market development gurus—work for a Government department called New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. That organisation was set up by Mike Moore. I think that members on both sides of the House would agree that Mike Moore knew a little bit about trade. After all he became the head of the WTO—I tell the characters opposite that that is the World Trade Organization. Gerry Brownlee is now in charge of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and what happened to it in the last Budget? It lost $10 million of funding. What? Mr English stripped $10 million from the budget of the country’s international marketing arm. New Zealand will never reach its full international potential—it will never reach full sustainable growth—unless it understands its international competitive advantage and can market it offshore. 
Where was Mr Groser when the gods were handing out the dollars for 2009? Was his ego such that he could not get down on bended knee for an organisation that has a mandate to implement his vision? Why did Mr Groser not tell Mr English that he needed more staff with experience on the ground? He needed people who in this time of recession could help businesses to internationalise through providing opportunities so that when things take off we would fly. Where was Mr Groser? I have no idea. 
New Zealand’s SMEs—for members opposite who have no business experience I say that that means small to medium sized enterprises—are the backbone of New Zealand companies. Opposite I see a doctor and a lawyer but no business people. What is going on? Labour is the party of business—we all know that. In fact the only gentleman with business experience is Mr Tremain and he is keeping quiet because he knows I am right. If we are to develop our vision for international competitiveness—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Coleman is a medical doctor who could not manage his way out of a paper bag let alone Mt Albert—then these people will need the money and expertise to take it offshore. Yet Mr Brownlee cut $10 million from our international marketing development managers. In these times of uncertainty it is even more important to open up global trade routes. We absolutely need people on the ground who know how to open up channels for market so that our small to medium sized enterprises can get over there and make it happen. You cut $10 million from that budget. That is shameful; it makes me cry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not include the Speaker in his speech. 
STUART NASH 
: But Mr Assistant Speaker Roy even you understand that this is shameful. I apologise. 
The Budget said to me that Mr English simply does not understand the dynamics of this country’s economy nor does he understand what needs to happen to achieve sustainable economic growth. Cutting $10 million from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise when we are debating a significant free-trade agreement is akin to stealing the future— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired.