Duynhoven Harry: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20614] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Labour—New Plymouth) 
: 
 We have listened to a number of interesting speeches this afternoon. I was particularly interested in the speech of Dr Lockwood Smith who spoke strongly and stridently on the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. At the end after raising all sorts of objections and issues he said that National would support the bill—or at least that is what I think he said. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I said that at the start. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: But if one had missed the start and the end one might have been a little bit confused—as the member sometimes is. I just wanted to be sure that this was not one of those changes of position that sometimes occurs. 
We have heard some very interesting speeches particularly the speech of Ken Shirley. I remind Mr Shirley that in both World War I and World War II Germany which had an elected Government both times—although I freely admit to the member that it had taken a few what one might call draconian measures in the period leading up to World War II—had a considerable amount of trade with Western counties that were fighting it right up until well into the war on both occasions. 
But I take the point absolutely that where there is trade there is much less likely to be conflict. That has always been the case. When countries build up a trading relationship when they have a relationship based on understanding and when they have intermeshed economic aims then obviously the chances of conflict are much reduced. 
This bill is of some interest to me personally. I took on the points of Rod Donald very strongly because like the member my political beginnings were in the Trade Aid shop movement many years ago. About 30 years ago at the time of Fortress New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] Actually it was just before. Mr Shirley is quite right. The issue of Fortress New Zealand was an interesting one because at that time our country had the belief—right up until about 1984—that our best way forward as a country was to ensure absolutely that we produced everything we possibly could and kept everyone else out. CER was the beginning of that change. I freely admit— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No. CER was the beginning in 1982. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: That was 1982. That is exactly right. As I said to the House just a second ago—if the member had taken care to listen—that view of Fortress New Zealand lasted right up until 1984. But in the period leading up to that in the last couple of years there was an element of the then Government that wanted to change that. There were others who staunchly adhered to it. 
Like every other country that embarks on a trading arrangement with neighbouring countries Thailand stands to gain. We stand to gain too. The way both countries may gain may be different. For example Thailand may license technologies from us just as New Zealand has done in past times—and indeed as we still do. That is very common across borders when countries have trading arrangements. We have the opportunity to enhance New Zealand’s exports to Thailand by way of the reduction in tariffs as Dr Smith said. The select committee addressed that issue quite strongly in its report. The committee did a very thorough job on that. It looked at the issue of New Zealand’s strengths in our trade. 
What are the things we are strong in? We are strong in exporting high-quality agricultural produce. To add value to that produce is always our challenge and those are the things New Zealand has developed an expertise in. Two-way trade between our two countries is worth over $1 billion but the market-access provisions of this agreement will open up significant opportunities for expanding our existing trade and developing new trade. The agreement will provide certainty for business planning and it puts New Zealand on an equal footing with Thailand’s other free-trade agreement partners including Australia with whom we have of course CER. 
One of the problems for us in increasing our trade into Thailand is non-tariff and tariff barriers—particularly the latter. Currently 54 percent of our products have a barrier against them. By removing tariffs—trade barriers—we will get an increase in our trade to Thailand. [ 
Interruption 
] It is 60 percent of exports. I will take the member’s word for that. I was not on the select committee and he obviously has more knowledge of this than I do. 
It is the principle of the thing that is really important. What is the use to New Zealand of having barriers in place against our two-way trade with other countries? The more we can make such agreements that are a benefit to both countries—New Zealand and the trading partner—the better. 
I welcome this trade agreement. I think it will be of positive benefit to both countries. I do acknowledge that some adjustments may be needed along the way and I say to the House that the select committee has done a good job of identifying those as shown in the report presented to the House. I think it is worthwhile for us to seriously consider those issues and how those adjustments will be made and ensure that our nearby neighbour benefits from us as we benefit from it. As Mr Shirley said we should build up those trading relationships that enhance international cooperation and well-being right around the world.