Foss Craig: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2646] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Speaking on the first reading of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill I say that it is almost surprising that such a small bill of only nine or so pages with seven or so of detail can actually be so beneficial so empowering and so helpful in building a platform for future New Zealand growth and in joining up parts of the fastest-growing region in the world at the moment. It is very helpful and satisfying that most of the House is in favour of this bill. In fact the previous speaker said I think that it was a very very good bill or something along those lines. 
I acknowledge the assistance that the House is giving this bill as it goes through the process. I also acknowledge that with its effective date of 1 July the House and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee have to move very fast in their examination of this bill and the hearing of submissions. If the bill goes through its first reading—and I presume it will—I wish that select committee very well. I am sure the committee is aware how important the bill is to New Zealand and that the bill will have the endorsement of most of the House when we vote following the speeches of one of two more speakers to refer this bill to the select committee. 
I also join most of the other speakers in congratulating first of all Mr Tim Groser on getting this bill to this House and acknowledging the hard work he does as Minister of Trade as have all previous Ministers of Trade. It was very satisfying to hear an earlier speaker the Hon Mr Hodgson talk about peace breaking out. Actually peace always breaks out—mostly—across the House around bills such as this one which are for the benefit of “New Zealand Incorporated”. Most of us to a greater or lesser degree are in favour of free open trade. We have heard earlier speakers speaking about fair trade to the tune of the idea that this week is “Go Bananas” week or something. Someone may allege that some members have gone bananas already but that is probably for a debate on Wednesday afternoon. 
I also acknowledge the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith the Rt Hon Sir Bill Birch the Hon Jim Sutton and of course the now Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff. It is a credit to all those gentlemen and all those who have worked with them that they have constantly put New Zealand up on the page to punch above its weight on free trade around the world. Mr Nash has probably sent the speech he gave earlier up to Mr Goff already as he makes his bid for the Auckland Central nomination as I understand he is doing. His speech was very praising of Mr Goff but to be fair Mr Goff did a pretty good job over the last few years when he was the Minister of Trade. I also acknowledge today that Minister Groser announced today a strengthening of agreements ties and discussions with Italy as part of his ongoing work in free trade. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the need to strengthen trade around the world with his comments about the importance of the Doha round and his knowledge of these matters is of course very impressive. 
There was one thing that Mr Goff mentioned that although I had not heard it before I agree with at least intuitively. He said a 10 percent increase in trade between nations can result in a 4 percent increase in incomes. I was not sure whether he meant gross or net incomes but that point does not matter too much. I would be interested to know where those numbers came from. I do not dispute them in any way. Is there any empirical evidence or hard and fast numbers to help encourage this House and hopefully the rest of the globe—especially some of those countries that are dragging the chain—into opening up their borders somewhat? 
I will give members a couple of quick quotes relating to the economic growth of less developed countries compared with those with lower and higher trade restrictions. Admittedly some of these numbers are a bit out of date. They cover 1980 to 1999. In that period Singapore for example which has very low trade restrictions had an annual growth per capita between 1980 and 1990 of 4.2 percent. That is interesting because Singapore of course is part of the ASEAN group. Of other nations Hong Kong had 5.7 percent annualised growth per capita. Malaysia which is also part of this agreement had 2.6 percent annualised growth per capita. Other countries include Ireland with 2.9 percent Taiwan with 6.5 percent and Thailand which is also part of the ASEAN agreement that is before us with annualised growth of 5.8 percent. Would it not be nice to have that growth in this country? South Korea had 8.6 percent and Indonesia which again is part of this agreement had 3.7 percent. It is worth contrasting those figures—because it backs up the Hon Phil Goff’s earlier point—with those of countries that had high trade restrictions over exactly the same period. For example Iran had negative 1.2 percent growth over that same period. Brazil had 0.5 percent growth India had 3.2 percent—although India has come a long way in the last 20 years of course—and other countries such as Rwanda had negative 2.3 percent growth. The point is that the numbers speak for themselves on the GDP growth and the well-being of those countries. There is the evidence. 
That is one of the reasons why New Zealand is so keen to pursue a free-trade agenda—to help our country enjoy the fruits of living on this globe in 2009. It is a globalised globe if you like but globalisation is before us. We can confront it or we can take it on board. I acknowledge that the previous Government did take it on board and I acknowledge the importance of the free-trade agreement with China as well as the ongoing work that Mr Groser is doing. New Zealand is an exporting nation and our interests continue to be in relentlessly and constantly opening up trade reducing tariffs and also very importantly building trust with those nations in our regional vicinity. As we all know among the 10 countries represented in this bill plus Australia and New Zealand there have been some historical disputes. But there is nothing like ongoing and growing trade between nations for not totally avoiding conflict but really helping to build trust relationships and understanding between them. Some of those nations have some quite fundamental differences be they religious or in the way their Governments operate. I did not hear that point being picked up by one or two earlier speakers. 
We have to be constantly vigilant. There are suggestions of protectionism coming back and barriers going up. Unfortunately currently New Zealand and the world are in a recession. For many that is an excuse to put domestic trade barriers up. Climate change is an interesting part of this issue because many who are very involved in the climate change debate are suggesting that trade barriers are put upon countries that are not part of some international agreement on climate change. Interestingly—and that will be a tension—Mr Groser will have some challenges on that issue. When we look at the nations that are involved in ASEAN I do not think we see that any of them have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that could be an interesting tension as we go through this process. 
I would just like to read members a quote because it shows what protective tariffs are: “Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. … Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading.” Surprisingly enough that is from a Mr Henry George in 1886. How relevant that still is now. 
As I noted earlier there are many challenges in front of us—knee-jerk reactions to short-term supposed solutions to the recession we are in or to climate change or even to short-term pork-barrel domestic politics. It is a credit to this Parliament and to the parties involved that we are almost united in pursuing this agenda as I noted at the start of my speech. Thank you very much.