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:2118] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I would like to take up this debate exactly where Keith Locke has left off and remind him of a couple of facts. In the mid-1980s a Labour Government wiped the support around the agriculture industry in New Zealand. It was tough but New Zealand agriculture is many times stronger today because of that. In the mid-1980s the tariff protecting the wine industry in New Zealand was eliminated. The 40 percent tariff was just wiped and New Zealand wine producers had to compete internationally and we can look at where New Zealand wine producers are today. They now command in London the highest average price of any country that produces wines in the world. That is because when a country is no longer competing on the cheapness of the labour supply and when that country goes to the top of the market there is far more profit and future development. I say to Keith Locke that he should open his eyes about what trade liberalisation does for countries. I hear Japan arguing the sort of arguments he is making in relation to why it protects rice. Of course the economic consequences of that are equally as bad for Japan. 
I come to the issue that I put to the Minister earlier on in this debate. This is a strategic agreement and because of that it is important for APEC that it is a model agreement and shows leadership. My question not answered by the Minister asks why when it is such an important strategic agreement New Zealand has chosen—and this is totally New Zealand’s choice—to have our phase-out for the removal of our tariffs for products coming into New Zealand from Chile and Brunei extended beyond 2010. 
New Zealand had made what I believed was a good-faith commitment to the other members of APEC that we as a developed member of APEC—unless under Michael Cullen’s stewardship as treasurer New Zealand has slipped from being a developed member of APEC—would have free and open trade by 2010. I know that the Labour Government is negotiating the Thai free-trade agreement—or closer economic partnership as I think it is called. In that agreement New Zealand’s schedule for eliminating tariffs has been kept beyond 2010 but why has that been done in this important strategic agreement? There is absolutely no need to do that. Why did New Zealand not show leadership on making sure that the schedule for the elimination of our tariffs complied with our commitments? I thought this was a serious commitment—it was when I was the Minister for International Trade. If New Zealand has abandoned that commitment there is no hope of APEC ever achieving free and open trade because we are one of the leaders on trade liberalisation. 
 I would appreciate the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Minister in the chair—if she understands what I am talking about—telling the Committee whether that is so because we deserve to know. If New Zealand is breaching a major commitment like our commitment to the goals of the Bogor declaration of APEC we should know why the Government has chosen to do that. I would appreciate Government members getting on their hind feet and telling us because it must have been a conscious decision by the Government. Why did it not make sure that the phase-out schedule was completed by 2010? Why did it allow the schedule to go beyond that and breach our commitment in an agreement like this that is strategic that shows leadership and that is meant to bring some real life to the trade liberalisation process and APEC—why has New Zealand chickened out? We should know why and we deserve to know why. 
The Minister in the chair is doing her best to ignore everything I am saying and she is taking absolutely no notice of the debate. I suspect that is because the Minister in the chair knows absolutely nothing about this legislation and nothing about— 
Darren Hughes 
: It is just personal. She does not like you much. We’ll listen to the next speaker—you’re an old man. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I am relaxed about that. The junior whip reckons it is personal and she does not like me. If she does not like me that is no problem but she owes this Parliament and New Zealand an explanation as to why New Zealand is abandoning its commitments to those Bogor goals. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We haven’t. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Well can she explain to me why tariffs under this legislation will continue beyond 2010? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We haven’t decided that yet. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I thought the information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself pointed out that for certain phase-outs tariffs will continue beyond 2010.