Dunne Peter: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21392] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Firstly as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I acknowledge the constructive way in which the committee’s members—although it may not have been all that obvious from the debate this afternoon—participated in the discussions in the committee both on the national interest analysis of the agreement and on this bill. I also acknowledge the support and advice we received from the officials who advised the committee throughout that process. That advice was most appreciated. It led I think to a constructive understanding of the issues and to a report on both the national interest analysis and the bill which is balanced and reasonable in the circumstances. 
The starting point I want to take with regard to this legislation is the picking up of some of the points ironically from the previous speaker. In today’s international environment multilateralism is clearly an opportunity and an option we wish to pursue. But the glacial pace of international trade reform and some of the political difficulties associated with that have led increasingly to nations seeking bilateral agreements particularly within their regional sphere of influence. I think that that is part of a national self-interest and it is no coincidence that in recent years under Governments led by both Labour and National New Zealand has sought to develop closer economic partnership arrangements with Singapore China the ASEAN states and the countries in the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership agreement the Thailand agreement and so on. That is part of our way of ensuring not only the spread of international free trade and the opportunity that goes with that but also the greatest possible opportunity for the people of New Zealand for our manufacturers and our exporters to have the chance to sell their wares in other markets. 
One of the lessons we have learnt over many many years as fortress mentalities and nation States have broken down and as national boundaries have evaporated is that to get the advantage of a deal for us we have to be prepared to make a deal with someone else. That is really at the heart of these types of free-trade agreements. There will be situations where we might quibble about whether the advantage to us is as pure and neat as we might wish but in reality it will always be a compromise—put crudely what we can get away with and how little we have to give up in order to get away with it. That is the tension inherent in all these negotiations. 
New Zealand has to remember a few things as well. We are a very small country isolated and at the end of the world’s trade routes. We will be more price-takers than price-makers. Although we have some natural advantages we have some huge disadvantages that we can do very little about. Consequently in all these negotiations from the time that Ministers of overseas trade—from Jack Marshall onwards—made their annual trudge to Europe over dairy and sheep meat access in the lead-up to the British entry to the European Economic Community right through to the present the New Zealand position has always been to ask how we can advance that New Zealand sense of self-interest; how we make sure that in the global scene the New Zealand case has some recognition. I think that tribute must be paid without exception to our trade Ministers over the years for their patience for their endurance and on the whole for the success they have achieved on behalf of our country in terms of furthering the opportunity for “New Zealand Incorporated”. 
The world changed vastly when the Europeans decided in the 1950s—and I pick up the point about peace and harmony made by Mr Shirley—that their future would be secured if they stopped fighting each other and started trading with each other. The flow-on effect of that meant that that cosy situation we once enjoyed—where it was a simple exercise of growing the lambs shearing the wool putting the meat produce into muslin cloth refrigerating it on a ship to Britain and getting the cheque back sometime later—had gone forever. We had to become more dynamic; we had to become more innovative. The whole march of progress towards free-trade agreements that this country has entered into from CER onwards has really been about securing opportunity and a future for this country. Therefore I get very angry with those who start to take a myopic view which says on the one hand: “Let’s bring back Fortress New Zealand. Let’s throw out the barriers and pretend that the rest of the world doesn’t exist.” and on the other hand: “Let’s be so preoccupied about the conditions in other countries that we forget about the opportunities in our own country.” That is at the heart of this agreement. 
The bill is actually a very narrow one. It deals with the implementation of some of the tariff provisions related to this particular agreement. It has an unusual feature in Part 2 but as we were advised at the select committee that has occurred as much because of the insistence of the Thais in putting something similar into the agreement at their end as because of the result of New Zealand pressure. There are some useful steps in that and it is fair to report that after committee members had teased out those issues with the officials we were satisfied that those provisions not only were consistent with out GATT obligations but also were likely to deliver “real benefits to many New Zealand industries and will open up opportunities for New Zealand to develop the trading relationship with Thailand to its full potential”. 
 That is the heart of this issue. That is what this bill is about. It is what this agreement is about and it is what the whole history in recent years of trying to develop closer economic partnerships with other nations in our part of the world has been about. As I have said I applaud the initiative and the energy of successive trade Ministers in bringing that about. I am pleased to say on behalf of United Future that as a consequence of those measures we support this legislation enthusiastically and wholeheartedly and we support the process that is seeing opportunity brought to New Zealanders because of a willingness on a bipartisan and increasingly a multipartisan basis to embrace the notion of free trade and the notion of these types of partnership arrangements with the countries with which we have the closest contact.