Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Trade) Link to this

I move, That the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. On behalf of the Minister of Trade, I am pleased to move this third reading. The bill received its second reading and underwent its Committee of the whole House stage earlier today. It amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation so that the New Zealand - Hong Kong closer economic partnership is ready to enter into force as soon as the Hong Kong Government has completed its internal processes on it.

The closer economic partnership agreement with Hong Kong is a further achievement in New Zealand’s trade agenda. It stands to deliver real benefits to New Zealand businesses by guaranteeing tariff-free entry into the Hong Kong market, securing more certainty of access for our services suppliers, and providing a framework for regulatory cooperation and consultation. It is the first free-trade agreement that Hong Kong has signed outside mainland China.

New Zealand has been striving to secure a trading agreement with Hong Kong for a number of years, including under previous administrations, for several reasons. Firstly, Hong Kong is an important business hub in Asia. Asia is increasingly important to New Zealand as a partner for regional trade integration, and it is a growing market for our exports. New Zealand’s trade with the Asian region grew by 5 percent in the last 12 months, and it represents a massive $15 billion in annual export earnings for this country. Secondly, Hong Kong is strategically important as a platform from which New Zealand companies and products enter mainland China. This closer economic partnership complements our free-trade agreement with China, which was signed in April 2008 and is already delivering substantial benefits. Together, these two agreements deliver a golden opportunity for New Zealand businesses to launch or continue to expand into the growing and dynamic Chinese market. New Zealand will be the only country in the world to have free-trade agreements with both mainland China and Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s wealth of experience in doing business with China, and its connections to the Chinese and other Asian markets are unrivalled. At the same time, it has a legal system very similar to that of New Zealand and an open, transparent business environment. This makes Hong Kong an excellent location for New Zealand businesses that are looking to launch into a complex and sometimes daunting Asian market. Hong Kong is a significant market in its own right. It is currently New Zealand’s ninth-largest export destination. Merchandise trade between our two economies has been growing at an average of 7.5 percent per year for the past 5 years, and last year it was worth almost NZ$1 billion.

The closer economic partnership locks in duty-free access for all New Zealand exports to Hong Kong. This is a significant advantage over other countries, with which Hong Kong is able to raise tariffs on 14 percent of import lines at any time. In return, New Zealand is committed to phase out tariffs on imports from Hong Kong according to a schedule that is identical to the phasing under our free-trade agreement with China. The closer economic partnership is not just about goods; it also creates improved access for New Zealand service providers to Hong Kong. New Zealand providers will benefit from greater certainty of access into the Hong Kong services market, including private education, business services, environmental services, and logistics. This access is also future-proofed under the most favoured nation clause. Any preferential treatment that Hong Kong accords to other trading partners in future agreements in particular sectors will automatically be extended to New Zealand services suppliers. The closer economic partnership also extends the benefit of any liberalisation that Hong Kong makes domestically to New Zealand services suppliers in some currently reserved sectors.

Under the closer economic partnership, New Zealand business people will benefit from the faster processing of applications for business visas, and short-term business visitors will be able to get a 90-day visa. Other aspects of the trading environment, such as customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, intellectual property competition, and e-commerce, receive comprehensive coverage in the closer economic partnership.

Alongside the closer economic partnership, New Zealand and Hong Kong have also entered into a memorandum of understanding on labour cooperation and an environmental cooperation agreement. I would also note that, contrary to Mr Russel Norman’s assertion that the side agreements on labour and the environment are not legally binding, I can confirm that these agreements are, in fact, legally binding. These agreements complement the content of the trade agreement and reinforce issues of importance to both countries.

As part of the negotiations New Zealand and Hong Kong have also agreed to negotiate a comprehensive investment protocol within 2 years of the closer economic partnership’s entry into force. Although it is envisaged that the investment protocol will provide strengthened disciplines and protections for investors, there is no intention that the protocol will alter the categories of investment that are subject to screening under the Overseas Investment Act.

In summary, this closer economic partnership with Hong Kong brings about significant advantages for New Zealand. It establishes a clear, certain, and effective framework for New Zealand companies to operate in a dynamic and rewarding market. It also complements our ground-breaking free-trade agreement with China. In other words, we now have an unparalleled opportunity to increase our exports to a region that will continue to be of central importance to our economy in both the short and long term. I acknowledge the efforts of the officials, of former Ministers of Trade, and also of the stakeholders who contributed to this excellent outcome. I also acknowledge and thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their consideration of the Hong Kong closer economic partnership bill.

This bill will amend the Tariff Act 1988 by inserting “Hong Kong, China” into the list of preferential countries in note 3 of the Tariff. This is the only statutory amendment that is required to give effect to the closer economic partnership. Following this amendment, other amendments by regulation will also be required in order to enable the application of preferential tariff rates under the closer economic partnership.

Our prosperity as a nation depends on our ability to trade and invest on the world market. We also depend on there being robust rules to govern trade and remove barriers so that our traders can compete fairly. These goals are embodied in this closer economic partnership, which will benefit New Zealanders and which is supported by the majority of members in this House. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. I suppose that one of the dangers of taking an agreement like this and a bill of this nature through the House under urgency is the temptation to simply repeat what one has said in one’s first reading speech or, in the case of today, one’s second reading speech. So I will try to say some different things from what I said in my previous speeches.

First of all, I acknowledge all of the trade Ministers who have had a hand in this matter, from Jim Sutton through to Phil Goff and now Tim Groser. Each of these trade Ministers has served New Zealand interests well and has got this closer economic partnership to the point where we can now pass its third reading this evening. I commend all of those Ministers for the assiduousness with which they pursued New Zealand’s interests.

I also recognise officials, who have provided a lot of the backbone to the negotiations. I particularly mention Julian Ludbrook as an official who has been intimately involved for many years in the development of this closer economic partnership. His expertise and his knowledge are both legendary and encyclopaedic. It is fitting that this House acknowledge his efforts on our behalf.

The critical points of this closer economic partnership go to the relationship between New Zealand and Hong Kong. A school of thought abroad that is often given witness to by this Government is that foreign affairs equals trade and trade is foreign affairs. This party begs to differ. Foreign affairs is about relationships. It is about developing the kinds of trusting and constructive relationships that allow trade agreements to be struck. Those trade agreements are never struck in a vacuum; they are always agreed on in the context of ongoing relationships.

New Zealand has had a relationship with Hong Kong for a very long time. I think it is currently our ninth or 10th largest export destination; it accounted for something in the order of $800 million worth of trade last year. New Zealand imported $199 million of merchandised goods from Hong Kong last year, making it the 31st largest source of imported goods.

Hong Kong is important because of not only the volume of trade that is conducted, which has been increasing over time, but also its geopolitical significance. This closer economic partnership hopes and intends to capitalise on Hong Kong’s regional and geographical presence in order to smooth the way of businesses into trade in China. More than that, Hong Kong has for a long time been a very significant regional presence because it is a hub. It works as a shipping hub, a financial transactions hub, and a gateway to China. It has a deal of significance on many levels, but each of them that I am describing at the moment are particularly practical. They are about facilitating trade not only into China through Hong Kong but also elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region for New Zealand producers and manufacturers. It has regional, geographical, and facilitating significance, which should not be ignored.

One of our largest exports to Hong Kong is live crayfish. I think that that industry will benefit from the conditions that are contained in this closer economic partnership. As the tariffs reduce to 2016, it will signify a considerable improvement in profit and, effectively, productivity for our exporters. A small but extremely efficient export business in South Auckland is busy putting out as many crayfish as it legally can to Hong Kong. The crayfish are in a very good state, which makes them a highly desirable commodity for Hong Kong.

Amongst the top 20 imports from Hong Kong into New Zealand are, of course, machinery parts, telephone equipment, and computers. That will come as no surprise to anybody who picks up a mobile phone in New Zealand. This closer economic partnership will enhance mutual benefits, not only by the reduction in tariffs, which align with the free-trade agreement with China and its regime of tariff reduction, but also—in the case of this closer economic partnership—with trade in services. We are able to trade a vast array of services with Hong Kong on a regular and an improved basis that will enhance New Zealand’s profitability and wealth, and will serve to exchange knowledge and services in a way that can do both parties only good.

I welcome this closer economic partnership. I pay tribute to those who have contributed to it, and I thank the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, John Hayes, for his part in shepherding this closer economic partnership through the select committee process.

We are a trading nation. We have for decades traded in commodities. We are good at it and we need to consider how to add value to our commodities in order to improve the wealth that we can gain from trade. With this closer economic partnership we are seeing a new opportunity, something quite expansive in terms of business services, communications services, and all kinds of services apart from education, which already exists in Hong Kong as a substantial service from New Zealand. That makes this closer economic partnership something that, I think, can be a model or a template for future trade agreements. The concentration on services gives me great heart for the future of our country. There is a limit to how much we can produce in the way of agricultural produce, and we should be getting smarter about the goods and services that we export.

I join with the Minister of Immigration who is acting on behalf of the Minister of Trade tonight, and commend this closer economic partnership agreement to the House in its third reading.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this

It gives me considerable pleasure to stand in the House now in the third reading of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. I join with those who have already congratulated the Prime Minister and Tim Groser on their work in activating this bill after 8 years of stagnation following Jim Sutton’s intervention in 2001. We are doing this because it is really important that innovation provides access to world markets. Many of those crayfish that Maryan Street talked about actually begin in Ngawī or somewhere off the Wairarapa coast, so this is immensely important to my electorate. It is also immensely important because the comparative advantage of this country is in exporting food, whether it is dairy products, meat, vegetables, horticultural products, or even wine. That is really fundamentally important to people living in provincial New Zealand.

This agreement is incredibly important because it is part of the Government’s focus on free trade and on improving access for our exporters to world markets. As I said earlier today, that is a priority of the Prime Minister’s. He mentioned it in this Parliament in February in his Prime Minister’s statement. He knows, and we on this side of the House know, that it is only by lifting our economic performance that we can create jobs, boost incomes, improve living standards, and provide the world-class services that Kiwi families deserve.

I must say that the Green Party has got it wrong. The Green Party may have got it right in Australia, but the Greens are seriously wrong here. The reason is that Green members do not seem to understand that these agreements lead to jobs, employment, and to the buying of things like Herceptin and other expensive drugs for use in our communities. We have to accept, and the Green Party must accept, that there is a huge change in the world’s geopolitical tectonic plates. China is on a growth curve and we need to understand that by 2050 China’s average standard of living will be half that of America’s. We need to understand that even in the period of the next 12 years, if China’s average growth is only half what it is today, there will be hundreds of millions in the middle class and tens of millions in its upper class. The purpose of this agreement is to give our producers access to those people. Even now—and I accept some of the Greens’ assertions about the difficulties of dealing with China—the Communist Party of China will have to deal with issues such as providing retirement benefits, health insurance, and access to health care. It will have to build infrastructure, deal with a lack of drinking water and sewerage systems, fight corruption, and find work for hundreds of millions of people. It is fundamentally important that New Zealand stays linked to those processes, and that is why I support this agreement, and the Government supports it. We look forward to passing this bill at its third reading. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. Like some of the speakers before me, I acknowledge those Ministers who have contributed to this bill over a number of years, starting with Jim Sutton and including Phil Goff and Tim Groser. I also acknowledge Julian Ludbrook, who, as my colleague Maryan Street said, has been in many ways a font of knowledge and an extremely wise asset to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in being able to shepherd this sort of negotiation through quite a complex phase. I do not forget the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee or John Hayes’ ability to take on some of these issues, to question rigorously the ministry, and to ensure that we have a very good agreement.

As other speakers before me have said, this is an important bill because it will enable an application of preferential tariff rates under the closer economic partnership. Hong Kong already has, as many of us know, very liberal trading laws that offer duty-free imports for many countries, and this closer economic partnership will add additional benefits. Not only is Hong Kong an important market in its own right as our ninth-largest export destination in 2009, but also it provides strategically—and I think John Hayes touched on this—a vital foothold for New Zealand businesses in gaining access to an expanding greater Chinese market. As has been said, we are the only country in the world to hold an agreement of this nature with both China and Hong Kong. It amplifies the important position the two countries occupy in terms of what our economy will face in the future. Building economic relationships with Asia in general, but specifically Hong Kong, is vital to New Zealand’s future economic prosperity. Those are the major developing and expanding markets, and, as New Zealand depends so much on our exports, the closer economic partnership is another step in that direction.

The agreement has been evaluated both positively and negatively by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. One of the negative impacts it could have is an impact on manufacturers of footwear and some textiles. That is something that has come up in other free-trade agreements before it. I think that with the degree of phase-out period for the tariffs in this particular case, it will allow those businesses in New Zealand to be able to adjust and hopefully maintain and develop into a higher-niche occupation in terms of our manufacturing. In terms of both labour rights and environmental sustainability, again, they are most important values to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. They are core values that should not be sacrificed in the pursuit of increased trade. Under the closer economic partnership, from what we can see, much of that issue is contained in the environmental agreement with shared objectives and the labour memorandum of understanding, which states that labour laws should not be used for protectionist measures and that they should also not be weakened or reduced to increase trade and investment. That too is locked into this agreement.

There are a range of advantages for New Zealand. Many of them have been traversed earlier, but they include better access and service in the key sectors of business, communications, and environmental services. We will achieve through this agreement favoured nation status, enabling New Zealand exporters to benefit from the preferential treatment that Hong Kong provides to its future free-trade agreement partners. That will certainly ensure that we have a much better, more sustainable, and stronger relationship as we go into the future. The closer economic partnership, as others have mentioned, is future-proofed to a large degree by the ratchet clause, which states that any future unilateral liberalisation in Hong Kong, such as in education, will apply under this agreement. Although not included in the closer economic partnership, New Zealand and Hong Kong have agreed in a legally binding exchange of letters to negotiate an investment protocol within 2 years of the partnership coming into force. In a sense, we are gaining advantages, ensuring safeguards, and ensuring that the agreement is robust enough to be able to be taken forward into the future.

New Zealand has been at the vanguard of many of the free-trade agreements throughout the world. As many people know, we were the first to make such an agreement with China, and under this bill we now have a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong. Our exports to China have increased by 65 percent in the short time since 2008, when Phil Goff negotiated that agreement with China. It was historic and it has meant that China is now our second-largest export market. It is likely to become even more important into the future. If we look back, it is a long way from 1972, when New Zealand shipped practically two-thirds or three-quarters of its exports to the UK. When the UK joined the European Economic Community, we were suddenly faced with the reality that we needed to find other markets. In under 5 years, the proportion of exports that we were sending to the UK was under 20 percent. That, in a sense, is a remarkable achievement when we look back in history. It shows that when New Zealand faces adversity like that, we are able to respond and be flexible. I think those were the historic antecedents that formed the basis for our looking outward and our capacity to look at other countries, in terms of free-trade agreements.

We are very good at diversifying our trading partners, but I would argue that we are not so good in terms of diversifying our economy. Our economy has largely stayed reliant on those same products that we once exported to the UK, back in 1972. If there is one weakness and one underlying factor of the way in which our economy has been declining over the last few years, it is the fact that the relative wealth we are achieving from our exported commodities, in particular, is not keeping pace with the imported manufactured goods that we need for our economy. I will give just a small anecdote. A couple of weeks ago I was visiting Scion, the Crown research institute in Rotorua that does research into forestry and our forest products. It has developed amazing products, such as plastics made out of wood, biofuels made from wood products, etc. The biggest failing, of course, is that right now most of our forests are effectively owned by foreigners. Although much of that technology could not increase our value-added exports, it is not even able to be applied. Instead, as Russel Norman mentioned, we are shipping logs offshore to China in an untreated, unfinished, and unprocessed way, and we are not achieving what we could be from our primary products.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I stand to speak on the third reading of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill, which implements some parts of the Hong Kong - New Zealand preferential trade agreement.

I will touch on a couple of issues raised in the last speech on this bill, which was from David Shearer. The first is some of the broader problems with these kinds of treaties, particularly the investment clauses. Secondly, why doing a deal with the Communist Party of China is particularly naive and stupid.

In terms of the investment clauses in these treaties, currently there is an exchange of letters developing the investment parts of this treaty, but no doubt it will be very similar to the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement and will be modelled along the same lines. Effectively, the investment clauses in these treaties lock in existing overseas investment rules, so we cannot tighten the overseas investment rules beyond what they currently are without breaching the terms of the investment clauses within these treaties. So if we, as a democratically elected Parliament, were to decide that we want stronger rules around overseas investment than we currently have, and we changed those rules, we would be breaching the terms of the treaty we have signed with China and the terms of the treaty, through the exchange of letters, that is very likely to be signed with Hong Kong. In spite of all the rhetoric from Labour and National that they are concerned about the sell-off of farms, tonight they are supporting a bill that locks in the current investment rules and means that we cannot tighten them. If we look at article 138 or article 141 of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, we will see that that is exactly what that agreement says. We cannot tighten those rules without breaching the terms of the agreement.

Secondly, I would like to draw attention to the clauses on expropriation. In the New Zealand - China free-trade deal, and there are parallels with the Hong Kong deal, there are clauses about expropriation, particularly indirect expropriation. That means that if we tighten the rules on environmental regulation, with the result that a foreign investor in New Zealand loses money, then New Zealand is required to compensate that person for the loss of the value of his or her business. These cases go to an international tribunal, and the case is decided on by a three-person panel. That panel can decide that, in fact, the New Zealand Government has indirectly expropriated from a particular business by changing, for example, environmental rules or by tightening environmental rules.

These treaties are set up to tie the hands of democratically elected Governments to make it harder for those Governments to regulate capital and business activities. I have no idea why Labour and National wish to restrict the ability of democratically elected Governments to regulate to protect the environment or to protect labour standards, but there we have it. Why we would want to sign up to a treaty that means we cannot tighten overseas investment rules to stop the sell-off of farms to overseas owners is beyond me, but that is what Labour and National want to do. Well, if people vote for Labour or National, then that is exactly what they will get.

The other issues are labour and the environment. Much has been made of the side agreements on labour and environmental issues. We have seen side agreements with lots of these free-trade deals and they mean nothing. These side agreements mean absolutely nothing. Let us remember that the Chinese Communist Party is, right now, locking up trade unionists who are independent of the All-China Federation Trade Unions. There is an organisation called the All-China Federation Trade Unions, which is the union controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. If people step outside of that union and become independent unionists, they are locked up and put in jail—literally. These side agreements about labour mean absolutely nothing, because the Chinese Communist Party has made it very clear that it is extremely hostile towards independent trade unionists. People whom we would consider legitimate, like members of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, would all be in jail if they lived in China. That kind of independent trade union activity is absolutely illegal in China; people cannot do it. So let us stop pretending that somehow there is some kind of independent trade union movement in China. Well, there are people trying to have an independent trade union movement, but they are the ones who are locked up and put in jail. So side agreements around labour and environmental standards mean very little.

What really stands behind this kind of negotiation between Labour and National in New Zealand and the Chinese Communist Party is an incredible naivety and maybe a wilful ignorance about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party that Labour and National are negotiating with. Let us remind ourselves of the nature of the Chinese Communist Party that we are negotiating this treaty with.

The Chinese Communist Party has eradicated all political rivals. There are no political rivals in China; it is a one-party State—try to do something different! It has eliminated the autonomy of the courts. The courts must implement the decisions of the Chinese Communist Party. China does not have an independent judiciary. That is what we are dealing with. It has eliminated the autonomy of the press. Every week the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party literally puts out instructions as to what can and cannot be covered in the media in China. The Chinese Communist Party, which Labour and National are so intent on negotiating this treaty with, has restricted religion. Of course, it has locked out the Falun Gong. Civil society is extremely restricted. It has centralised all political power, it has extensive networks of security police, and dissidents are routinely sent to labour camps. But Labour and National are very happy to negotiate with the Chinese Communist Party—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, i tēnei pō. The mere fact that we have a split vote in the Māori Party obviously indicates that there is a degree of support but also that an opportunity has arisen through our vote to register some serious issues we had raised. I cannot say that they align with Dr Norman’s too much but certainly there are some concerns, nevertheless.

The Māori Party is on record as having a range of concerns about the impact of free-trade agreements. Our major concern is the long-term prosperity of workers and businesses. We are concerned also about the protection of New Zealand’s markets, tariff rates, biosecurity, environmental issues, including climate change, and overseas investment.

As has been spoken about, this bill implements a bilateral trade agreement—namely, the New Zealand - Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. The amendment to the tariff will enable the application of preferential tariff rates to be applied to goods imported from Hong Kong. The New Zealand - Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement largely mirrors, as Dr Norman talked about, New Zealand’s prior free-trade agreement with China.

Due to liberalising our laws, we have a concern about businesses and workers, including Māori, that may be forced to produce their goods at the lowest cost by taking production offshore. Of course, the logical consequences of taking production offshore are both job losses at home while also willingly providing New Zealanders with an opportunity—as if they needed it—to buy overseas goods rather than those made in New Zealand.

So where will the impact be most profound? Well, the free-trade agreement’s greatest negative impact has been on the manufacturing sector, which has a high Māori and Pacific Island workforce. Although there has been some comment passed that Māori businesses may stand to be disadvantaged by this approach, the impact is felt more by Māori workers in the manufacturing sector, regardless of who owns the businesses. From what we can work out, the loss of the manufacturing base has had an impact only on Māori businesses in the manufacturing sector. Two examples I can cite are those located in Ōpōtiki, owned by Te Whakatōhea, and in South Auckland. The name of the firm is KT Footwear and the person who led the company was Karroll Brent-Edmondson. Both firms manufactured footwear, and both closed as a result of cheap imports.

By far, the most enduring legacy of the free-trade agreement will be on the Māori workforce. As at June 2008, 12,000 Māori were employed in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing primary production area; and 29,000 Māori were employed in the manufacturing area. Māori laid off from a factory in New Zealand did not get jobs in New Zealand - owned factories that relocated to low-wage, Asian economies.

We know full well that the huge appetite the world has for primary produce in emerging super-power Asian countries like China will not change as a result of some of the Māori Party voting against this bill. We also know that many Māori businesses are looking to advance the promise of prosperity. This is a key objective of our policy manifesto He Aha Te Mea Nui? He Tangata, He Tangata, He Tangata; we will incentivise whānau and family businesses to grow. We want to see Māori businesses develop and also to increase employment, but we cannot ignore the fact that in the latest household labour force survey Māori unemployment went up from 14.2 percent to 16.4 percent. That means 26,400 Māori are now without jobs—an increase of 3,600 since the previous quarter.

I need to say that another part of our He Aha Te Mea Nui? He Tangata, He Tangata, He Tangata manifesto was to invest in development programmes that will forecast the long-term opportunities and skills required to increase productivity and economic growth. This is where we get caught between a rock and a hard place. Māori concerns in regard to manaakitanga and how workers in both countries are being treated in regard to workers’ rights and minimum standards on labour issues have long been an issue for our party. The lack of recognition of tangata whenua in free-trade agreements and in incidental tariffs with overseas partners undermines the Treaty of Waitangi, but, on the other hand, we will never stand in the way of allowing Māori businesses to thrive. That is why we obviously have arrived at a position of voting: two members opposed and three members in favour.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

The Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill and represents a huge opportunity for New Zealand exporting business. My speeches in this debate have focused on the agricultural sector because that is the nature of the electorate I am proud to represent. I conclude my contribution to this debate by saying, once again, that this free-trade agreement with Hong Kong and China presents New Zealand with an opportunity, and it is now up to the agricultural sector to take advantage of that opportunity. I have talked about sheep and beef farmers, and I quickly mention our dairy industry, which takes up a third of the world’s dairy trade. We are a significant international player in the dairy sector, and this free-trade agreement presents a further opportunity for Fonterra in New Zealand. Food is valued by the world. We in New Zealand tend to take that for granted, but our food, our milk products, our sheep and beef products, and all the other products we produce are a valued commodity. I say, again, in commending this bill to the House that this represents an excellent opportunity and builds on the excellent work of the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, and the Prime Minister, John Key. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

It is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. It is an excellent piece of work and it is clearly supported by both the major parties. I was particularly interested in hearing the Hon Pete Hodgson wax philosophical for a moment, pointing out that the two major parties agree, and have agreed for a long time, on the huge value of expediting and ensuring greater trade and greater exports, because they are the lifeblood of our country. But I was concerned to hear the Hon Peter Hodgson in some respect excuse the Greens for the stance that they take. I must say that it is some concern to read the Green Party minority view, which suggests that the Government theory on trade is flawed. It has been a pleasure from time to time to hear the sonorous, if not soporific, speeches of Dr Kennedy Graham. But tonight, unfortunately, we had to listen to the nasal narrative of Dr Russel Norman, and that is simply another matter.

There is no doubt that, as time goes on, China’s exports to New Zealand will increase in both quality and in price. In fact, the other day when I was down in Newmarket, one of the furniture manufacturers told me that some of the more expensive Chinese products are actually more expensive than the New Zealand - made ones. So there is no doubt that, as time goes on, it is very important to have this continual ability to improve our products, to have the constant need to keep on our toes, to constantly innovate so that we improve our products, and to improve our trade. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.