4. KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Trade
How can he give an assurance that the proposed free-trade deal between New Zealand and China will not “provide a threat to the wages and conditions of New Zealand workers” when wage rates in China are so much lower than they are here?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) Link to this
New Zealand jobs and living standards depend on the exports of our goods and services. By removing impediments to our exports, which the proposed China free-trade agreement will do quite dramatically, we increase the volume and value of those exports. That will clearly be good for growth and employment, and it will be good for wages. That is a benefit, not a threat to New Zealand workers.
Why are we giving preferential treatment to a country that abuses the rights of its citizens, lacks basic environmental standards, and has children working in sweatshops for a few cents an hour?
If I look at the member’s first question, the clear implication is that we should not be trading with countries where the wage rates of workers are lower than ours. That would eliminate our taking of exports from any developing country. I understood that the Green position was to try to close the gap between the developed and the developing world. If we were not to trade with those countries where wages are lower, and lock them out of the markets of the affluent countries, that relegates those developing countries to being poor forever and unable ever to develop. That does not make sense.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was not about all trade agreements and whether anyone is for or against trade agreements as such; it was about a free-trade agreement with China eliminating tariffs.
The question, as set down in the Order Paper, clearly talks about why will it be good for us, when wage rates in China are so much lower than they are here. The implication of that is clearly that we are endangering our country if we ever trade with countries that have wage rates lower than our own.
Nandor TanczosI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will just ask for your assistance, Madam Speaker, because it seems to me that the implication of what the Minister just said is that he can continue to answer the first question put to him when other questions are asked. So we ask a supplementary question and he just re-answers the first question.
Clearly the supplementary question was a continuation of the theme in the first. I addressed that theme, and I am happy to answer any further questions from the member.
Madam SPEAKERYes, it was consistent. The supplementary questions have to relate—or should relate—to the primary question.
Hone HarawiraKia ora. Has the Minister seen comments by the New Zealand Chinese Association president, who says there will be little benefit for China in a free-trade arrangement with New Zealand, which would remove any remaining tariffs on Chinese clothing and footwear coming here; and, given the history of Māori workers suffering severe impacts from the removal of tariff protections in the 1980s and 1990s in textiles, clothing, footwear, car assembly, meatworks, forestry, and railways, can he tell the House exactly which sector of Māoridom in this country will benefit from a free-trade deal with China?
If I can just pick up a couple of examples from the member. He mentions forestry, fisheries, and farming. There are a great many Māori business interests and workers in those areas. Those are exactly the areas that will be the key beneficiaries of a free-trade agreement with China. As the member himself pointed out in quoting the president of the New Zealand Chinese Association, at the moment 95 percent of the goods coming into New Zealand, by value, come in duty-free. That is not the case with our exports to China, where most of our major exports are covered by tariffs of between 10 percent and 20 percent. There will be huge benefit to New Zealand industries by the removal of those tariffs, and a prime beneficiary will in fact be Māori businesses and Māori workers.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is it part of the Government’s climate change strategy to encourage New Zealand manufacturers to outsource their manufacturing, and its jobs, to China, where products will be made with inefficient and dirty coal-fired power stations rather than with New Zealand’s mainly renewable electricity; if so, how will that help reduce global emissions?
The answer to the problem of greenhouse gas warming of the world has to be a multilateral answer. That is why we have the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and why all countries, including big developing countries like China, have to play their part in that. The solution to that problem is through that mechanism, not by putting up artificial impediments to trade.
Sue KedgleyWill the Minister, given the inevitable increase in food that will come in from China as a result of this so-called free-trade agreement with China, ensure that New Zealand consumers can avoid buying Chinese food if they so wish and support local growers instead by introducing mandatory country of origin labelling of fresh food, as supported by 37,000 New Zealanders in a petition to this House; if not, why not?
To correct the member, I point out that actually the big flow of trade in food that will occur after this free-trade agreement is likely to be in the opposite direction—from New Zealand to China, not from China to New Zealand. In regard to food standards, a free-trade agreement makes no difference at all to the stringent requirements that are placed on the importation of food into New Zealand. Whether we have a free-trade agreement or not, those standards are in place and those standards will be upheld. In regard to mandatory labelling, if that were to be brought in universally the key loser in that would be New Zealand. For example, mandatory labelling in the United States of our beef, when mixed with products from within the United States, would hugely increase the cost to our industry, lowering the value of those exports to New Zealand, and therefore impacting negatively on jobs and incomes, which Keith Locke said before he was concerned about.
Does the Minister stand by his commendable statement in the House last Thursday that this Parliament will get to vote on the free-trade agreement as a whole, or is he reverting to earlier statements that Parliament’s involvement will be narrower and cover only implementing legislation?
The member is well aware of the procedures that occur in this House. There will be tabled in this House, at the time of signing, the free-trade agreement and the national interest analysis. That will go to the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence Committee. That committee will then hold hearings on submissions, and look at what the implications of that agreement will be, but, of course, before any free-trade agreement comes into effect there has to be enabling legislation for the tariff changes. That will be under the umbrella of a New Zealand - China free-trade agreement bill, and unless, and until, that bill is passed by the House, the free-trade agreement cannot come into effect. So what Mrs King said on my behalf last week is exactly right.