For and against the free trade agreement

(This post is mainly about trade policy, but if you persevere to the bottom there's a really cool timelapse video of Shanghai in miniature.)

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei caught flak from some quarters after struggling to articulate her party's stance on free trade when quizzed by Guyon Espiner on Q&A on the weekend.

The interview followed the one-year anniversary of the coming into effect of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement - which the Greens opposed.

Over that year, New Zealand's exports to China have jumped something like 60 per cent - though people I've interviewed over the last week have been at pains to stress that only a monkey would attribute all that growth to the FTA.

As I've mentioned, the impact of the NZ-China FTA one year on will be one of my major topics once I get to Shanghai next week.

I knew that Labour and National both backed the deal, giving it a 'grand coalition' level of support (just like with Sue Bradford's s59 amendment actually ...). But support for the FTA was by no means universal, so I thought it would be interesting to take a little trip back in time to when it was being debated in Parliament, to see how the arguments for and against played out.

The bill had its first reading on 15 May 2008, with Labour's Shane Jones - who was then the Associate Trade Minister - introducing it with a sandpaper-dry speech that defied my search for a soundbite. (This is the best I found: "the agreement represents a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand.") Well, okay, it was obvious Labour supported the deal anyway - their Government negotiated it.

Replying for National, Wayne Mapp pledged his party's support for the bill but took a potshot at Jones for a disappointing speech that focused on technical detail at the expense of big picture 'dawn of a glorious new era in NZ-China relations stuff'. Fair call.

Mapp scored better in the soundbite stakes: "Virtually everyone in the nation will win on this agreement; almost no one will lose," he said, hailing China's ascendance as a great economic power and suggesting the trade deal would make it easier for New Zealand to raise tricky issues of human rights and political freedom with the Chinese government.

After some boosterism from Labour's Martin Gallagher and a speech from National's John Hayes punctuated with digressions about how his Wairarapa constituents would love growth rates like China ("and, boy, I have a few to lift out of poverty in the Wairarapa"), it was the turn of the FTA opponents.

NZ First's Doug Woolerton kicked off with a variation on 'some of my best friends are Chinese': "I have to say we admire China greatly, and we admire the Chinese people greatly."

But, he said, it was not in New Zealand's interests to sign a free trade pact with a low-wage economy - and we also had to ponder what China got out of it.

"So why is China forming a free-trade agreement with New Zealand? It is because we give China face. This little democracy at the bottom of the South Pacific gives China face. Maybe it is not face to be used in America, maybe it is not face to be used in Europe, but it absolutely is face to be used in the South Pacific."

To summarise: New Zealand was giving China a facelift but for us the deal was a face plant.

NZ First's stance lead to the odd situation of our Government's foreign minister, Winston Peters, criticising and opposing the deal at home but being obliged to speak in support of it when overseas on government duties.

The other parties to oppose the FTA were the Maori Party and of course the Greens.

In his speech at the first reading, Green MP Keith Locke decried China as "a one-party State that crushes all opposition" and said the free trade agreement would support "business elites", but devoted more of his speech to arguing on technical points that the bill that implemented the FTA was anti-democratic and that it was unfair that people didn't have the chance to debate the substantive points of the deal. Locke's speech left me clear on why the Greens opposed the process by which the FTA was being enacted, but still wondering exactly why they were against the deal itself.

Hone Harawira argued the Maori Party's case much more cogently, saying they would oppose the deal on principle, rather than with an eye on potential profit. Although many Maori businesses could prosper under the pact, "the downside in terms of compromises to our national sovereignty, threats to the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, the impact of low work standards and wage rates, and China's lack of respect for human rights, indigenous rights, and the environment means that this free-trade agreement with China is simply unacceptable at this time".

Lest I give the impression that every party except Labour and the Nats dumped on the deal, I should note UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne's speech. Describing UnitedFuture as a "free trade party", he said the closer economic ties would allow New Zealand to be "less cowardly" in its relationship with China.

I don't know what happened to ACT - I might not be looking in the right place but I can't find any record in Hansard of Rodney Hide or Heather Roy speaking on the free trade deal, and they didn't vote on the bill's first reading. They supported it at its second reading though.

The one-man Progressive Party, Jim Anderton, didn't speak but voted for it, as did independents Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field - though we don't have to care about the latter two because neither of them are in Parliament anymore. Likewise, MMP's five per cent threshold spared us from having to consider the Bill & Ben Party's trade policy.

So of the parties still in Parliament, Labour, National, UnitedFuture, ACT and Jim Anderton backed the deal, while the Greens and the Maori Party opposed it.

That's enough about trade. Here's the timelapse video of miniature Shanghai I promised:

Hat tip: Shanghaiist

I suspect the miniature effect would have been made with the same software Dompost photographer Robert Kitchin used to make these cool images of mini-Welly.

Patrick is travelling to China with the support of the Asia New Zealand Foundation. Follow Patrick on Twitter.

Newest First

Oldest First

Charlie   #1   05:56 pm Oct 07 2009

These so called free trade agreements are ruining us. Nobody is going to put their food supplies into the hands of foreigners (not even foreigners from a snivelling pseudo-sovereign like New Zealand). Just look at the farcical situation with, the only technically foreign, Australia where most trade in foodstuffs is restricted to purely nominal levels by gentlemen's agreements (not to mention the apple and honey fiascoes).

Daisy   #2   10:19 am Oct 08 2009

I agree with Charlie, the free trade agreements are free for who exactly? NZ led the world in deregulation, we sold out our manufacturing, foot and clothing industries, for cheap goods from cheap labour countries with next to no environmental standards. This all amounts to slave labour, but you know the average Kiwi just wants cheap cheap goods so they pay and don't complain about all the jobs lost. It is nuts. We're wanting other countries to do the same, silly consecutive governments have continued to spend ridiculous amounts of timeb tryingh to get a free trade agreement with the U.S. so far they haven't been as stupid as us and sold out their farmers and manufacturing and all. They never well their subsidies to the vehicle industry are huge and they will keep it that way.

Did you know that under these agreements local bodies have to consider alll applications for local goods and services contracted from all the countries that we have FTAs. So some company from Singapore, Australia and all the others we have these dumb agreements with can come in and supply goods and services. Where is our commitment to the people who populate this country.

The trouble is we are obsessed with the idea of growth (not sustainable good growth) but growth at any cost, so so long as exporters are happy to hell with everyone else. Growth, progress and success are in my view extremely dangerous words when used by governments, councils and business. They are all predicated on money, not on fulfilment.

And there you are Patrick getting sucked up by the Asian NZ Foundation to go and see the 'good bits' ask them to take you to a factory that has barbed wire around the top where people sleep in dormitories and can't leave, oh yes the people are happy because they earn money, never mind the lack of safety standards and the many other appalling working and living conditions.

Would you want your teenager working like this? Do we have any responsibility around this as human beings?

I am sure they won't take you or they will sanitise what they show you, buyt you know Patrick there are lots of films around now that show this sort of stuff. 'Mardi Gras Made in China' would be a good start.

Bob   #3   05:42 pm Oct 11 2009

Hooray for the FTA and anything else that enables the world to produce and progress without hindrance. If Daisy wants to pay double for her things she can, I'm not. I'm paying half, and feeling good about it because those "slaves" up in China have a job producing cheap goods for me! Would Daisy take those jobs off them so they would have to take a lower paid or no job? What would they do? They may have appalling work conditions by our standards but it'd be worse if there was no demand for the goods they produced or else they lost whatever job they have. I'm sure they don't want Daisy to do them a favour. The demand for their labour would eventually improve their lot. I believe that is a market economy in a capitalist society. If we don't shift our low paid jobs to them then we would be stuck with low paid jobs instead of moving up the ladder. The only way NZ could keep those low paid jobs without huge govt. subsidies is to drop our wage rates to compete. Now do we hear Daisy offering to pack boxes for $5 per hour? Now let's arrange FTA's with ......

Happy and I know it.

Ad Feedback