Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Trade: I move, That the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: “I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.”

The member has been listening! I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of the bill, and for reporting the bill back to the House. The committee’s recommendation is that the bill be passed with no amendments. As the committee noted in its report, the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement will serve to benefit New Zealand merchandise exporters that target Malaysia, as well as provide new opportunities for service providers, particularly in the areas of educational, environmental, and engineering services.

Malaysia is already our tenth-largest trading partner. Two-way trade between our countries is now approaching $2 billion, and the trajectories are all in the right direction. Over the last 4 years goods exports to Malaysia have grown by over 50 percent. This free-trade agreement therefore comes at just the right time to give our exporters a chance to consolidate their positions within a priority market.

On day one of this agreement entering into force, approximately 95 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports to Malaysia will immediately be duty-free. This is a terrific head start for our companies competing in Malaysia against firms from Europe, the United States, Latin America, and even Australia. And it will get better for New Zealand companies; by 2016, 99.5 percent of our exports will be duty-free, which will be 5 years earlier than the time secured under the free-trade agreement concluded by Australia and New Zealand with the 10 economies of the Association of South-east Asian Nations, or ASEAN. That free-trade agreement is already a high-quality and comprehensive free-trade agreement. It placed New Zealand and Australia ahead of the queue of ASEAN’s other free-trade agreement partners, including Japan, Korea, China, and India, let alone those who have yet to negotiate a free-trade agreement, like the European Union and the United States.

The elimination of tariffs is just one part of the story. The enhanced rules of origin negotiated in the Malaysia free-trade agreement will encourage Malaysian producers to make greater use of New Zealand products for imports and manufacturing. This will benefit a whole range of small and medium sized enterprises producing what are known as intermediate goods. Recent OECD research has shown that 56 percent of overall goods trade flows are in intermediate products. This is the way that modern trade is done. That is recognised in the rules of origin provisions in modern free-trade agreements, including the one we are considering today.

This free-trade agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to the export of New Zealand products. Trade in services is an increasingly important element of New Zealand’s trade profile, particularly in the case of Malaysia, where areas such as information and computer technology and engineering are expected to grow over time. Education in particular is an area of growth potential, with growth of over 70 percent in fee-paying Malaysian students studying in New Zealand between 2003 and 2008. New Zealand delivers high-quality education services, including training, literacy programmes for schoolchildren, and so on, across the Internet and in-country in Malaysia. This free-trade agreement ensures that this trade is now protected and secure from Government intervention, which might have wanted to limit or prevent that access.

Better still, and in addition to all these upfront benefits for New Zealand, this agreement has been future-proofed. Specifically, most favoured nation treatment in key sectors of commercial interest has been secured for New Zealand service suppliers. This means that if any future free-trade agreement partner with Malaysia is able to negotiate benefits that improve on what New Zealand has gained in a range of services, sectors, and investment, we will automatically get the same benefits. If we combine that with our first-mover advantage of having preferential access for our exporters immediately, members can see that this agreement is a very strong outcome for New Zealand business that sets us up well for the future in Malaysia.

As with previous free-trade agreements that New Zealand has entered into, the Malaysia free-trade agreement protects New Zealand’s most import-sensitive industries. New Zealand has left the elimination of existing tariff protection for its most import-sensitive industries to the end of the tariff phase-out, in 2016. That is exactly the same date at which Malaysia will eliminate its tariffs on New Zealand products.

The minority view in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report questions the effects of the investment provisions of free-trade agreements on the New Zealand economy. Increasingly, New Zealand investors are looking to countries like Malaysia to enhance their global competitiveness. It is not surprising, therefore, that between 2003 and 2008 New Zealand’s total stock of investment in Malaysia increased by 77 percent. Our investors need to be sure that their investments will be satisfactorily protected. This free-trade agreement delivers that by offering additional and improved protections for New Zealand investors and their investments in Malaysia. In this way, the agreement protects a New Zealand company’s ability to transfer its profits, protect itself from expropriation, and be assured of fair and equitable treatment—all of which are supported by a robust, effective, and legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. For its part, New Zealand in respect of inwards investment from Malaysia has retained the flexibility to continue to apply the existing Overseas Investment Act and regulations, regardless of the origin of any prospective investor. In other words, the current investment screening regime in New Zealand continues to apply to prospective investors from Malaysia. This free-trade agreement has not changed the Overseas Investment Act in any way.

The Malaysia free-trade agreement is expected to have a positive effect on exports, gross domestic product, and employment in New Zealand, including in the manufacturing sector. The reality is that improving market access for New Zealand firms through a progressive trade agenda that includes free-trade agreements like this agreement ensures that we continue to stimulate economic growth, and helps to safeguard the jobs of the many thousands of New Zealanders who work in or support export-oriented industries.

The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation so that the Malaysia free-trade agreement can be brought into force. The bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 in order to implement preferential tariff rates on imported goods from Malaysia, and to enable transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances on such imports. The Government would like to see the bill enacted on 24 June 2010, so that New Zealand can be ready to bring the Malaysia free-trade agreement into force on 1 August 2010. This will ensure that New Zealand business can benefit as soon as possible from this new addition to our free-trade agreement stable. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak to the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. I have prepared a substantial speech about the detail of the agreement, but I will pick up a couple of comments made by previous speakers on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. They are apposite to any free-trade agreement. In fact, the Green Party member Kennedy Graham made a point of referring to a template for free-trade agreements. He said that the language was the same, the structure was the same, and the underlying premises were the same, and, therefore, the Green Party had the same criticisms of each one of these bills. In fact, there is a Green Party minority report in the select committee report back to the House.

I will pick up on some good points Kennedy Graham made in respect of those matters. It may be to do with the lateness of the hour—I am not sure—but in departing from what I had prepared to say, I commend him for bringing those issues to the House. Similarly, I commend the Māori Party member who spoke, Rahui Katene, for reminding us of other issues that impact on our free-trade agreements.

Life is complex, and we try to pursue our way in the world, achieving the best we can for New Zealand’s interests, but not at the expense of others and not at the expense of any of our own. There are often issues that conflict and that people consider to be mutually exclusive propositions, like free trade and human rights, or free trade and indigenous industry. We in the Labour Party have promoted free trade for a long time, but not at all costs. The gradual movement over time to include, for example, labour and environment side clauses, as we see in the Malaysian free-trade agreement, are important, and they will improve over time.

I acknowledge the concerns that Kennedy Graham raised about the national interest analysis apropos of the New Zealand - Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, and I relate them to the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. I think there is a point to be made about the need for an honest appraisal in the national interest analysis of any negatives to New Zealand. I for one would be keen to see more open processes around our trade negotiations so that there might be some robust and public consideration, even more robust and public than we have at the moment. That process surrounds this House. The free-trade agreement should be referred to the select committee because it needs to be ratified in law, and the public would then have a chance to speak on it and to contribute to the discussion about it. Yet usually only a very few people are interested and wish to participate. I wonder whether making that process broader would get more input, closer analysis, greater justification, and perhaps even more care about indigenous or New Zealand industries and the impact of free-trade agreements on them. That is all for the future, but it is something I think we need to take care of; I acknowledge the points that the Green Party made in that respect.

It still remains that this is a high-quality free-trade agreement. If one compares it with the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, one sees very clearly that it moves further and faster than that agreement. For example, under the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement this year, at the point of implementation, 95.1 percent of tariffs on New Zealand exports will be eliminated. Under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement that figure is 94.8, which is close but not quite as good. I could track the years of the Malaysian free-trade agreement, compare it with the ASEAN free-trade agreement, and demonstrate that it goes further faster so that by 2016, 99.5 percent of New Zealand exports to Malaysia will be tariff free. All tariffs will be eliminated. By that time only 98 percent of tariffs under the ASEAN free-trade agreement will have been eliminated. The remaining 0.5 percent under the Malaysian free-trade agreement is, in fact, wine and pork products, which have some religious and cultural prohibitions around them.

What do we export to Malaysia that will be so generously and helpfully affected? Well, 54 percent of what we export to Malaysia is dairy products. Another 10 percent is petroleum products, which is interesting because we import slightly more than that from Malaysia. In addition to that we export cereals, minerals, metals, wood, pulp, paper, furniture, meat, fruit, vegetables, and a few other things besides. How will each of these different sectors be affected? First, let us go to the immediate winner in this agreement. As soon as this legislation passes—and it coincides with the passing of the same legislation in Malaysia—the kiwifruit industry will experience a huge gain. Currently there is a 15 percent tariff on kiwifruit imports. Despite that tariff, I have to say, New Zealand exports of kiwifruit to Malaysia have grown by 123 percent in the last couple of years. But at the moment that this agreement comes into force, that 15 percent tariff drops to zero, and that means that a lot more earnings are retained in New Zealand. In 2010 other key export products are liberalised in addition to kiwifruit. These are butter, cheese, milk-powder, honey, wool, apples, and some manufactured products.

Let us look at some of these products. In respect of meat, wool, dairy, fish, and forestry we find that the Malaysian free-trade agreement confirms the outcome that is also arrived at in the ASEAN free-trade agreement, which is the interesting one of binding in existing duty-free access for New Zealand meat, wool, dairy, fish, and forestry product exports. This particular provision means that Malaysia cannot legally change this duty-free level of access for New Zealand exporters, although it can change it for others. That simply means that our exporters have a greater degree of certainty around their exports.

Coming from Nelson, where all those primary products are in abundance—whether we are talking about kiwifruit, meat, dairy products, fish, or forestry—I know that this free-trade agreement will have a direct and immediate beneficial impact on those New Zealand industries. I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the second reading debate on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. I will begin by thanking colleagues on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the good work they do in a very collegial way. I refer particularly to Maryan Street, Pete Hodgson, and Keith Locke, and to my National colleagues, some of whom are in the House tonight. I also congratulate our Ministers Phil Goff and Tim Groser on leading the work that has been done, and while I am in a thank-you mode I also thank Vangelis Vitalis from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who was the lead negotiator and who did an excellent job.

When I listened to the last speaker, Maryan Street, and my Green colleague speaking on the previous China free-trade agreement, I think the one thing that really demonstrates above all else that these agreements are worthwhile is the fact that in the year ended April 2010—that is, 2 or 3 months ago—the value of our export trade with China has increased by $860 million over that 12-month period. That is about the value of our total exports to Indonesia. So the free-trade agreement with China gave us, effectively, another market the size of Indonesia in 12 months.

We will not get that with this Malaysian agreement, but that is because we are operating on a different scale. Malaysia has a slightly bigger land area than we do. We have similarities, as we were both British colonies. Malaysia has a population of about 28 million, whereas our population, of about 4.2 million, is probably smaller than that of greater Kuala Lumpur. Eighty-seven percent of the people in New Zealand live in urban communities, and the drift from rural areas to urban areas is growing at a rate of about 1 percent a year. In Malaysia about 70 percent of people live in towns and that rate of drift is about 3 percent a year. Important for the business community is the fact that both of us have legal systems based on English common law. There is quite a big difference in GDP per capita. New Zealand is sitting on around $28,000 per capita, growing at around 2 percent; Malaysia is sitting on $15,400 per capita, growing at about 4.6 percent.

There is another very interesting statistic, which is in relation to Internet users. Of Malaysia’s population of 26 million people, 17 million are using the Internet. We have a rather smaller proportion of our population using the Internet—3 million people are using it. So the Malaysians are ranked for Internet usage at 22nd in the world; we are at 58th.

I think that this legislation puts both economies in much more balance, but still we have one-sixth of Malaysia’s population. When we considered this bill at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee we came to the conclusion collectively that one of the reasons for signing this agreement was that all of us in this Parliament wanted to see a boosting of innovation and improved export access to world markets. It is those two things that will give us a step change in our own economic performance, and everybody will benefit from that. This agreement with Malaysia is a very important part of National’s focus on free trade and improvement in access for our exporters to world markets. It was a priority included in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament in February this year. Only by lifting economic performance can we create jobs, boost incomes, improve living standards, and provide world-class public services that our New Zealand families need.

We heard about our trade figures from the previous speaker, and I reiterate that over the past 4 years the quantity of New Zealand goods exported to Malaysia has grown by more than 50 percent, making Malaysia New Zealand’s tenth-largest trading partner. I think that those things will bode well for the future, but the real driver will hit the pockets of kiwifruit farmers. At the moment we are paying a 15 percent tariff on every kiwifruit exported into Malaysia; in 2012 that trade will become duty-free. Based on the most recent trade figures, our kiwifruit exports to Malaysia have grown by 173 percent since 2007. As my colleague Maryan Street said, meat, wool, dairy—excluding liquid milk—fish, and forestry products are bound in, so Malaysia cannot reapply tariffs on New Zealand’s agricultural exports; that is very important to my electorate. Liquid milk has a significant improvement on in-quota duties, which will be eliminated, and in-quota volumes, which will increase by up to 5 percent a year.

The Malaysian free-trade agreement includes an agreement to establish mechanisms that allow for the recognition of the equivalency of each other’s qualifications. That will improve New Zealand’s professional service suppliers’ ability to deliver services in Malaysia—that is, people like architects and insurance companies. New Zealand provides access duty-free for about 72 percent of imports from Malaysia, and under the free-trade agreement this will increase to 90.8 percent this year, graduating to 100 percent by 2016.

Only one area of the agreement, I felt, could have been more rigorously negotiated, and that was the area of company ownership. Any Malaysian company is allowed to buy 100 percent of a New Zealand company—and Opus construction would be a very good example of that—but the Malaysians have given us the capacity to buy only 70 percent of a Malaysian company. I think that as we look into the future and at other free-trade agreements, we could think about a greater principle of reciprocity, and that was something acknowledged by the committee.

With those few words, I tell members that it is very pleasing to bring this legislation back to the House without any amendment; I commend it to the House for passing. Thank you.

Am I wrong? Have we just heard from the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee? I know it is late and he is probably tired. It is probably past his bedtime, but, goodness me, that was the most lacklustre speech I have heard in this House for a long, long time. Jonathan Coleman is very lucky, because we thought his speech was bad, but then John Hayes stood up and Jonathan Coleman’s speech looked fantastic. His speech was a piece of oratorical art, compared with that member. It was outstanding. John Hayes stood there; it was a long, low, cold, boring, quiet monologue about nothing. We try to listen to some of these speeches because some of these things are quite interesting. They are in the national interest. The Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill is good for New Zealand; it is great for New Zealand. It is not like some of the other bills. They are important, but this is good for New Zealand. It is good for trade and it is good for the economy. The chair of the select committee—I think he was standing; it was hard to tell—spoke in a low, quiet monotone. It was painful. Thank God that is over! Thank God we are almost at the end of the night. It was like pulling nails.

I do stand in support of the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This is the fourth bill that I have spoken on today that is Labour legislation. This is something that Phil Goff did. This is Jim Sutton’s work. This is, in fact, the third bill in a row that Labour has done all the work for. It is unbelievable. We are in urgency 18 months later on Labour bills. Where is the innovation? National members have the nerve to say that Labour did nothing in Government, yet we are on the third bill in a row that was a Labour bill.

This bill amends the Tariff Act 1988—

💬 John Hayes: He’s worse than his Uncle Walter.

The member has come to life! It is about time. Why did he not do that 5 minutes ago? As I was saying, this bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 in order to implement the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur last October. The bill’s amendment will allow for transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances to imports from Malaysia. [Interruption] The member has no right to criticise anyone’s speech, yet he is sitting there doing so. It is unbelievable. Someone should send him the YouTube clip or wherever the debate is shown and show him how bad his speech was. I think he needs a few lessons.

Malaysia has a large and growing population of more than 28 million people and it presents ample opportunities for additional trade, investment, and other economic linkages. We all know that if New Zealand is to develop sustainable economic growth, then it must follow a policy of export-led growth like that promoted with this agreement. It must work to foster an economic environment whereby key competencies around export strategy are encouraged in any way, shape, or form. Mr English has stated that it is his Government’s goal to drive an export-led recovery, and I quote: “We’re looking for how to make sure we get a sustainable, export-led recovery.” In my view, three things are holding back New Zealand companies from optimising their export growth in countries we have free-trade agreements with like Malaysia, which this bill fosters. The Government’s actions are increasingly suboptimising any chance New Zealand has of increasing its economic growth through further development of the export sector into countries like Malaysia, which this free-trade agreement is about. There are three things holding back New Zealand: one, a lack of affordable capital; two, a lack of true export competency; and, three, an outdated monetary policy.

Let me expand on these a little more. The first is a lack of affordable capital.

💬 John Hayes: No, no, don’t bother.

Mr Hayes may learn something. He may have been in foreign affairs for a long time but he did absolutely nothing. It took a Labour Government to negotiate all the free-trade agreements that have been passed since National has been in office. Every single free-trade agreement that has been passed under the National Government is as a result of the work that Phil Goff and Jim Sutton did. How dare the member sit there like a big oaf, going on about how Labour does nothing. They were all done by Labour, and Mr Hayes knows that.

I turn to the lack of affordable capital. Only 10 percent of all business loans are unsecured in this country. That means that 90 percent of all loans are secured against the assets of the owner of the company, often being the family home. This attitude and access to capital will never allow the country to address the issue of the fact that we overvalue capital and undervalue labour in this country. Basically that means that we prefer to employ cheap labour rather than spend money on capital in order to improve productivity. My question is how New Zealand companies wanting to expand and to take advantage of the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement can access affordable capital. Investment in capital does not lead to fewer jobs but, rather, to greater efficiencies, more jobs as companies grow, and, more important, a greater propensity to scale up for export growth into countries like Malaysia, which is what we are talking about at the moment. That is fundamental if the vast majority of companies are to take advantage of this Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

The second thing the Government has suggested it will do is sell Kiwibank. This is the Government-owned bank set up by the last Labour-led Government that by its own admission in the banking inquiry has saved New Zealanders about $1 billion in interest—about $1 billion due to competition—and this Government wants to sell it. Selling Kiwibank will be a huge disservice to the people of New Zealand and to companies in the export business hoping to establish a beachhead in Kuala Lumpur.

💬 John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Selling Kiwibank has got nothing to do with the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. I did indicate to the member to bring it in. The member John Hayes is exactly right, so come back to the subject.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and Malaysia. I think it is a very important agreement. I think it has the opportunity to really grow our economy. But I see that, in terms of optimising this agreement and allowing New Zealand companies to grow, there are three barriers to real market optimisation. They really need to be addressed or this free-trade agreement will really not benefit the vast majority of New Zealand companies that could be in line to do so well out of this agreement.

As I was saying, 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are classed as small to medium enterprises. That means they have 19 staff members or fewer. Very few of these companies can afford to employ full-time international marketing or marketing development managers, let alone open an office in Malaysia, a country with a different language, legal system, and business culture. So we need an agency that is our eyes and ears in the global markets. I ask members to tell me whether this Government is taking any action to help New Zealand businesses make the most of this opportunity in Malaysia. No, it is not. However, let me tell members that Labour understands the value of assisting exporters to get into markets like Malaysia and optimise their ability to take advantage of this free-trade agreement. In its last term, the Labour Government increased New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s funding for market development assistance from $6 million to $54 million. Now there is only just under $10 million available in the International Growth Fund. About 6 months ago I asked the retiring chief executive officer of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise whether his organisation was New Zealand’s international marketing and market development organisation. His response was: “If only.”

The third point holding back New Zealand’s economic and export market development into Malaysia is our current monetary policy. Can anyone in this House tell me how a company can effectively forecast and business-plan when it does not know whether the exchange rate will be at 0.55, 0.65, or 0.75?

💬 John Hayes: Have you heard of forward cover?

They cannot, and if Mr Hayes thinks they can, he should take his head out of the sand. No wonder we had such poor performance when that man was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Goodness me, that is a bloody disgrace! The Labour Party has made a commitment to business to review current monetary policy legislation because we believe that it is not beneficial to New Zealand’s economic growth, it will not allow companies to take advantage of this free-trade agreement, and it is not relevant to New Zealand’s economic future.

The time is now right for change. Business understands that. Labour understands it. The only people in this country who do not understand it are the members on that side of the House. I ask the House who really is the true party of business. Who is the true party of trade? As I mentioned, the work for every single free-trade agreement that has been passed while that party has been in Government was done by Jim Sutton and the Hon Phil Goff, the next Prime Minister of New Zealand and the only future Prime Minister who knows anything about international relations. He has been at the coalface negotiating contracts on behalf of this country.

I support this bill for a variety of reasons, but I ask members to please not confuse my support for free-trade agreements with support for that Government, which lacks any discernable policy that would allow this country to optimise its economic advantage. I commend this bill to the House.

E te rangatū pou mua o te reo o te Whare, tēnā koe. In November 2006 a group of Malaysian non-governmental organisations came across to Aotearoa with the explicit purpose of being able “to learn how the Maori people of New Zealand have brought their culture back from the brink of extinction”. The delegation represented several ethnic minority groups, including four tribal members from the United Saba Bajau Organisation—I apologise if I have the pronunciation wrong. The Bajau people are one of the most well-known populations in what we might describe as the endangered ethnic groups of Malaysia. The Bajau are traditionally seafaring people, and possess an incredible range of skills in the construction of fishing canoes and vehicles. They came here to learn together, and to consolidate and develop a partnership between indigenous peoples.

I raise this experience today because it would appear to me that international exchanges, such as the one with the Bajau community, might be the type of relationship we might expect to see as a benefit of a relationship with Malaysia. The Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill amends the Tariff Act 1998 to implement the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, which was agreed to in Kuala Lumpur on 26 October 2009. It enables the application of preferential tariff rates for imports originating from Malaysia. The bill also amends the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 to give effect to rules of origin applicable to imports originating from Malaysia. Finally, the amendments will enable transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances to imports originating from Malaysia.

I will place this free-trade agreement in some context for the benefit of the House. The Māori Party has previously voted against all free-trade agreements. Our rationale for doing so is that we believe the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of our own local, regional, and national social progress and environmental enhancement. Our key position has been that we support fair-trade agreements as opposed to free-trade agreements. We want to use the opportunity of any trade relationships to advocate also for the support and implementation of indigenous international agreements, such as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, International Labour Organization Convention 169, the Mātaatua declaration, the declarations of the United League of Indigenous Nations, and suchlike. We also seek to establish trade relationships with other First Nations peoples.

We have been approached by Māori businesses in the past that have shared with us their genuine enthusiasm for any opportunity to take advantage of international markets. I think this is where the rubber hits the road for a party like ours, because although some people have contacted us with their deeply held concerns about the impact of free-trade agreements, others also see great potential in arrangements such as this. We speak for those innovative Māori businesses who want to seek new international challenges and develop a position as a significant player in our export growth, but we speak also about our fundamental right to determine our own sovereignty, rather than to surrender it to the march of overseas investors. We stand for the incredible diversity that characterises Māori economic activity, from Māori individuals in the labour market to self-employed people running their own Māori businesses, to tribal and pan-tribal Māori commercial entities.

But we are concerned also about the loss of jobs. We also acknowledge that one of the consequences of the global market is that businesses and workers, including Māori—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)