Worth Richard: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21403] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. But for those who have been listening to the debate there are reservations to be entered in respect of the treaty itself. 
I start by recording my disappointment that the Minister who has a particular responsibility for this bill Minister Sutton has used speaking time in this Chamber to launch petty and personal attacks on National members. In doing that he damages his reputation in the trade area. 
I want to pick up two points that I think are relevant and significant in the context of the debate on this part. The first has been identified by others and it is that in the trade treaty itself article 15.8 reads in part: “nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
We should not I would say be including in trade treaties such affirmative action provisions. I am not blaming the Minister for that. He may have some responsibility but it is a comment more directed at the trade negotiation team who should surely have thought more carefully about the appropriateness of including such provisions. That is the first thing. 
The second comment is that an aspect of merit in the trade treaty is the dispute resolution provisions. There is a detailed code broadly patterned on what we saw in the New Zealand - Singapore agreement. It stands in very marked contrast to what is in our Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement where the only obligation is an obligation of “consultation”. As others have pointed out in a wider context we have running-sore disputes with Australia that remain unresolved. The apples dispute is the classic illustration of that going right back to 1922 I think when it started. 
It is also appropriate to reflect on the incredible acceleration in the world trade community of the growth in bilateral and regional treaties. As I understand it a count by the OECD’s trade directorate quite recently identified 142 bilateral and regional agreements a third of them concluded in the past 3 years. At the point that the count was done another seven awaited ratification and the OECD indicated that another 50 were planned of which more than 30 involved countries in Asia. 
So we have these regional initiatives going on these World Trade Organization initiatives and they are buttressed by bilateral initiatives. The Minister has made specific comment on this. I note that he said in a speech to the Singapore Institute of Policy Studies on 27 November 2001: “The WTO provides the broad framework of rules for international trade and a forum for pursuing trade liberalisation at a global level. But high-quality CEPs deepen economic interaction. When they are based as New Zealand’s are on the multilateral framework they can also provide guidance on the direction in which the multilateral rules should evolve.” 
Well the argument is—and National has advanced this argument—that this is not for reasons we have indicated a high-quality closer economic partnership more is the shame. But perhaps the hope is that with a change of Government in September the skills that National can bring to the table with a negotiation team from the ministry will add to the depth of this agreement. 
I have spoken primarily about clause 3 and I now make a final comment on clause 4 because clause 4 provides for the preferential tariffs conferred by the agreement to be implemented for Thailand by providing for such preferential rates of duty to be included in the preferential tariff column of the tariff for application to goods produced or manufactured in Thailand.