Smith Lockwood: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21408] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is the part that introduces a whole range of transitional safeguard measures. As I mentioned at the second reading this is the first time that such provisions have been entered into New Zealand law in a bill like this. I would really like the Minister for Trade Negotiations to tell the Committee why he and the Government have found this necessary. It will invariably invite a whole new bureaucracy and a rush of bureaucratic procedures. 
Let us look carefully at some of the provisions in Part 2. Let us take for example new section 15F(1)—inserted by clause 7—which enables the Minister to decide to apply a transitional safeguard measure. It states: “The Minister may decide to apply a transitional safeguard measure …” which will be higher tariffs or higher duties for a certain product when there has been an increase in the quantity of that product coming into the country and—I accept that there is an “and”; that an increase in the quantity coming into the country would not be a sufficient reason on its own—it could threaten to cause serious injury. I invite members to really think about that. If this trade agreement is worth the paper it is written on it should result in much-increased trade between New Zealand and Thailand. There will be if it works a big increase in Thai products coming into New Zealand. Some sectors may say that a big increase in products like theirs coming here poses the threat of injury to their industry and off we go. Those sectors will be able to apply to the chief executive of Trade and Enterprise and there will be a whole process of initiating an investigation to establish whether there has been such an increase and whether it does pose a risk of threatening to cause serious injury. 
We have seen this sort of stuff at work around the world. We know that it invites action and litigation. Obviously if for argument’s sake manufacturers in New Zealand are producing some kind of product and they see an increase in imports of it we will get into trouble. The part even tries to define what “like goods” are. One can seek an investigation into a transitional safeguard measure if a “like good” has been imported into New Zealand in increased quantities. We can see the kind of bureaucratic process that this sort of legislation invites. 
New Zealand has never required it before. The Minister could probably say we have not had a bilateral trade agreement with an economy quite like Thailand’s before. I accept that. But why do we want to bring into our legislation this kind of provision? The Minister should be honest with the Committee. First did New Zealand want it or did Thailand want it? Is it in fact just because New Zealand buckled to what Thailand wanted that we are putting this whole bureaucratic process into our law? It is so woolly. We know that the United States has safeguard measures; its procedures invite applications for consideration of safeguard measures and we know the problems that cause the United States Government. Do we want this kind of thing in our New Zealand law? 
There are other issues that I hope my colleagues will also ask the Minister about. Will the safeguard provisions in Part 2 be applied differently to Maori and non-Maori businesses? As our agreement with Thailand reserves the right for us to apply to treat Maori more favourably under the agreement could we see Maori applying for transitional safeguard measures—because Part 2 would enable them to apply for transitional safeguard measures—that non-Maori would not get? The agreement provides for more favourable treatment for Maori. If what I am saying is not correct and not possible the Minister should make that very clear. He should make it unequivocally clear that it would be impossible under the safeguard provisions in Part 2 for Maori to claim using article 15.8 of the agreement special safeguard measures that non-Maori could not achieve.