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:21397] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is the part that actually implements the negotiated preferential tariff schedule if one likes for Thai products coming into New Zealand. It is an essential part of this bill. Our law does have to be amended to enable that negotiated tariff agreement to be put into it. So I make it very clear that National is totally supportive of Part 1 because it is absolutely essential to implement that agreement. Having said that—that we are totally supportive of it—I think it is important we understand the pluses and minuses that Part 1 will make available for New Zealand. 
I will deal with the pluses first. Although this bill does not cover exactly what happens for our products in Thailand—a similar piece of legislation to this will do that in Thailand—it is important to realise that the laws that implement negotiated tariffs have a big impact. For example for New Zealand exporters to Thailand 52 percent of our exports will be duty-free as soon as this agreement is given effect to and as soon as legislation similar to Part 1 of this bill is passed in Thailand compared with 4 percent now. That is a big plus. That is why National is so supportive of trade liberalising legislation. There are big pluses like that for our horticultural exporters most of whom face 30 to 40 percent tariffs—people such as kiwifruit exporters. Those tariffs will be eliminated and that is very important for our industry. 
I would ask the Minister—if he could explain this under this part because I cannot see where else in the bill we can really address this—to explain a little more about where we have got to in terms of making sure our horticultural exporters do get meaningful access to Thailand. The reason that has become an issue is that Thailand brought in a new provision reasonably recently that requires people to certify that horticultural products are free of I think three particular chemicals. The costs of the testing for those chemicals and the costs of the certification for that may well match if not exceed the tariff reductions that are being achieved. I realise that I am running a bit of a risk in asking this question but I see this part as being the only part where the Minister could elaborate on that matter a little further. 
The Minister said in his second reading speech—if I heard him correctly—that Thailand had agreed to defer those requirements for a period of time. I would appreciate the Minister making it more clear exactly how long that period is and exactly what has been done to make sure a process is put in place to have those requirements ultimately removed. Obviously this agreement and the legislation we seek to pass right now is really nullified in large part if those kinds of non-tariff barriers—I mean it is exactly that kind of non-tariff barrier that has kept our apples out of Australia. We want to make sure that as we pass this legislation we will not be caught up in similar non-tariff barriers in Thailand. It would be helpful if the Minister could just enlarge upon what he said during the second reading phase. I accept that you Mr Chairman could rule that he cannot do that but I do not see another part of this bill where he could do so. I think the Minister’s advice on that issue would be very helpful for members in understanding the full implications of this legislation. 
I have already pointed out that although we totally support Part 1 I do have a concern that the schedule of tariff reductions that we will be implementing with this legislation takes New Zealand beyond its 2010 commitment under APEC. That is a huge shame. I disagree with Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne said in his second reading speech that in these trade negotiations we should try to get away with what we can and find out what we have to give up in order to get what we want. It is not like that. I have done a lot of trade negotiation work. In fact we ought to be saying that we do not want to have any of that stuff around the New Zealand economy anyhow. It is all bad for us. Unilateral trade tariff elimination makes a lot of sense. In a lot of the trade tariff negotiation work I have done in the past a lot of effort has gone into helping other countries to understand how maintaining those barriers is actually an impediment to their own economies. They actually suffer from maintaining those barriers. I do not think that old-style trading is a great way to proceed in negotiations.