Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17364] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you very much Madam Chair but I would draw to your attention that there is a mirror-image process going on in the Chinese system so that the two sides of the telescope actually connect in the middle. It is of course a minor point. I will address the question that you put to the Chamber which is the question of Part 3. I would particularly like my colleagues in the New Zealand First Party the Maori Party and the Green Party who oppose this bill to look at this document:  
New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement (And Associated Instruments): National Interest Analysis 
. I doubt that anyone in this House with the exception of those on the select committee will have taken the time to go through that document and to work out what it is talking about. I would particularly like to draw Mr Brown’s attention to page 15 and paragraph 3.1.4 of that document which talks about the need to make sure that our technical regulations in New Zealand—that is that the electricity supply will be 240 volts and so many cycles and have so much insulation—do not constitute a significant barrier to trade in a similar way to tariffs. 
Without formal arrangements it is difficult to engage with other countries at that technical level which is why this bill includes Part 3. What we are trying to say here is that our technical experts in China and in New Zealand need to have a mechanism for meeting together to discuss issues between them. In my electorate where people have recently invented a machine for monitoring milk production through the use of electronic eartags so that for example one can predict mastitis before it becomes a clinical problem one needs to get people on both sides of this trade agreement having common rules and understanding that this equipment satisfies rules in China. If the Chinese people feel they do not then one needs a mechanism for dealing with the debate. Because of that we have to make amendments as required here in Part 3 to the Electricity Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. 
This is the Radiocommunications Act part of the arrangement and it is to create regulation making powers to enable legal action to be taken against people who do not fulfil the requirements of international obligations while purporting to do so and to provide for the seizure sealing or impounding of products in cases of non-compliance with the requirement of the two Acts including in relation to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. This is done in part by Order in Council and also by the Radiocommunications Act 1989. It will enable legal action to be taken against people who break the rules. That is the function of this legislation that we are debating now. It is in the New Zealand communities’ interests to do this. [ 
Interruption 
] I realise that Mr Brown does not have any constituents at least in an electorate sense but I can assure him that if he was an electorate MP like me and if he talked to people and represented their views he would know that Part 3 is a significant benefit to them. I urge New Zealand First members to really think about what they are doing here and to support this element of the bill even if they do not support the whole concept. Opposing this is actually working against the interests of every New Zealander. That is why I say to Mr Brown 80000 people have left the country in the last 12 months—45000 of them to Australia. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Back to the bill please. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is because we have poor government. That is why in Part 3 we are acting to make sure that our community has good rules and that the community will feel good about living under them. People feel threatened by this legislation we are passing but I say to them that there is no need for that. If those who opposed the bill had actually read this national interest analysis they would see that there is absolutely no way one could oppose Part 3. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 3 be agreed to.