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:21416] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Madam Chair I think it is time this Parliament had some decent answers from the Minister for Trade Negotiations. As I have just raised a moment ago you accepted the closure motion and the Minister had not given answers to serious questions. My colleague Richard Worth raised the question of why it is necessary to duplicate in a slightly different way the transitional safeguard provisions of World Trade Organization agreements. They have been used by various countries. World Trade Organization agreements supersede bilateral agreements. They apply automatically anyhow. Why was it necessary to introduce them into our law? Even Dail Jones from New Zealand First who is a lawyer pointed out that the provisions in Part 2 of this bill are a lawyer’s dream because of the kind of wording involved. We got no answers from the Minister on that issue. 
So Madam Chair we want some answers out of this Government as we now debate clauses 1 and 2—a general debate covering the whole bill. Madam Chair you cannot get away with it as easily as that because I have also asked very specific questions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will not bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I apologise—I did not realise that I was. But if you tell me I am— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member clearly said “you” to me. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that members should not be bringing you into the debate by referring to you directly as they make their contributions. On behalf of the Opposition all I would ask is this. I have sat in this Chamber for many hours during this urgency period. A raft of members have brought you into the debate at one time or another. During the time that I have been in the Chamber none of those members have been pulled up for that. Dr Smith is one of the most experienced members of Parliament in this Chamber and all I would ask you—[ 
Interruption 
] Well you can sigh Madam Chairperson but all I would ask is that the same rule is applied to all members of Parliament. Given that you have stated that matter I will now be listening for any member bringing you into the debate and raising points of order accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank that member for his comments. The member did bring me into the debate most inappropriately and also contested a ruling. I would certainly warn members not to do that. I take the member’s point. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would appreciate your making it clear to me how I contested your ruling. I made it very clear that I could not do that—that your acceptance of a closure motion was something that could not be contested. I sought your advice as to what guided your judgment which I believe we are entitled to do because this is a parliamentary democracy not a dictatorship. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please continue. I have given my ruling. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Let me come back to the bill that we are debating. We expect some answers from the Minister because there are important issues. I have mentioned those raised by my colleague Richard Worth in respect of Part 2 and I want the Minister to cover the issue around the Treaty of Waitangi. We know that it embarrasses the Government. We know that it is contrary to what Trevor Mallard told the people of New Zealand. We know what Trevor Mallard told the people of New Zealand after the public had made it so clear following Don Brash’s Orewa I speech that they did not like the Treaty of Waitangi being used in a way that would confer preferential treatment on Maori. The public of New Zealand made it very clear that they wanted all New Zealanders treated the same before the law. 
I want the Minister to tell us where the clauses in this bill give effect to what he has agreed. He signed article 15.8 which states specifically: “… 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 …” and obviously covered by this bill which gives effect to the agreement. I ask the Minister what that means. So far the Minister’s explanations to this Committee have made no sense at all because the issue is more favourable in respect of other New Zealanders. What does the Government have in mind in terms of intending to confer more favourable treatment on Maori compared with other New Zealanders? If there are issues in this agreement and in this legislation to stop Thai investors being given some advantage that is fine. But that should apply to all New Zealanders. I want to know from the Minister and I think New Zealanders want to know from the Minister what that means. What does the Government have in mind given that Trevor Mallard said that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the Government? What does that mean when the Minister has signed an agreement and the Government has signed an agreement that reserves the right to implement measures they deem “necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori”? 
I think the people of New Zealand deserve a response to that—the Minister’s attempts so far have been more to fudge the matter than to clarify precisely what the Government has in mind and precisely which obligation under the treaty it feels is involved here—because then the matter would be put to rest.