Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17272] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 In the first reading of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill the Green Party outlined its objections to this implementing legislation for the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement. In the minority report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee there is a summary of the Green Party’s objections. In this second reading speech I want to talk about the timing of this bill and the signing of the free-trade treaty in the light of the pressure that is being put on the Chinese Government internationally to improve its human rights record around the time of the holding of the Olympic Games in Beijing. 
I would like to say in relation to some of Tim Groser’s comments that the Green Party is not against trade with China and it is not against trade agreements with China per se but that we believe it is very bad timing for us now to be signing a preferential trade agreement that gives the Chinese regime advantage at the very time when it is so violating the human rights of its citizens and international attention is on China around the time of the Olympics. It is our view that if enough pressure goes on to the Chinese Government during this period we might be able to give extra leverage to the many millions of Chinese who are trying to achieve greater freedoms. For this bill to go through at this time is a betrayal of the international movement that is pressing for greater democracy in China. 
Let us now look at the background to that international movement. Back in June 2001 when Beijing was trying to get the games its mayor Liu Qi said the games “will also benefit the further development of our human rights”. Jacques Rogge the president of the International Olympic Committee told the BBC on 23 April 2002: “We at the IOC urge the Chinese Government to improve as soon as possible their record in human rights. However the IOC is a responsible organisation and if either security logistics or human rights are not acted upon to our satisfaction then we will act.” There should have been action because the Olympic Charter projects its sporting competition as being “with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” It further states: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race religion politics gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” That refers to belonging to the Olympic movement yet here we are talking about a host country for an Olympic Games. 
Can we really say there is no discrimination on the basis of race when we think of the treatment meted out recently to the Tibetan people; can we say there is no discrimination on the basis of religion when monks are beaten and arrested and when we think of the persecuted Falun Gong practitioners; and can we say there is no discrimination on the basis of politics when we think of the many thousands of people imprisoned in China simply for dissenting with the Government in various ways? But when has there been action from the International Olympic Committee? The main concern of that body seems to be to prevent protests on human rights issues at Olympic venues by athletes or officials or anyone else. The New Zealand Olympic Committee unfortunately has backed the International Olympic Committee on that going beyond the Olympic Charter and even warning New Zealand athletes that a protest could be defined as something that happens at the New Zealand athletes’ accommodation. 
All of that inaction is despite the fact that in some ways the human rights situation in China has become worse in the lead-up to the Olympics. It is worse than it was in 2001 when the Mayor of Beijing made that statement about human rights. It is worse for the Tibetan people. Their peaceful protests back in March were brutally crushed and many monks are still in jail. Freedom of movement—a crucial right—is denied to most Tibetans. The foreign media is largely shut out of Tibet despite the fact that Sun Weijia the head of Beijing’s media operation for the Olympics said on 27 September 2006: “We have no restrictions on travel for foreign journalists in China so once they get the visa they can travel anywhere in China.” That is not the case. Some foreign journalists have been hassled or even arrested for reporting outside acceptable bounds such as reporting on the faith of dissidents. 
It makes a joke of human rights at the Olympics for Chinese democrats like Ye Guozhu Hu Jia and Yang Chunlin to be imprisoned specifically because they stated publicly their intention to raise human rights issues during the Olympics period. They were chucked in jail. A pre-Olympic crackdown on dissenters has been going on—a clean-up as they call it—and we have seen the arbitrary detention of many petitioners human rights activists and the like. We do not know the full details of that and one thing that our Government and the international movement should be demanding is the full details of all of those people and what they have been arrested for. They should also be demanding the release of those people. The media has not been granted access to those details. 
Some of the people who have been arrested both recently and over the years have been treated quite brutally. There is a programme with about 300000 people in it by some Chinese reports called “re-education through labour”. It is forced labour that sometimes involves ordinary prisoners but at other times involves political dissidents and many thousands of members of the Falun Gong organisation in particular whose crime is to insist that their organisation be independent of the Communist Party of China and not be under its control. For that reason they are deemed to be part of an organisation that is illegal and is effectively to be crushed. Some dissidents have been killed. It is clear that in terms of the exercise of capital punishment which is something New Zealand is very much against the Chinese Government is the largest executioner in the world today. 
So this is not the time to be signing a preferential trade agreement with the Chinese Government particularly in the situation where we can make some progress around the time of the Olympic Games. The memorandum of understanding associated with the treaty on labour issues is a very weak one. It just involves discussions between officials if something comes up—not even ministerial meetings as in the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement. There is a reference in the memorandum to the ILO commitments. Those commitments include things like allowing free association of people or unions and being against forced labour being against child labour and being against discrimination in employment. Those things are non-evident in China. There is a very weak provision—much weaker than the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement provision which states: “The Parties respect their sovereign rights to set their own policies and national priorities and to set administer and enforce their own labour laws and regulations.” Well in the case of China that means very weak regulations in terms of protecting labour rights. 
This bill and the treaty it implements are not good for the human rights of Chinese working people. They are not good for the Chinese people as a whole. It is quite the wrong time for us to take this step at a time when our Prime Minister and others should be getting behind the international campaign to help democracy in China.