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:21405] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I had wanted to take a call following the contribution from the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Sutton just a few minutes ago. What concerned me was that the Minister appeared to seek to misrepresent to the Committee what the Thai trade agreement stated. What he read out in response to the challenges around the article relating to the Treaty of Waitangi was a very selected part of that article in the agreement. I was so concerned that I sent back to my office for a copy of the agreement because I thought that what the Minister said to the Committee must be right and that I must be wrong in what I had alleged the agreement contained. I now have a copy of the agreement right here with me and what it states is somewhat different from what Mr Sutton read out. 
I want to quote the agreement absolutely. It concludes with this statement: “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 including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” I think we have a right to know what on earth that means. What the Minister read out to the Committee just a few minutes ago was not that part of the article at all. What does it mean? In relation to Part 1 does the Minister intend that on items relating to Maori business and Maori trade the Government reserves the right to impose more favourable tariffs for Maori businesses? I think the Minister should tell the Committee exactly what that means. 
What are the Government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in respect of trade agreements? The Minister said to the Committee a moment ago that without this clause it would have to extend to Thai business people or to Thai businesses or investors the same rights as any Maori person. What about any other New Zealander? Whatever is required to protect the interests of New Zealand ought to apply to all New Zealanders. That is the bit we are trying to get at. The Minister in the chair Jim Sutton should explain to the Committee exactly what he intends to do with this article. What he quoted to the Committee a moment ago was a very partial representation of the article. The bit we are really concerned about is the bit I read out which is the entire second half. No words at all were left out. We want to know exactly what it means because we do not know what this Government believes its obligations are in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi in trade matters with regard to this legislation including Part 1. What is it that the Minister may be seeking to do with this clause in relation to Part 1? If it is not Part 1 is it Part 2? Is it that in fact safeguard measures will be imposed? I think the Minister should make clear exactly what is in his mind because he agreed to this agreement. 
New Zealanders have a right to know what the Government means when it says it reserves the right to accord more favourable treatment to Maori. All New Zealanders have every right to feel insulted by that. Maori have every right because they are not inferior and do not need more favourable treatment. I know that the Minister will say National did that previously. I accept that. I say we were wrong. It is no use going back to that. I say National made a mistake in including that kind of clause in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. I absolutely accept that. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: You’re wrong now. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If the Minister is saying we were right then but are wrong now I want him to explain to the Committee exactly what “more favourable treatment” he intends Maori should have and exactly what this Government sees are its obligations under the treaty. At Victoria University in July last year his colleague Trevor Mallard said that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government. Who is right—Trevor Mallard the Coordinating Minister Race Relations or Jim Sutton Minister for Trade Negotiations? They cannot both be right because this agreement reserves the right to confer more favourable treatment but Trevor Mallard says that that is contrary to Government policy. We want to know who is right.