Locke Keith: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21389] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to say that we will oppose this bill and we presented a minority report on the bill to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Although this bill has some good features and the agreement will bring some advantages particularly for New Zealand agriculture in terms of promoting and selling agricultural products in Thailand they are outweighed by the disadvantages for the people of Thailand both workers and farmers for workers in New Zealand and for our manufacturing industry which will be undermined by this bill and by the agreement on which it is based. 
I want to go through some of the disadvantages. Firstly will the agreement help Thai workers? The proponents of this agreement and agreements like it say that such an agreement will help the people of the country we are signing it with. They say that it will help these people develop. It is true that Thailand has developed and that it is not the poorest country although the Oxfam analysis that was submitted to the select committee on the closer economic partnership agreement shows a great difference between rich and poor and between the rural and urban sectors in Thailand. Wages are very low much lower than New Zealand wages. 
The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions put out a statement a few months back warning of the risks of trade deals such as this. It referred to the Thai agreement then in preparation. While it noted that the agreement included a process to enable unions to take up complaints about breaches of labour rights in Thailand—which was it said an improvement on the closer economic partnership agreement with Singapore which made no reference to labour issues—it still felt that the agreement fell far short of an enforceable and meaningful process to address breaches of core labour conventions such as the use of child labour and forced labour discrimination and the suppression of union rights. 
The Council of Trade Unions referred to a 2003 study of Thailand conducted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions that reported on forced labour sweatshops the exploitation of illegal migrant workers—including workers involved in the production of clothing for export—and forced prostitution including national and international trafficking in women and girls. Added to that Thailand has not signed and implemented all the core ILO conventions. So there is a serious problem as to whether the workers of Thailand will really benefit from this agreement. 
 The Greens argue that richer nations such as ours have a certain duty to say that if we are going to have trade agreements with other countries we would have to seriously discuss questions like labour standards and the effect of the trade agreements on communities and would try to use negotiations to improve a situation for the workers of that country—in this case Thailand. That has not been done. There are as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions said some improvements over the Singapore agreement in the general text of the treaty but there is nothing at all in the bill itself that will try to make Thailand adherent of labour standards ILO conventions etc. In fact during the Committee stage the Green Party will put forward a number of amendments to try to at least get such provisions in the bill before us today. 
It is not just the question of Thai workers either. There was a very interesting submission from Oxfam New Zealand which I referred to previously to the select committee on the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Treaty. As I said at the beginning there are some advantages for New Zealand in the promotion of dairy exports but the Oxfam submission actually had a section on dairy farmers in Thailand which I found quite interesting. Oxfam of course is looking at the interests of poorer countries and often people in the rural sector in particular. Oxfam said there is a potentially vulnerable sector in Thailand which is dairy on which 60000 Thai farmers and their families are directly dependent. 
Oxfam referred to an Australian study by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia and it quoted a bit from that department: “As for the dairy sector subsequent intense competition under the terms of an FTA would marginalise Thai dairy farmers and thus adversely affect employment.” That is what the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade thinks as they approach fair trade negotiations. They said that perhaps the growing world demand for milk solids might mitigate this and that it was possible that if countries like Australia and New Zealand help Thai farmers improve their dairy industry it would reduce that problem for Thai dairy farmers. They also said that that does not seem to be the case in Thailand because the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade talks about a new Nestlé plant in Thailand for canned milk which will be supplied by Australian imports. 
I think we have to look at that if we are to make our trade policy consistent with our aid policy which is what Oxfam is trying to do. We have to assist small-scale dairy farmers in Thailand alongside developing our own markets there. Oxfam said that the approach of helping Thai farmers should precede any threat to their current livelihoods from import liberalisation. Oxfam was also concerned about making sure Thailand fully implements ILO core conventions particularly in the light of serious breaches of workers’ rights and safety most notably in the case of factory fires. That is illustrative of problems for the Thai people flowing from this agreement in the bill we are discussing today. 
For New Zealand workers there could be significant job losses particularly in the textile and clothing sector where if there are no tariffs at all Thai products could compete very well with their very low wages. That would also undermine our manufacturing industry. It is true there is a transitional provision in the bill. It is not spelt out in terms of years in the bill but if one refers back to the original treaty one can see that this transitional period is for a maximum of 3 years. That is not very long to protect New Zealand workers from the competition of very low-paid Thai workers. So that is not sufficient. 
In closing I reinforce what Dail Jones said which is that it is strange that the select committee was discussing—and in the end approving—this bill after the agreement had actually been signed. I think that shows the need for a provision that came before the House a year or 2 ago when I put forward the International Treaties Bill which required that Parliament should approve international treaties. Parliament should not just be at the end of the process and its consideration is actually being treated as irrelevant by the Government of the day. We need a proper process there. The Green Party is also concerned that services are not included in this agreement yet although there will be negotiations on services. We are concerned that there will be an undermining of our services and of our control of our own services be it health education or Government services if we give to businesspeople in countries like Thailand free entry to our market in that respect. We are very concerned and I think that in total the bill is not one that the Green Party can support.