Carter John: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20615] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will make it very clear for the member who has just resumed his seat and for anybody else who is uncertain. The National Party supports the closer economic partnership agreement. Unlike Labour the National Party supports free trade. We support free trade because it is in New Zealand’s interests to have free trade right around the world. It would be in New Zealand’s best interests if there were no barriers anywhere. Unfortunately Labour is slow in picking that sort of message up and it has taken Labour a long time even to make one agreement. After 5 years Labour has finally got to a low-quality agreement. 
Let me explain why this is a low-quality agreement remembering that the National Party—and other parties in this House I might add—support free trade. Firstly it is interesting that Labour after 5 years has at least managed to get one such agreement on the books. Of course during the election campaign we will see that Labour members will parade it all over the place and be out there banging their chests and saying: “Look what we’ve done for the nation.” Well the fact is that this agreement is low quality and I will explain why. There is a benefit which is that immediately— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What about Singapore? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Who negotiated the agreement with Singapore? National negotiated that agreement and Labour came in and did the final little bit of signing off. But this gentleman to my left Lockwood Smith and the National Government of the time were responsible for the Singapore deal. No matter how one tries to dress it up I tell the member that fact cannot be taken away. It is on the record that that man and the last National Government were responsible for the agreement with Singapore and were responsible for CER. So let us not carry on talking about those agreements; we know where credit for those lie. [ 
Interruption 
] 
If we want to start having some interjections we will have to start talking about low-quality members—or Ministers actually. Then we will start doing the list of those Ministers in this Government who have been tossed out. There is one tossed out at the moment. In fact it makes me wonder whether he is actually out there having a game of tennis right now. 
But I am off the point so I want to come back to the benefit in this agreement which is that 52 percent of the exports to Thailand from New Zealand become duty-free immediately. Right? So that is a plus an absolute plus. That is great. As I understand it currently it is 4 percent? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s only 4 percent. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is only 4 percent currently but it will rise immediately from 1 July—is it? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: 1 July. 
JOHN CARTER 
: On 1 July it will rise to 52 percent so that is a plus. But there are some downsides. Let me talk about those because while the agreement is an advantage there are some downsides. Some of them have been covered already but it is worthwhile just putting them on the record again. There will be a reduction in tariffs on fruit—in fact I understand the tariff will go pretty much to zero for things like avocados cherries persimmons and kiwifruit etc. However there is a “but” about it which is that for some reason this Government has allowed the Thai negotiators to put in a qualification. The qualification—which actually brings to my mind the issue between Australia and New Zealand as far as apples go—is that we have to have a certificate to certify that products such as the aforementioned are free of chemicals. Now that in itself does not sound too big a deal but two things are important with that. Firstly there is a cost associated with the certification and the cost is likely to be more than the amount of the reduction in tariff. So growers are likely to end up being worse off. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker is a man with a fine mind so I tell him that I find it very difficult to understand how that is actually a benefit. 
Something else worries me even more than the fact that the agreement is likely to end up costing growers more—and I bring members back to the Australia - New Zealand apple issue. This Government said that it would get the apple issue sorted out with Australia. Well what has happened? Nothing—absolutely nothing! The Government tells us that because of the way it has negotiated this deal it will be able to make sure the agreement is not an impediment to our growers—to avocado growers to cherry growers to kiwifruit growers— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: To apple growers. 
JOHN CARTER 
:—and to apple growers. Well I have to tell the House—and this may come as a surprise to members—that I have my doubts about the ability of this Government to be able to manage that aspect of the certification the Government has allowed the Thai negotiators to put in there. When any deal puts a barrier up then the pluses are negated in that negotiated deal. That is why at best this agreement can be described as a low-quality agreement. It is not the sort of thing that National or my colleague Lockwood Smith would have negotiated. 
I want to bring the House’s attention to another thing that worries me and it worried me when I first looked at it. It is in the report and comes under the New Zealand National Party’s minority view. It is the issue around article 15.8 of the agreement relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. It concerns me because article 15.8 reserves the right for New Zealand to adopt “measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori … including the fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” The problem with that is: what are the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? What does that mean? Why should we give one group more favourable treatment than others in this country? Are their apples a different shape? Maybe they are a different colour to need some favourable treatment? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh they are all brown. Well that is probably why. If that is so they need favourable treatment but I cannot see that under the obligations in the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Government members of course are all out there wanting to give favourable treatment to one group of New Zealanders and trapping them into welfare dependency instead of saying to them: “Get on your feet like every other New Zealander and make your way in this country.” This lot does not say to the Maori people of this country that they should get on their feet and make their way like all other New Zealanders. This Government puts this sort of absolutely politically correct rubbish in agreements like this— 
Darren Hughes 
: You wouldn’t say that in Northland. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will say that anywhere; I am happy to say that absolutely anywhere. [ 
Interruption 
] You bet! Make no mistake—if that member wants to come up and campaign on my patch he should feel free. If he were to stand beside me in front of the Maori people up there and say that the best thing he would do for them is give them a benefit he would be laughed out of the hall. Because that is all this Government is doing for them—but not the National Party. We are there because we know the Maori people in this country— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the members on my right that Mr Carter is making a hard-hitting speech and although some interjections are acceptable I want to hear what he has to say. He cannot be drowned out. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is unlikely that I will be drowned out but I appreciate your support nevertheless. It worries me that this politically correct Government is out there hankering away to a certain group of people when it should actually be interested in all New Zealanders and in making sure we have every opportunity for every New Zealander. The Maori people in this country are just as capable as anyone else of getting on their feet and doing things. Many of them do and they make their contribution so they do not need that sort of claptrap in agreements like this agreement. 
Quite honestly I also say that a couple of other things are a worry in this agreement and I want to draw the attention of the House to one extra thing before I conclude. National members are concerned that the agreement does not include services. We should be concerned about that because that is a huge part of our GDP. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Two-thirds of our economy. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes it is nearly two-thirds of our economy. Yet all that is in this low-quality agreement made by the Labour Government is that negotiations are to be initiated within 3 years. What does that mean—that someone writes a letter to somebody? It will probably be in Maori under the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi and over there in Thailand they will not understand what it means. This is a low-quality agreement but I remind the House that National supports it nevertheless because free trade is good for the country.