Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21400] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 A number of questions have been raised. I will deal first with the question raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith which was also raised I think by Dail Jones. Those members asked where we have got to on the issue of the Thai sanitary and phytosanitary provisions announced recently. Even though the issue is not really strictly speaking dealt with in this bill the question was not ruled out of order before so I guess the answer will not be either. I can say that the proposed new Thai regulation known as regulation 11 would if fully implemented impose a new testing and certification regime on a range of 16 food products including many of interest to New Zealand. In respect of implementation it will apply to all countries exporting to Thailand. Implementation is now scheduled for 30 June. 
Since the proposed regulation was first notified late last year New Zealand has expressed its opposition to it in a number of ways directly to the Thai authorities in Bangkok and in the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in Geneva. During the week of the signing of the Thai closer economic partnership in Bangkok which was on 18 April there were meetings between myself and the Thai Minister of agriculture and one also with the Thai Minister of Commerce and a meeting between the respective Prime Ministers. That has resulted in an undertaking from both Thai Ministers to work with New Zealand towards recognition of New Zealand’s systems as being equivalent to Thai systems for the application of regulation 11—in other words for Thailand to accept our inspection and certification of goods exported from New Zealand. 
There is I must say preferential access for New Zealand fruit and vegetables into Thailand and that is a special benefit for New Zealand under the closer economic partnership. New Zealand is therefore in a position of advantage ahead of other suppliers to Thailand whatever the outcome on the proposed new testing regulation. China which already has a closer economic partnership with Thailand has a similar advantage to New Zealand but is in the Northern Hemisphere so it does not have the out-of-season advantage that we have. I think the fact that our officials now have a meeting with the Thai authorities on 23 June demonstrates that the bilateral sanitary and phytosanitary committee that has been set up for this sort of eventuality looks as though it will be able to do its job. So we are hoping for a happy outcome in that respect. 
I would like to thank Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith for his support for Part 1 and for the tariff reductions. However I cannot support his criticism of the Hon Peter Dunne’s remark about the negotiating realities—that agreements like this always involve compromise. I think there can be no doubt that that is so. The National Party spokesman should understand negotiating realities. After all he had the experience—in fact this was the sole success of his 9 years I think as trade Minister—of agreeing to commence negotiations with Singapore with whom New Zealand already had duty-free access for all goods except beer. Now despite that those negotiations were stuck. They were going nowhere at the change of Government. We have got there. I suppose Dr Smith would consider the highlight of his trade negotiations career to be his attendance at the Seattle conference which is a bit like a British general believing the highlight of his military career was attendance at the Dunkirk evacuation. It was really however one dresses it up retrospectively an unmistakable defeat and failure. 
John Carter raised the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi clause. That clause preserves the right of any Government of New Zealand to implement policies of its choice in relation to Maori and to fulfil treaty obligations without being obliged to offer equivalent treatment to overseas entities provided that of course the New Zealand policies do not act as a disguised restriction on trade or investment. To leave that clause out as National advocates would be to commit New Zealand taxpayers to provide the same benefits to any overseas company investing in New Zealand that it may provide by way of assistance to Maori iwi hapu or whanau. So all I can say is that National so hates the indigenous people of New Zealand that it would condemn New Zealand taxpayers to paying extra taxes forever to overseas investors in order to leave any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi out of any future trade agreement. That is notwithstanding the fact that National put an almost identical clause in trade agreements—into the General Agreement on Trade in Services which is part of the World Trade Organization treaties. It was an almost identical clause which of course National cribbed from one of the many countries that also have clauses to protect the interests of their indigenous people in such treaties. So I do not think we need to worry about that matter. 
The member Dail Jones asked why we are allowing trained Thai chefs and massage therapists to come to New Zealand to ply their professions. Well I say to him that firstly a good Thai therapeutic massage probably would not do him any harm and a good Thai meal cooked by a professionally trained Thai chef would not do any of us any harm. This agreement introduces to Thailand through its support of those iconic Thai crafts the concept of trade liberalisation in services. 
Dail Jones 
: Who wrote that? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I can reassure the member that if any New Zealanders want to train as Thai massage therapists or as Thai chefs then I am sure that can be arranged. They can go to Thailand and sign up for a course although those courses are not to be taken lightly. The member would need to commit himself to extended concentration and hard work which is probably something he has not had to do very much of in recent years. 
I think that that addresses the serious questions that have been raised so far.