Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21387] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The speech made by the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith was excellent. He was highly critical of the bill. New Zealand First is opposed to the bill and Dr Smith reinforced New Zealand First’s view that we should oppose it. I do not think the member said anything in favour of it. He was highly critical of it and gave good reasons why we should not support it and I endorse everything he had to say. He has confirmed New Zealand First’s view that we should oppose this legislation. 
I should perhaps mention in passing seeing as the previous two speakers have referred to it the issue of apples. I raise with the Minister for Trade Negotiations Jim Sutton that the answer he gave me in the House yesterday was not consistent with the facts in so far as apple leaders are concerned. He gave a clear indication to the House that all the apple leaders supported this dispute with Australia going to the subcommittee. My understanding is that that is not the case. They want this dispute on apples to go to the disputes committee. In due course this matter will be taken further in the appropriate way unless the Minister reconsiders quite promptly the statement he made to the House yesterday. 
New Zealand First is concerned in terms of this legislation about the workers of New Zealand. Today we have not heard Labour members mention workers at all because they really do not care about them. Clayton Cosgrove gave an apology of a speech that was really based on an attack on Dr Lockwood Smith and offered nothing positive. Mr Cosgrove gave the impression that he was concerned about the delay in bringing a new brand of beer into New Zealand. Perhaps he wished to try it and was concerned that it was not getting here fast enough so as soon as he came into Government he allowed it to come into New Zealand so he could give it a try. That seemed to be the basis of his whole speech. Surely Labour members can do better than that. 
But let us talk about workers. I read in the national interest analysis in reference for a change to the disadvantages—the officials quite properly set out advantages and disadvantages—the statement: “The clothing footwear and carpet sector where the highest tariffs of 17-19 percent prevail has traditionally been the most sensitive to tariff reductions. Concerns in relation to imports from Thailand were also raised in respect of whiteware plasterboard steel and certain textiles.” New Zealand First is concerned about the future of New Zealand’s clothing industry footwear industry carpet sector and whiteware plasterboard steel and textile industries. For the reasons outlined in our minority view which were confirmed I believe by Lockwood Smith we are opposed to this legislation. I think the words used by Dr Smith were that this is a poor-quality deal and it is a very minor one in so far as New Zealand trade relations and import and export trade are concerned. In New Zealand First’s view we should not be setting an example as being anti - New Zealand workers so soon in any trade negotiations. 
 I have looked at the December 2004 statistics on New Zealand exports to Thailand and imports from Thailand. The top 20 exports to Thailand in 2004 were worth $297 million. Of that almost $255 million came from dairy products and suchlike. That is to be commended as is the fact that we are moving into the baby food area. Asian people—and I was born and brought up in Asia and came here when I was 15—do not eat or drink dairy products. Dairy food is alien to them in general. It is excellent that our exporters are targeting the baby food market so that those consumers can literally grow into it and the market can constantly grow. 
Regarding our imports from Thailand I know now why the Labour Government wants to support this legislation. We know that Labour does not care about the workers any more. In the reign of Louis XVI Marie Antoinette said of the starving workers words to this effect: “Don’t worry about them; if they can’t eat bread give them cake.” I see from the trade statistics that we are importing $21 million worth of caviar from Thailand. It seems to me that the Labour Government’s new saying to the workers might be: “If you can’t get a beer or a decent meal eat caviar; we’ll get it for you from Thailand.” That is the way things seem to be working. The Labour Government does not care about New Zealand workers at all any more. It can buy off a certain group of people with benefits and suchlike. Whether in relation to a trade deal or in any other area the Labour Party does not seem to have any regard for workers at all. The things that are coming in from Thailand at the moment include $121 million worth of trucks and vans air-conditioning machines and suchlike. A lot of those things come in duty-free already. 
Dr Lockwood Smith from National said that this was a poor-quality agreement. One does wonder why we are spending so much time on something like this. Why did we bother to get into a deal with Thailand at all bearing in mind that some things like services are not covered at all that so many parts of the agreement do not start until 2015 and that some start dates are even extended to 2025? 
I want to take up the point raised by Dr Lockwood Smith as to why we must bring a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi into this bill. Why does article 15.8 of the agreement reserve the right for New Zealand to adopt “measures it deems necessary to afford more favourable treatment to Maori … including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.”? What is this fetish on the part of the Labour Government and its supporters that when we get into trade deals with places like Thailand and Singapore we must somehow bring in our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? Are our importers supposed to take this into account when they are dealing with Thai people? Is that why caviar exports from Thailand will increase—because sturgeon was not fished by Maori people in days gone by? 
Other aspects of this bill should of course be borne in mind. New Zealand First has been very concerned about the constant arrogant attitude of the Labour Government. The Prime Minister signed this agreement before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had finalised its deliberations on the national interest analysis and certainly before the passing of this bill. We have a bill before us by which Parliament is to ratify the agreement but the Prime Minister has already signed the agreement—weeks ago in Thailand. What is the point of coming here if that is the arrogant attitude Prime Minister Helen Clark constantly adopts towards New Zealand? She does not really care about this Parliament. She does not care about what happens here whether it is a matter of social engineering legislation or of any other type of legislation. This agreement with Thailand has already been signed. The Prime Minister had a grand TV opportunity. How the Prime Minister loves her television opportunities! She has breached the  
Cabinet Manual 
 as well. In New Zealand First’s view the Labour Government has breached the  
Cabinet Manual 
 because this matter was considered by the select committee for only 13 working days not 15 working days. The Government’s whole attitude to this legislation has been cavalier and arrogant. It shows absolutely no regard for this Parliament whatsoever. 
I take Dr Lockwood Smith’s point on the service industries. That is an excellent reason why we should not pass this bill bearing in mind New Zealand’s achievements in this area. The national interest analysis notes some of the disadvantages to New Zealand in entering a closer economic partnership with Thailand. On page 22 is an unusual insertion: “The broader negotiation involved New Zealand meeting some specific Thai interests such as in the area of temporary employment for specialist Thai chefs and potentially traditional Thai massage therapists. The access for specialist Thai chefs to work temporarily in New Zealand subject to certain conditions is not however expected to displace New Zealand workers. Care will be taken to ensure the integrity of any system for temporary employment access ultimately offered for traditional Thai massage therapists.” If we look around Auckland Wellington or wherever we very soon find out just what a traditional Thai massage therapist is. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not in my party. 
I just say that this is a very unusual piece of legislation. It is a poor-quality bill and New Zealand First will not support it.