Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against this legislation to implement the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement. On the surface this bill enabling the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement to go ahead would seem to be a good democratic implementation similar to some of the other legislation we pass in this Parliament. But that is not actually true. 
If we look at the reality we see that the treaty itself—and I have a copy here—is about 10 centimetres thick and that it has memorandums associated with it; the bill itself is a small 15-page bill. The average person would ask himself or herself how such a small bill can implement such a huge document. The truth is that although it might technically bring the treaty between New Zealand and China into compliance and enable it to proceed it does not cover any of the substantive issues in the treaty—the issues that we have been debating in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee this morning and that we will continue to debate this afternoon. 
This bill is just a technical bill specifying definitions of certificates of origin and with a couple of bits on electrical safety standards whereas the select committee this morning had the Business Roundtable along to discuss the phase-out of tariffs to zero. None of that is covered in the bill. It is a very controversial debatable area—in the Greens’ view—in terms of how it will affect what is left of our industry and how it will undermine what is left of our industry. Then the select committee had members of Amnesty International along and they did a profound analysis of the inability of this treaty to address in an adequate way labour standards in China; either to improve them or to stop the products of prison detainees—either actual prisoners or dissenters detained under the “re-education through Labour” scheme that is run in China—from being imported into New Zealand.  
Then Russell Norman the co-leader of the Green Party presented a submission from the Green Party addressing the fact that the provisions in the investment chapter of the treaty undermine New Zealand’s sovereignty. Such matters as the emissions trading scheme which Parliament has been debating this week could be defined under this treaty as indirect expropriation if it were deemed that the decision of this Parliament on the emissions trading scheme undermined the profits of a Chinese investor here in New Zealand. That matter would go to an international tribunal which could rule that New Zealand had to pay many millions of dollars of compensation etc. for affecting the profits of that company. As was pointed out this morning in the select committee the phraseology in the treaty is that measures by the Government of New Zealand that are disproportionate to the public interest can constitute acts of indirect expropriation. There are other provisions about how any State action—or parliamentary action in this case—has to be reasonably justified. If it is not a party that considers that it has been offended against—in this case the Chinese Government—can run off to an international tribunal which can make decisions that override the sovereign powers of this Parliament. 
These are very profound questions but members will not find anything about them in this legislation that we are debating today. I think New Zealanders will actually be quite upset that their democratic rights are being undermined; that this treaty which is not actually being voted on by this Parliament contains penalties for this country and can directly affect the welfare of the people of this country. It does add insult to injury that we will not have a vote on it. I had a member’s bill on this matter—the International Treaties Bill—a few years back. It was finally defeated in Parliament in 2002. It would have given Parliament the power to approve treaties which is not the case now. 
Annette King who is in the House today was answering a question for the Minister of Trade a few weeks back just before the treaty was brought before the House. I was quite pleasantly surprised at her answer. In my question I said: “the House will not be approving this treaty because treaties are approved by Governments according to our system and in that although there will be some implementing legislation we will see as was the case with past free-trade agreements like the Thailand - New Zealand free-trade agreement for example—where the legislation was minimal and it just stated there would be a preferential tariff and the details would be worked out by Cabinet later—that any select committee involvement is purely advisory?”. The Hon Annette King replied: “No I do not agree with the member. This House will decide on whether there is a free-trade agreement … at the end of the day. I believe that most members in this House will vote for it.” I thought: “Oh good we’re going to get a vote on this treaty.” But when I asked the Minister of Trade Phil Goff the same question a few days later he reiterated that the procedure would be that the Government would decide. He said that all that would happen here would be that the select committee would have a look at the treaty and come up with some report. This very thin legislation is the only chance we have actually to decide anything. 
I do not think that is good enough. I think Doug Woolerton the previous speaker was quite right. This treaty is about saving face for the Chinese Government. In practice that is what it is. That might not be the intention of the New Zealand Government but in practice this treaty provides some credibility to the Chinese Government at a time when it is facing criticism around the world about particularly its repression in Tibet. I find it strange that Wayne Mapp in an earlier speech said that criticising what the Chinese are doing in Tibet only creates xenophobia. A chap called Adolf Hitler accused people of xenophobia when they criticised the lack of democracy in his country. I do endorse the good things that the Chinese Government does. I moved a motion yesterday in this Parliament praising the Chinese Government for mobilising support for the victims of the recent earthquake in China. We have to be even-handed but we must recognise that China is a one-party State that crushes all opposition. 
This treaty is about supporting the business elites. It is not about supporting the Chinese people. In the case of the international tribunals that can override our sovereignty it is the business elites that will be deciding and will be overriding the diversity of viewpoints in both this Parliament and the world community. Those business elites have a viewpoint that is not necessarily the view of many people on this planet—people in the Green Party for example on genetic engineering. If New Zealand’s continuing to ban genetic engineering affects the profits of a Chinese firm in New Zealand that is in favour of genetic engineering that would be defined by the business elites around the world as being in the words of the treaty not reasonably justified or disproportionate to the public interest. 
The treaty that this bill technically implements is not democratic. We need a much more thorough discussion of the implications of this bill and of the treaty as a whole. We may not do that this year but I think that as the parliamentary process continues and as the debate on addressing this democratic deficit in our system continues we perhaps will become more like some other countries where Parliament does approve treaties. That democratic process perhaps would come up with a better outcome than we seem to be heading towards with this treaty. Thank you.