Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21382] 
Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its work on this bill. I note that the committee recommends by majority that the bill be passed with no amendments. The committee also noted in its report that it had previously examined the full national-interest analysis of the agreement and on that occasion the majority also supported the agreement. 
The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation to enable New Zealand to become party to the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement thereby allowing the agreement to come into force once Thailand has also completed its domestic implementation processes. The agreement provides for all tariffs applying to goods of New Zealand or Thai origin traded between the two countries to be either eliminated immediately or phased out over a scheduled period. Most New Zealand imports from Thailand already enter duty-free under New Zealand’s existing tariff policy. The agreement provides for the remaining tariffs to reduce to zero variously on 1 July 2005 1 January 2008 1 January 2010 or January 2015. 
The agreement also provides for the use of bilateral transitional safeguards by both Thailand and New Zealand. These allow either party to address situations of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to domestic industries caused by increased imports due to tariff reductions or removal under the agreement. Part 2 provides such a mechanism by creating a new regime under the Tariff Act. This regime establishes the right for a New Zealand industry or company that considers it is suffering serious injury as a result of a surge in competing imports from Thailand to ask the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development to initiate a safeguards investigation and revert to a higher tariff level for a certain period. 
The committee addressed several issues that were specific to the content of the bill in particular. The committee considered the consistency of the bilateral safeguard mechanism with World Trade Organization rules. The committee was advised in this regard that the bilateral safeguard mechanism is fully consistent with World Trade Organization rules. The similar strict standards that are currently applied under New Zealand’s global safeguards regime and that are based on World Trade Organization rules also underpin this bilateral safeguard mechanism. 
During the first reading some members raised the issue of new food-testing regulations being proposed in Thailand and the potential effect of those regulations on New Zealand exporters. Although this issue is not directly related to the content of the bill before us and is not part of the closer economic partnership agreement I would like to take the time to confirm to the House that progress is being made towards resolving this important issue. Since the regulation was first notified late last year New Zealand along with Australia and the United States has successfully argued for a delay in implementation to allow time for our trade concerns to be taken into account. When I met the Thai Ministers of agriculture and commerce at the time of the signing of the agreement they gave a commitment to work with New Zealand on recognition of New Zealand’s food safety systems in the application of the proposed Thai regulation. New Zealand’s formal application for recognition of our system has been lodged with the Thai authorities. The New Zealand - Thailand closer economic partnership provides a new avenue to help progress this issue. A special meeting of the bilateral Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures will be held in Thailand on 23 June so that relevant experts can put New Zealand’s case directly to the Thai authorities. That opportunity would not have been available before the agreement was negotiated. 
I should note in response to a point raised during the first reading that under the agreement’s rules of origin only goods of genuine Thai origin will benefit from the New Zealand tariff reductions. Those rules mean that Thailand will not be a back door for preferential entry of goods from other countries. 
At the select committee despite the opportunity to do so no serious evidence was presented to counter the Government assessment that the agreement will not have an adverse overall impact on New Zealand producers. The adjustment effects arising from the removal of New Zealand tariffs on goods imported from Thailand under the agreement are expected to be negligible. First some 65 percent of imports from Thailand already enter duty-free. Second the phase-out arrangements for New Zealand’s more sensitive sectors are very gradual. For sensitive products with a lower tariff such as whiteware existing tariffs will effectively be maintained at current levels before being removed in 2010. Finally adjustment assistance has been made available in the context of New Zealand’s unilateral tariff reductions to help the textiles clothing footwear and carpet sectors build skills and global competitiveness. 
Although the adjustment effects in New Zealand will be limited the opportunities being created for New Zealand exporters in the Thai market are significant. Thailand is a heavily protected market. Tariffs are levied on virtually all imports from New Zealand—many are in the 20 percent to 40 percent range. Under the agreement Thailand will eliminate tariffs immediately on over half of New Zealand’s current exports including most current manufactured exports and progressively phase out the remainder. 
In broader terms this agreement offers the most far-reaching bilateral market opening for New Zealand since CER. As noted in the select committee report the bill will deliver real benefits to many New Zealand industries and will open up opportunities for New Zealand to develop the trading relationship with Thailand to its full potential. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 That was the Minister for Trade Negotiations who has just announced one of the most wimpish actions I have ever heard of as an election sop to apple growers in this country. After years of discussions with the Australians over access for apples that Minister has said—wow—that the Labour Government will have more discussions at the World Trade Organization. The Minister knows that those sorts of things never resolve intractable disputes like this and he should explain to the House why he is not taking dispute resolution action—something with a bit of guts in it—for our apple exporters. 
I come back to the bill. This is the third trade agreement that this country is passing legislation to implement. The first one was CER with Australia which was negotiated by a National Government. It remains—despite the fact that it was negotiated in 1982 more than 20 years ago—one of the world’s highest-quality trade agreements. The second one was the free-trade agreement—or closer economic partnership as this Government calls them—with Singapore. That was largely negotiated as well by the last National Government. In fact I signed the heads of agreement on that one prior to the election in 1999. That is also a very high-quality trade agreement. 
This is the first trade agreement New Zealand seeks to implement that has been negotiated by a Labour Government. It is a low-quality agreement. It is the first one negotiated by any Labour Government and it is a poor-quality agreement. We will support it because it is better than nothing. We made it clear in the debate on the first reading that we will support it because it is better than not having an agreement but it is a poor-quality agreement. Of this country’s GDP 68 percent comprises services businesses and this agreement does nothing to gain access for our services. This agreement does nothing to gain 68 percent of our economy—service industry providers—access to the Thai economy. All it does is say that in 3 years’ time a services negotiation will be initiated. That is not good enough. 
The second problem we have with the agreement is that despite the fact that the Government says its policy is not to have laws that give more favourable treatment to Maori the agreement has in it a reservation allowing it to provide “more favourable treatment to Maori” and National opposes that. I am not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” but I do not know how a Government can claim a policy of not having more favourable treatment for Maori and then in an agreement like this have the exact words “more favourable treatment to Maori”. 
Our third concern is that under this legislation tariffs here in New Zealand will not be phased out in total for Thai imports into the country until 2015. The reason why that is a problem is that the Minister for Trade Negotiations the Hon Jim Sutton who is meant to be one of the leading trade Ministers in APEC has brought into this House legislation that in its effect will breach New Zealand’s commitments to APEC. The APEC Bogor goals that New Zealand has been signed up to for years require us to remove all impediments to free trade by 2010. That is what we signed up to. Labour has never officially resiled from that. If the member for Otaki—who is about to lose his seat because National has a far better candidate than the little feller the fifth-former from Otaki Darren Hughes—thinks Labour has officially resiled from the Bogor goals of APEC he should tell us when that was so that we know that the Government has done so. If the Government has not resiled from the Bogor goals why does this agreement extend beyond those goals? Why does it make a mockery of New Zealand’s commitment to APEC? That is the third reason why we consider this to be such a low-quality agreement. 
Specifically at the select committee—incidentally how long did the select committee have to consider this bill? 
Dail Jones 
: 13 working-days. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The select committee had 13 working-days to consider the bill. One meeting was available and half an hour was set aside for the third trade agreement New Zealand has ever entered into. According to my notes it was on 2 June that the select committee very briefly looked at this legislation. It is too important for such brief examination. 
What National questioned extensively was Part 2. Part 2 puts into New Zealand law for the first time transitional safeguard measures in a free-trade agreement. The Minister for Trade Negotiations has already acknowledged that in his second reading debate contribution. It is a serious move for New Zealand for the first time to put into our law transitional safeguard measures. Those measures by their very nature are complex international trade law measures. I will come back to that. The bit that I wanted to make sure National clarified at the select committee was that some concerns were being expressed by people who are reasonably knowledgable about international trade issues as to whether the measures in this legislation were totally consistent with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade particularly article 24 of that agreement. Clause 8 of article 24 caused the most concern to observers of New Zealand’s trade measures. But the officials at the select committee of whom a number are present in the House right now gave the committee an unequivocal assurance that the specific provisions in Part 2 of the bill that implement the transitional safeguard measures are totally consistent with the requirements of GATT particularly article 24. National members accepted the advice of officials but we make it very clear that we do have some lingering concerns and we are accepting that advice only because the officials were so unequivocal that the provisions were consistent with GATT. 
Let me come back to the fundamental problem with safeguard provisions. Clause 7 inserts new sections 15A to 15H into the principal Act. New section 15B states: “(1) The chief executive may undertake a transitional safeguard investigation to ascertain whether goods that have been subject to tariff reduction or removal after entry into force of the free trade agreement—(a) are being imported in increased quantities …”—and I thought trade agreements were meant to result in increased quantities of items being imported and exported—“and (b) are causing or threatening to cause serious injury”. Members of the House can understand why this is complex law. How does one establish whether something that is being imported in increased quantities is threatening to cause injury to an industry? 
New Zealand has been on the receiving end of punishment from this kind of safeguard provision. Members will have short memories if they do not remember the US lamb tariffs. The US argued that increased export of New Zealand lamb to the United States was injuring or threatening to injure its industry and it imposed tariffs on us. It is complex law. When it is used against New Zealand it can be very damaging. This House should think seriously about the provisions in Part 2. The worst feature is that Thailand reserves the right to impose transitional safeguard measures against our agricultural exports to Thailand. If this agreement is worth anything they should increase under this agreement and therefore we automatically risk safeguard measures being taken against us. 
I think the House should look very carefully at Part 2. During the Committee stage National will examine it in some detail because I can just see all the actions and investigations being taken to implement safeguard measures to the disadvantage of trade between our two countries. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have said a number of times about that member—and I think it is true today—that he makes very angry and sour speeches. I can recall before I became a member but when I worked in this place when international trade issues were generally—on both sides actually regardless of who was in Opposition and who was in Government—treated in a non-partisan way. I have to say that that was a slightly over-the-top sour speech. I suppose it is no wonder given that it was made by a member who will soon become the former trade spokesperson for the National Party when a certain individual Mr Tim Groser enters this place on the Opposition benches. 
We are looking at the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill 2005. If we look at it in the context of this Government’s track record we note that it is interesting that this Government has a superb track record in negotiating deals to the benefit of this country. [ 
Interruption 
] Hold on! Help is on the way. I am coming to it—taihoa. It seems that somebody over there—Mr Carter—is having a bad hair day. This Thailand agreement is projected to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to this country. I would have thought that that would be a non-partisan unarguable issue for both sides of the House. 
Let us look at this Government’s track record in respect of trade and let us look at the Singapore agreement that has been implemented. I was reliably advised before I came into this place that the then National Government spent an inordinate amount of time negotiating an agreement with Singapore. That is fair enough—good stuff. But I am advised that in reality all the goods involved in that agreement were free of tariffs anyway apart from I am told beer. Beer was the only sticking point that National—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member opposite made a very unparliamentary comment and he should withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise. I was sneezing at the time and missed it so would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very difficult in this Parliament to encourage members to tell the truth to the House. I know that you will say that there are mechanisms for doing it and that it is not a point of order to raise this but I have just demonstrated the dilemma. It will go into the record of the House that Mr Cosgrove said that National took a long time to negotiate the closer economic partnership agreement with Singapore. In fact the record will show that it was done in record time—it was done in just a few months. That is the dilemma. When members are careless with the truth there is no way—unless we go through all the rigmarole of personal statements—to bring them back. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is right; that was not a point of order. But perhaps it is a matter that the next speaker for National could clarify for the record. I remind members to stick to the bill. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am obliged that you were sneezing Madam Speaker and not yawning during my speech. 
I come back to the bill and the track record of this Government. The point I was making in respect of Singapore is that I am advised that beer was the only product that could not enter Singapore duty-free. National got hung up and stuck on that—and it took this Government to complete that deal which we have done. We have also entered into the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations between Chile Singapore Brunei and ourselves. We are in negotiations now with China Malaysia and the whole of ASEAN. So I would have thought that if we rack up the report card between Labour and National in respect of our history in trade negotiations we beat them hands down. I invite the next speaker for the National Party in addressing this bill to point to National’s achievements in respect of trade negotiations in 9 long years of Government. If we go back from there we hit my predecessor Mike Moore. His track record in the 1980s stands for itself in respect of trade. 
What does the New Zealand - Thailand agreement do? It opens up yet again hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business opportunities for our people and our businesses. I say to the National members that I would have thought they would agree that this agreement is something we can celebrate. I would have thought they could get beyond politics and not have a sour derogatory and very negative attitude. I think that our diplomatic people who are beyond politics most New Zealanders and most New Zealand businesses are gratified for any sort of free-trade agreement whichever party it comes from because they want to grow their businesses and they want further opportunities. The deal with Thailand will give them those further opportunities. 
It is a little bit rich for National members to stand up and bag an agreement when they belong to a party whose history is one of incompetence and the incompletion of international free-trade agreements. The member mentioned the issue of apples. I recall that National was in Government for nigh on a decade and the question is: what did it do? Well those members have seen some action from us on that issue. I invite National members to revisit their track record in respect of trade negotiations. I am told that the member who spoke before was great at turning up at meetings. Whether he ever got to the green room I do not know. We know that now he will not for two reasons: first he is in Opposition; and second Mr Groser will have his job—and I wonder why Don Brash stabbed the member in the back. 
I ask the member and the next speaker from the National Party to show a little faith and a little bipartisanship and to celebrate what is for New Zealand business for New Zealand jobs and for Kiwis rich and poor old and young and in work and out of work a great opportunity to take advantage of yet another huge market in Asia—a huge market in the world—where we can push our products and services first and earn money for this country. It is a good agreement. I commend the Minister for his work. Let us just get on with it. 
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. 
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. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill and will be voting for it. We recognise that trade is the lifeblood of the New Zealand economy. I acknowledge the good work that Minister Jim Sutton and his officials have done. 
We believe that trade should be a non-partisan issue. It is in the interests of the New Zealand economy as a whole to promote freer trade in a global sense. Obviously like others we would prefer to see multilateral trade agreements. There are serious advantages that multilateral trade agreements have over bilateral agreements. They are fairer in a global sense. If we think about the work—the glacially slow work—made at the Tokyo round followed by at the Uruguay round and now at the current Doha round it is a disappointment for a country like New Zealand to have the agreements stalled but we keep plugging away. Successive Ministers in successive Governments of all persuasions have been consistently promoting New Zealand’s interests at international fora in getting and working for freer trade. Overwhelmingly it is in our enlightened self-interest to do so. 
One of the problems with bilateral trade is that the more powerful nation actually has advantages over the least powerful nation. But it is all progress along the way. This particular agreement with Thailand is not perfect. Other speakers have commented that it has limitations. All trade agreements always will have limitations. But each step is a step towards freer and more open comparative trade. That is why it is certainly in New Zealand’s interests to advocate for freer trade based on comparative advantage and it is for that reason that we have to accept that although we may have an advantage overall there will be adjustments. Some of the adjustments may carry some pain. Certainly if we have areas of quite high protection or relatively high protection—perhaps in clothing and textiles—then we do not have the comparative advantage so yes we may lose some jobs in that sector. But New Zealand First and the Greens have to understand the point that to the extent that the overall New Zealand economy will be stronger other jobs and opportunities will open up that will more than compensate for that. One of the great advantages of trade is that both parties benefit and the collective benefit actually creates greater prosperity not just for the countries involved but for the world at large. A rising tide lifts all boats and that is what freer trade can do. 
The other thing to note of course—and I think I mentioned it at an earlier stage in this debate—is that throughout history no two openly democratic nations that have traded with each other have ever gone to war. I put out the challenge to members to name two openly democratic countries that have traded together that have ever gone to war. One of the best ways of building global securities is actually to open up for trade but the xenophobic arguments from the Greens and New Zealand First are the very arguments that create instabilities and problems in an international sense. 
In the big-picture view I think that one of the greatest obscenities in the world is the way that wealthy nations in Europe and North America insist on free trade in areas where they have comparative advantages based on high-tech goods and the like yet deny developing countries the same opportunity—in fact engage in massive subsidisation and tariff protection against the developing Third World. It just so happens that although New Zealand is not characterised as a Third World nation structurally our economy is more representative of being so with our heavy dependence upon agricultural goods. So it is true that we would benefit but so would some of those poverty-stricken nations of Africa and the like. That is why I take exception to the Greens’ argument that says: “Oh no no. We should give these countries more aid.” and then they come to this House and vote against opening up with trade. 
There is no better way to assist people to lift their standards of living and to gain prosperity than to trade with them. I find it an incredible hypocrisy and contradiction to promote more aid on the one hand but to deny the opening up of trade on the other hand. Yes by our standards some of those countries may well operate sweatshops and employment conditions may be a lot harsher than we would accept but the way to lift those conditions is to open up trade and with growing prosperity those other social standards and the like will rise with it. That has been the experience throughout the ages in all economies. Not to do that is to consign those nations to continuing poverty and everyone effectively is the loser. 
So without hesitation ACT certainly supports this bill. We acknowledge its shortcomings such as the lack of a proper breakthrough in services; I understand that the Thais have agreed only to initiate negotiations in 3 years’ time. I am constantly confused by the Labour Government’s race-based laws if you like. Here we have it again with favourable treatment for Maori. That should not be necessary. All New Zealanders should stand alone. Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course we know that this Labour Government did a similar thing when Maori corporations were given a lower taxation rate. We are actually glad they have a lower tax rate but we would like everyone to have a lower tax rate. We are not against Maori corporations having a tax rate of 19c in the dollar; we believe everyone should have a lower tax rate and there should not be differentiation based on race. To put that into an international trade agreement as we have here is certainly in the eyes of ACT party members a very very strange thing to do. 
Another good area concerns timber. Although we might be affected by clothing carpets and textiles Thailand is potentially a very significant market for New Zealand’s timber particularly sawn timber and other products. I understand that we face some very high tariffs there of 20 to 30 percent or thereabouts. The Minister could perhaps clarify that. This agreement and the conditions the bill creates will certainly be a major breakthrough and favoured by many sectors of the New Zealand economy. 
In conclusion I reiterate that the ACT party will support the bill. We think that it is a quite small step in trade liberalisation but all such steps are supported by the ACT party. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Firstly as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I acknowledge the constructive way in which the committee’s members—although it may not have been all that obvious from the debate this afternoon—participated in the discussions in the committee both on the national interest analysis of the agreement and on this bill. I also acknowledge the support and advice we received from the officials who advised the committee throughout that process. That advice was most appreciated. It led I think to a constructive understanding of the issues and to a report on both the national interest analysis and the bill which is balanced and reasonable in the circumstances. 
The starting point I want to take with regard to this legislation is the picking up of some of the points ironically from the previous speaker. In today’s international environment multilateralism is clearly an opportunity and an option we wish to pursue. But the glacial pace of international trade reform and some of the political difficulties associated with that have led increasingly to nations seeking bilateral agreements particularly within their regional sphere of influence. I think that that is part of a national self-interest and it is no coincidence that in recent years under Governments led by both Labour and National New Zealand has sought to develop closer economic partnership arrangements with Singapore China the ASEAN states and the countries in the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership agreement the Thailand agreement and so on. That is part of our way of ensuring not only the spread of international free trade and the opportunity that goes with that but also the greatest possible opportunity for the people of New Zealand for our manufacturers and our exporters to have the chance to sell their wares in other markets. 
One of the lessons we have learnt over many many years as fortress mentalities and nation States have broken down and as national boundaries have evaporated is that to get the advantage of a deal for us we have to be prepared to make a deal with someone else. That is really at the heart of these types of free-trade agreements. There will be situations where we might quibble about whether the advantage to us is as pure and neat as we might wish but in reality it will always be a compromise—put crudely what we can get away with and how little we have to give up in order to get away with it. That is the tension inherent in all these negotiations. 
New Zealand has to remember a few things as well. We are a very small country isolated and at the end of the world’s trade routes. We will be more price-takers than price-makers. Although we have some natural advantages we have some huge disadvantages that we can do very little about. Consequently in all these negotiations from the time that Ministers of overseas trade—from Jack Marshall onwards—made their annual trudge to Europe over dairy and sheep meat access in the lead-up to the British entry to the European Economic Community right through to the present the New Zealand position has always been to ask how we can advance that New Zealand sense of self-interest; how we make sure that in the global scene the New Zealand case has some recognition. I think that tribute must be paid without exception to our trade Ministers over the years for their patience for their endurance and on the whole for the success they have achieved on behalf of our country in terms of furthering the opportunity for “New Zealand Incorporated”. 
The world changed vastly when the Europeans decided in the 1950s—and I pick up the point about peace and harmony made by Mr Shirley—that their future would be secured if they stopped fighting each other and started trading with each other. The flow-on effect of that meant that that cosy situation we once enjoyed—where it was a simple exercise of growing the lambs shearing the wool putting the meat produce into muslin cloth refrigerating it on a ship to Britain and getting the cheque back sometime later—had gone forever. We had to become more dynamic; we had to become more innovative. The whole march of progress towards free-trade agreements that this country has entered into from CER onwards has really been about securing opportunity and a future for this country. Therefore I get very angry with those who start to take a myopic view which says on the one hand: “Let’s bring back Fortress New Zealand. Let’s throw out the barriers and pretend that the rest of the world doesn’t exist.” and on the other hand: “Let’s be so preoccupied about the conditions in other countries that we forget about the opportunities in our own country.” That is at the heart of this agreement. 
The bill is actually a very narrow one. It deals with the implementation of some of the tariff provisions related to this particular agreement. It has an unusual feature in Part 2 but as we were advised at the select committee that has occurred as much because of the insistence of the Thais in putting something similar into the agreement at their end as because of the result of New Zealand pressure. There are some useful steps in that and it is fair to report that after committee members had teased out those issues with the officials we were satisfied that those provisions not only were consistent with out GATT obligations but also were likely to deliver “real benefits to many New Zealand industries and will open up opportunities for New Zealand to develop the trading relationship with Thailand to its full potential”. 
 That is the heart of this issue. That is what this bill is about. It is what this agreement is about and it is what the whole history in recent years of trying to develop closer economic partnerships with other nations in our part of the world has been about. As I have said I applaud the initiative and the energy of successive trade Ministers in bringing that about. I am pleased to say on behalf of United Future that as a consequence of those measures we support this legislation enthusiastically and wholeheartedly and we support the process that is seeing opportunity brought to New Zealanders because of a willingness on a bipartisan and increasingly a multipartisan basis to embrace the notion of free trade and the notion of these types of partnership arrangements with the countries with which we have the closest contact. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I would like to thank the member who has just resumed his seat and to acknowledge the previous speaker the Hon Ken Shirley for what I thought was a useful intervention as well. The Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is a fairly technical bill that reads into law the changes to the tariffs schedule brought about by the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. 
The debate is an opportunity to note the high level of bipartisan support for this type of trade agreement which is relatively widely held in this House—perhaps for the listeners unusually so. There is broad consensus in the House that multilateral trade reform is always the “first best” option when one is a small remote country reliant upon good transparent rules regarding international trade law for one’s prosperity. Successive Governments have done their best to further that agenda with success that indicates that New Zealand’s diplomatic service and trade diplomats in particular punch above their weight. It is also recognised that in these difficult days it takes some time to bring fruition to a multilateral agreement. For that reason complementary regional and bilateral agreements have a role to play of which this is one. 
I would like to address the objection brought about by the Green Party because it is a fundamental one in any debate on international trade. It is answered by the theory of comparative advantage—that is even if a country is the weaker player in every industry it is still better off by trading so that it exports what it is relatively good at producing and imports what it is relatively poor at producing. I find myself in strong agreement with Ken Shirley on the point that it is obscene that various developed countries—and probably the European Union is the most notable—protect themselves from low-cost imports from the Third World. The benefit to those protectionist countries is far greater than the benefit from the aid that flows south to the developing world. That is a sad truth and it is one that successive New Zealand Governments have worked to overcome. So that is all I think relatively bipartisan across this House and I acknowledge the work that the former Minister for International Trade Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has also done. That work was carried on in great spirit by the Hon Jim Sutton and it was recognised by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
But there are some differences between the two sides of this House. There is a tendency on the right to believe that simple market opening will deliver the kinds of gains that New Zealand needs to be a prosperous economy in the 21st century. On that point this side differs. We say that market opening is a necessary condition but it is not a sufficient condition. It must be balanced by active development of the capability of our exporters to deliver the goods—in other words to drive through the opening that has been created and to form the kinds of partnerships with our overseas partners that will derive value back to New Zealand. That is a new agenda. It is required that we have the statistical capability to measure it that the national interest analysis follows it and that we have the support through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and others to implement it. This debate is about reading into law the tariff preferences created by this agreement. This is a good bill and I urge its adoption. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am just getting over a dose of if not the flu certainly a heavy cold but one of the things we can smell is the stench of the dying decaying Labour Government can we not? One can smell it in the House. I went through it in 1999 when it happened with the National Government. People could smell the decay around us. Well it has been transplanted across to the Government members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s that Don Brash—has he gone for his afternoon sleep? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member who just resumed his seat is an absolute example of that—along with the Minister of Education whom I will talk about shortly in the context of this bill. He told us that he would fix all those things about having special preference for Maori and what has he done? He has done absolutely nothing. He told the country that he would fix it up. He said: “We’ll fix it. We’ll make sure it’s all even and all fair and that there’s no preference given.” What do we have in this agreement? We have special preference for Maori. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh the Minister says “No”. I will quote him shortly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Read it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will. Let me just read something out: “It concerns me that article 15.8 reserves the right for New Zealand to adopt measures it ‘deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori …’.” It is in the agreement. The Minister should go and look. The Minister who has the race relations portfolio does not even know that that is in there. How disgraceful is that? 
First of all I want to talk about the positive sides to this agreement because there are some and I do want to congratulate the Minister for Trade Negotiations on making at least some gains. He is to be commended for that as are as has been said in this House previous Ministers who have done so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’re too kind. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I do not think I could ever be said to be too kind but at least I am a reasonable person who will acknowledge that at least this agreement is a step forward. It is good to have trade agreements; there is no question about that. The National Party supports that concept absolutely and of course it supports this agreement apart from the fact that we have concerns about some parts of it. It is worth noting that currently only 4 percent of the goods that we export to Thailand are duty-free and on 1 July after this agreement takes effect 52 percent will be duty-free immediately. That is of huge value to our industries. 
The problem is that some of the qualifications in the agreement cause us concern. The first thing is the qualification that goods be free of chemicals which the Minister actually referred to in his address. That is a worry because growers in New Zealand will have to certify—we assume that this will happen; negotiations are still going on—that the goods being exported are free of chemicals. There is nothing wrong with doing that other than that the cost of gaining the certification is quite likely to be more than the cost of the tariffs that are currently imposed. So the growers themselves may not actually end up receiving any financial benefit out of this agreement at all. We will wait and see. 
But the second thing that worries me about this particular part of the agreement is that it has to be negotiated. Regarding the cost of negotiating and the time delays—although the Minister has tried to assure the House that it will happen rather rapidly—I have to say that the track record is not flash. If we look for example at the negotiations between New Zealand and Australia around apples we see that they certainly have not been rapid at all. Indeed in the last 6 years there has been no progress at all with regard to that matter. All that has happened is recently the Minister finally decided that we will refer the dispute between Australia and New Zealand over apples to the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures for discussions. Well what does that mean? Absolutely nothing! Why does the Government not take the bull by the horns as National did on lamb tariffs when we were in Government and take the matter to the World Trade Organization to get it sorted out? The disputes process is there; let us just get it done. It worries me that if that is the track record of this Government in regard to trying to settle disputes what will happen when we are in the middle of negotiations on issues that this bill provides? I suggest that there will be delays and complications and as a consequence there will be significant costs to our growers. 
 One of the previous speakers from Labour talked about its track record in negotiating trade agreements. Well the only one that Labour has had any involvement with as a Government apart from this one was the Singapore agreement and all it had to do was sign the final piece of paper. To be fair the previous member who spoke acknowledged the work that had been done by my colleague Lockwood Smith in regard to the Singapore agreement. That work was all done under the National Government. Yet a previous Labour speaker—I think it was the member for Waimakariri whose name I cannot recall at the moment— 
Hon Member 
: Cosgrove. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Clayton Cosgrove claimed that Labour had a fine track record. Well actually when one looks at it one sees that the equivalent of Labour’s track record is a flat tyre on a vehicle that is broken down. That is about as good as it gets. 
This agreement is Labour’s first attempt and there are lots of qualifications in it. I say to the House that we need to be concerned about some of the conditions in this legislation that may well put different sorts of tariffs on our exporters. It is unfortunate that we have any qualifications at all. At least the Singapore agreement was clean done and end of story; it was just a straight trade agreement. CER was the same sort of thing. This agreement is a case of “Yes we can do it but with all sorts of ifs and buts.” and that is most unfortunate. 
I want to talk about the one part that does concern me as I said I would and I hope the Minister in charge is listening. It is the issue that appears in article 15.8. Why in the world do we have to have in a trade agreement an article that states that New Zealand reserves the right to adopt “measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori … including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.”? I ask Parliament why that clause is in an international trade agreement. It mystifies me. I asked that question during the first reading and no one was able to give me a reasonable answer. 
I wondered whether it is because some of the fruit that Maori grow is different but I do not think it is. I do not think the apples that Maori grow are different colours from other apples. I would not have thought so. I am sure the apples are the same varieties and the same colours as the apples that non-Maori grow and export to Thailand. I am sure they are the same so why would Maori need preferential treatment? I cannot think why. Maybe the cherries are different. Maybe the blush is a different colour or something. I do not know why. But it really mystifies me as to what the advantages are to this country and to the Maori people in having that clause in the legislation. The Thai people I am sure do not know what the Treaty of Waitangi is. I doubt whether they have ever heard of it actually—well one or two of them will have heard of it now because it is in this agreement. It is a real mystery. 
This Government 12 months or so ago gave this country an absolute assurance that there would be no more preferential treatment and that all those kinds of clauses would go. Trevor Mallard the Minister in charge of that said: “Forget about it. You don’t need to worry about it. This Government’s got it under control.” and here we are signing an international agreement that puts it back under the spotlight. Quite honestly the Government needs to explain—and I hope the Minister in charge of the bill will do so during the course of the Committee stage—why that particular provision has to be in this sort of legislation and in these sorts of agreements. It actually does this country no good in my view. 
National members look forward to the debate in the Committee stage and we will explore some of these clauses more closely during that debate. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Implementation of preferential tariffs under New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is the part that actually implements the negotiated preferential tariff schedule if one likes for Thai products coming into New Zealand. It is an essential part of this bill. Our law does have to be amended to enable that negotiated tariff agreement to be put into it. So I make it very clear that National is totally supportive of Part 1 because it is absolutely essential to implement that agreement. Having said that—that we are totally supportive of it—I think it is important we understand the pluses and minuses that Part 1 will make available for New Zealand. 
I will deal with the pluses first. Although this bill does not cover exactly what happens for our products in Thailand—a similar piece of legislation to this will do that in Thailand—it is important to realise that the laws that implement negotiated tariffs have a big impact. For example for New Zealand exporters to Thailand 52 percent of our exports will be duty-free as soon as this agreement is given effect to and as soon as legislation similar to Part 1 of this bill is passed in Thailand compared with 4 percent now. That is a big plus. That is why National is so supportive of trade liberalising legislation. There are big pluses like that for our horticultural exporters most of whom face 30 to 40 percent tariffs—people such as kiwifruit exporters. Those tariffs will be eliminated and that is very important for our industry. 
I would ask the Minister—if he could explain this under this part because I cannot see where else in the bill we can really address this—to explain a little more about where we have got to in terms of making sure our horticultural exporters do get meaningful access to Thailand. The reason that has become an issue is that Thailand brought in a new provision reasonably recently that requires people to certify that horticultural products are free of I think three particular chemicals. The costs of the testing for those chemicals and the costs of the certification for that may well match if not exceed the tariff reductions that are being achieved. I realise that I am running a bit of a risk in asking this question but I see this part as being the only part where the Minister could elaborate on that matter a little further. 
The Minister said in his second reading speech—if I heard him correctly—that Thailand had agreed to defer those requirements for a period of time. I would appreciate the Minister making it more clear exactly how long that period is and exactly what has been done to make sure a process is put in place to have those requirements ultimately removed. Obviously this agreement and the legislation we seek to pass right now is really nullified in large part if those kinds of non-tariff barriers—I mean it is exactly that kind of non-tariff barrier that has kept our apples out of Australia. We want to make sure that as we pass this legislation we will not be caught up in similar non-tariff barriers in Thailand. It would be helpful if the Minister could just enlarge upon what he said during the second reading phase. I accept that you Mr Chairman could rule that he cannot do that but I do not see another part of this bill where he could do so. I think the Minister’s advice on that issue would be very helpful for members in understanding the full implications of this legislation. 
I have already pointed out that although we totally support Part 1 I do have a concern that the schedule of tariff reductions that we will be implementing with this legislation takes New Zealand beyond its 2010 commitment under APEC. That is a huge shame. I disagree with Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne said in his second reading speech that in these trade negotiations we should try to get away with what we can and find out what we have to give up in order to get what we want. It is not like that. I have done a lot of trade negotiation work. In fact we ought to be saying that we do not want to have any of that stuff around the New Zealand economy anyhow. It is all bad for us. Unilateral trade tariff elimination makes a lot of sense. In a lot of the trade tariff negotiation work I have done in the past a lot of effort has gone into helping other countries to understand how maintaining those barriers is actually an impediment to their own economies. They actually suffer from maintaining those barriers. I do not think that old-style trading is a great way to proceed in negotiations. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I follow my colleague Lockwood Smith and I am sure that Mr Jones will get a call very shortly. I raise this issue in relation to Part 1 and again it is in a similar vein to that stated by my colleague Lockwood Smith and relates to the wording that appears in the agreement. I assume that the wording applies for goods both coming in and going out of New Zealand in regard to the issue under article 15.8 of the agreement relating to the Treaty of Waitangi where it states it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori including the fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to a speech made by Mr Trevor Mallard as Coordinating Minister Race Relations at Victoria University in July last year when he said as the Minister in that capacity that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government. I ask the Minister in the chair Mr Sutton whether he can explain that statement made by the Minister in charge of race relations Mr Mallard. He and Prime Minister gave an assurance to this House that there would be one law for all. Yet the Minister might explain why that clause is in the agreement that gives favourable treatment to Maori including the fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi whatever that means. 
Perhaps the Minister might like to explain to the Parliament how it actually affects goods coming from Thailand into New Zealand. I would be very pleased if the Minister could explain to us what sort of impact that wording in the agreement would have on someone from Thailand who is making some Thai product and then runs up against the favourable treatment for Maori when it comes across our wharves. I wonder what impact that will have on that person’s ability to be able to trade fairly and freely with all New Zealanders. The Minister might like to take a call to explain why he and the Government—Helen Clark Trevor Mallard and Jim Sutton—believe that it is important that that sort of clause is in an international trade agreement. 
For the life of me I fail to see that it will make one iota of difference between us trading with Thailand and Thailand trading with us. I would be very pleased if the Minister could take a call to perhaps enlighten us and in particular enlighten me so that I can explain to the people of Northland why the Government felt that in this particular case it had to abandon its policy of one law for all—if it has that policy and actually I do not think that it does—and put that in this agreement. It will be interesting to know why. 
My colleague Lockwood Smith also raised some other interesting aspects of the legislation and of the agreement. Of course they are issues we raised in the first and second readings and I do hope that the Minister will take a call to explain to us those issues that will be of worry around the matter of negotiation—particularly the issue as my colleague Lockwood Smith has said around the matter of chemicals etc. It is very important that we have a good understanding in this debate so that when we are asked by the rural sector that we represent we can explain to it what impact that will have. I am concerned as my colleagues are that it may well impinge on its ability to have a full and free trade between Thailand and New Zealand. We certainly do not want that to be an outcome of this agreement. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous speaker from the National Party John Carter raised the question that I had raised earlier about the insertion of the Treaty of Waitangi into this legislation. It was almost a speech I thought in opposition to the bill and I support everything he said. For the reasons given by him New Zealand First is opposing the bill. 
Next week the Rt Hon Winston Peters on behalf of New Zealand First will be making a speech about matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and I do not intend to take that aspect any further today at this stage. 
The point has been raised about horticulture. In the New Zealand First minority report attached to the partnership agreement we made the point that we were concerned about the submission from the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority which indicated to the committee and I quote: “However new residue testing requirements proposed by the Thai government have the potential to significantly reduce the benefits from the agreement. These requirements are viewed by both the New Zealand export industry and Thai fruit and vegetable importers as a non-tariff trade barrier focused on reducing imports of Chinese fruit and vegetables. We are working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to address this issue …”. That is the Horticulture Export Authority’s submission. 
I note that horticultural exports do not feature prominently in our exports to Thailand. The list I mentioned earlier on of New Zealand’s exports to Thailand which lists 20 products does not show horticultural exports at all. At the No. 20 level are exports worth $3 million so I assume that any horticultural exports must be worth less than that. But clearly they are in grave danger because of the trade agreement entered into between Thailand and China. In terms of that of course Chinese goods are allowed into Thailand. Since October 2003 Thailand has provided duty-free access for horticultural items from China as part of an early harvest package ahead of their full free-trade agreement negotiations. It seems that the Thai people are willing to enter into an agreement on the one hand but on the other hand start to put up barriers even with the Chinese. We are going to be caught up in their barrier with the Chinese; it obviously will affect us as well. It makes one question the worth of an agreement of that kind. 
Much has been made of the reduction in tariffs but we must look at what the existing tariffs are. I gave a couple of examples in New Zealand First’s minority report. Infant milk food formula was worth $34.9 million in 2003; the tariff goes down from 5 percent to zero not from 17 and 18 percent as suggested elsewhere. Wood pulp was worth $5 million; the change in tariff is from 1 percent to zero so that is not much of a drop. For what is a fairly small market as Dr Lockwood Smith said this is a poor-quality agreement overall. 
The services area is the one of vital importance to New Zealand and we know that it has not been allowed to be implemented. But the other way round it does seem to be working. I ask the Minister to explain why so many specialist Thai chefs and traditional Thai massage therapists are being allowed into New Zealand. Do they ever go back to Thailand? Why must we keep on bringing them in? What happens to them? How long do they stay here? Can we not at some stage train New Zealanders to cook Thai food? Indeed I had a very nice Thai chicken curry in a place just outside the building here at lunchtime. Surely we can cope with making a nice Thai meal after all these years. Why should New Zealanders lose out on jobs? Why must we always have Thai chefs? What is the need for traditional Thai massage therapy in New Zealand? Were we not able to survive and cope without traditional Thai massage therapy? Why do we need these types of people in New Zealand? Why not train New Zealanders so that they can get these jobs rather than our bringing in Thai people all the time to do them? 
Can a Labour Minister explain why the clothing footwear and carpet sectors and whiteware plasterboard steel and certain textiles must be placed at risk because of an agreement entered into by him? 
This is a sad day for the workers of New Zealand and I am wearing my red tie just for them today. Obviously no Labour Party member has worn a tie of that colour today. 
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. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 4 to insert after the words “being the produce or manufacture of Thailand” the words “whose product processing complies with core International Labour Organisation Conventions”. If we look at the treaty upon which this bill is based and that it is supposed to implement we see references to ILO conventions. Associated with the treaty are arrangements between Thailand and New Zealand on labour and the environment. The problem is that although the words that both New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand are to sign up to are very nice there is no actual implementation other than that if we have a disagreement we have another talk then another committee then another talk. There is no actual implementation which is why the statement from the Council of Trade Unions that I mentioned before stated that it was not an enforceable or meaningful process to address breaches of core ILO conventions. I think that is the case and it is the reason why we should put in the bill that we reserve the right if the tariff is to be lifted or if a preferential tariff is to be applied that Thailand at least has to meet those core ILO standards. 
There is a problem. Thailand signed up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up and it is true that there is at least one ILO convention that Thailand has signed up to—the ILO Convention 138 Concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment relating to not using child labour but in wandering around the sweatshops in Bangkok one will see that people do not exactly adhere to that convention. There is quite a bit of corruption in Thailand and Government officials do not actually implement ILO conventions. Then there are some other ILO conventions like the right to collective bargaining that I understand Thailand has not signed up to. There is a very low rate of unionisation in Thailand partly because of that and partly because union organisers in some factories in Thailand may not last very long on the job; they are just put out of the door. Sometimes there are just what are called “disappearances”: people just disappear and the authorities do not do much about it if one goes to them. In fact the authorities are sometimes tied up with the people who are exploiting the workers and they are keeping the unions out or are employing child labour. That is the reality. 
Even Nike a company that has a big international reputation to protect in terms of its production of footwear subcontracted out to an Austrian-owned firm in Bangkok to produce its shoes but even there union organisers were pushed from the jobs. Demonstrations took place in Thailand and I think there was even one in New Zealand supporting the workers. However the workers did not really get anywhere because in Thailand there are no real enforcement provisions for labour laws. So the least we could do is to put in our legislation the amendments such as those that the Green Party has proposed. That would at least give us control over the situation. One of the Labour members talked about the theory of comparative advantage in trade— 
Dail Jones 
: David Cunliffe. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes it was David Cunliffe. He is one of the ideologues of free trade on that side of the Chamber with the theory that somehow there is this law of comparative advantage that there are some things people in each country are good at that they will export nicely and that Thailand will develop nicely as an economy because of that. But it does not take into account the reality that in Thailand the minimum wage is NZ$0.77 an hour. So it is not a question of what New Zealand workers are good at and what Thai workers are good at; New Zealand workers are quite good at textile manufacture but they are out-competed. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. But for those who have been listening to the debate there are reservations to be entered in respect of the treaty itself. 
I start by recording my disappointment that the Minister who has a particular responsibility for this bill Minister Sutton has used speaking time in this Chamber to launch petty and personal attacks on National members. In doing that he damages his reputation in the trade area. 
I want to pick up two points that I think are relevant and significant in the context of the debate on this part. The first has been identified by others and it is that in the trade treaty itself article 15.8 reads in part: “nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
We should not I would say be including in trade treaties such affirmative action provisions. I am not blaming the Minister for that. He may have some responsibility but it is a comment more directed at the trade negotiation team who should surely have thought more carefully about the appropriateness of including such provisions. That is the first thing. 
The second comment is that an aspect of merit in the trade treaty is the dispute resolution provisions. There is a detailed code broadly patterned on what we saw in the New Zealand - Singapore agreement. It stands in very marked contrast to what is in our Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement where the only obligation is an obligation of “consultation”. As others have pointed out in a wider context we have running-sore disputes with Australia that remain unresolved. The apples dispute is the classic illustration of that going right back to 1922 I think when it started. 
It is also appropriate to reflect on the incredible acceleration in the world trade community of the growth in bilateral and regional treaties. As I understand it a count by the OECD’s trade directorate quite recently identified 142 bilateral and regional agreements a third of them concluded in the past 3 years. At the point that the count was done another seven awaited ratification and the OECD indicated that another 50 were planned of which more than 30 involved countries in Asia. 
So we have these regional initiatives going on these World Trade Organization initiatives and they are buttressed by bilateral initiatives. The Minister has made specific comment on this. I note that he said in a speech to the Singapore Institute of Policy Studies on 27 November 2001: “The WTO provides the broad framework of rules for international trade and a forum for pursuing trade liberalisation at a global level. But high-quality CEPs deepen economic interaction. When they are based as New Zealand’s are on the multilateral framework they can also provide guidance on the direction in which the multilateral rules should evolve.” 
Well the argument is—and National has advanced this argument—that this is not for reasons we have indicated a high-quality closer economic partnership more is the shame. But perhaps the hope is that with a change of Government in September the skills that National can bring to the table with a negotiation team from the ministry will add to the depth of this agreement. 
I have spoken primarily about clause 3 and I now make a final comment on clause 4 because clause 4 provides for the preferential tariffs conferred by the agreement to be implemented for Thailand by providing for such preferential rates of duty to be included in the preferential tariff column of the tariff for application to goods produced or manufactured in Thailand. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to pick up— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A bad hair day! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well at least I have not had to have a transplant as that member has—and neither am I likely to have one. The only transplant will be when that member and his colleagues are shifted out of here. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Yes to this side of the Chamber. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It will not be just to this side of the Chamber it will be right out of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] That fellow from Otaki “Deacon Humes” or something is gone. When he has been around for as long as I have he will not have red hair at all. 
However I will get back to the bill. I was interested in the Minister’s reply when he read out the part about our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I listened to his response with interest. He gave the impression from the bits he read out that the wording we had used was not accurate. However I have checked and it was absolutely accurate. It was as it was read out. The Minister said that we had to include that provision because we have a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The first question I want the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Sutton to answer is: what does that mean? What are our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? 
What worries me is that by putting in the supposed preferential treatment for Maori it is saying that Maori are not as good as the rest of New Zealanders. I absolutely reject that. What the Minister is saying to me is that my oldest granddaughter who has Maori blood in her is not as good as my second grandchild who has no Maori blood in her. I reject that absolutely. They are both equal New Zealanders. They are both fine New Zealanders. When they grow up they will make a contribution to this country not because one is Maori and one is not but because they are New Zealanders who have the opportunity to be New Zealanders and make a contribution regardless of their race. That is how it should be. They absolutely will get out there and both will be proud of each other. They love each other and enjoy each other’s company. They do not care what their bloodlines are other than that they are Carters and proud of it. They are proud New Zealanders but this Minister is saying to one of them that she is not as good as the other. I reject that. 
I reject that on behalf of all the Maori people in Northland whom I represent. They are just as good as the rest of the people I represent in Northland. They do not want a handout from the likes of Helen Clark and Jim Sutton. They are not interested actually. Certainly some of them want some assistance from time to time but they do not want someone who is condescending and who says to them: “Well you poor person because of your race we have to come along and give you a hand because we are whiteys and are superior.” We do not need that sort of attitude in this country thank you very much. The people of Northland stand shoulder to shoulder regardless of their race and get on with their lives. All they want is a fair break. They do not want some Government telling them that part of them is lesser than the other because it is not. I say to the Minister: take this clause out of the agreement; it is an insult. It is an insult to the Maori and non-Maori people of this country and it is an insult to the people of Thailand who do not even understand it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Hone knows all about insults! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Members opposite can chuck brickbats I do not care because I know I am right. I remember when last debating this issue that that fellow over there with the red hair whose name I cannot remember said to me: “Say that up in Northland.” I challenged him to come up and have a debate. Has he been up? Not on your nelly! He knows that he would get run out. He does not even know where Northland is but he knows he would get run out. I would take on him or anybody on a stage anywhere on this issue in Northland or anywhere in New Zealand and clean him out. Everybody in New Zealand is equal and everybody can make a contribution and that is how it should be. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I had wanted to take a call following the contribution from the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Sutton just a few minutes ago. What concerned me was that the Minister appeared to seek to misrepresent to the Committee what the Thai trade agreement stated. What he read out in response to the challenges around the article relating to the Treaty of Waitangi was a very selected part of that article in the agreement. I was so concerned that I sent back to my office for a copy of the agreement because I thought that what the Minister said to the Committee must be right and that I must be wrong in what I had alleged the agreement contained. I now have a copy of the agreement right here with me and what it states is somewhat different from what Mr Sutton read out. 
I want to quote the agreement absolutely. It concludes with this statement: “Nothing in this agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this agreement including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” I think we have a right to know what on earth that means. What the Minister read out to the Committee just a few minutes ago was not that part of the article at all. What does it mean? In relation to Part 1 does the Minister intend that on items relating to Maori business and Maori trade the Government reserves the right to impose more favourable tariffs for Maori businesses? I think the Minister should tell the Committee exactly what that means. 
What are the Government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in respect of trade agreements? The Minister said to the Committee a moment ago that without this clause it would have to extend to Thai business people or to Thai businesses or investors the same rights as any Maori person. What about any other New Zealander? Whatever is required to protect the interests of New Zealand ought to apply to all New Zealanders. That is the bit we are trying to get at. The Minister in the chair Jim Sutton should explain to the Committee exactly what he intends to do with this article. What he quoted to the Committee a moment ago was a very partial representation of the article. The bit we are really concerned about is the bit I read out which is the entire second half. No words at all were left out. We want to know exactly what it means because we do not know what this Government believes its obligations are in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi in trade matters with regard to this legislation including Part 1. What is it that the Minister may be seeking to do with this clause in relation to Part 1? If it is not Part 1 is it Part 2? Is it that in fact safeguard measures will be imposed? I think the Minister should make clear exactly what is in his mind because he agreed to this agreement. 
New Zealanders have a right to know what the Government means when it says it reserves the right to accord more favourable treatment to Maori. All New Zealanders have every right to feel insulted by that. Maori have every right because they are not inferior and do not need more favourable treatment. I know that the Minister will say National did that previously. I accept that. I say we were wrong. It is no use going back to that. I say National made a mistake in including that kind of clause in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. I absolutely accept that. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: You’re wrong now. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If the Minister is saying we were right then but are wrong now I want him to explain to the Committee exactly what “more favourable treatment” he intends Maori should have and exactly what this Government sees are its obligations under the treaty. At Victoria University in July last year his colleague Trevor Mallard said that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government. Who is right—Trevor Mallard the Coordinating Minister Race Relations or Jim Sutton Minister for Trade Negotiations? They cannot both be right because this agreement reserves the right to confer more favourable treatment but Trevor Mallard says that that is contrary to Government policy. We want to know who is right. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I will deal with Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question first. The answer is that my colleague and I are both right and he is wrong. I want to address the serious issue that Keith Locke raised on behalf of the Green Party. He wants us to pass an amendment that would force Thailand to comply with all the ILO core conventions on labour. I point out to the member that even we ourselves do not adhere to all the ILO core conventions here in New Zealand. The member is not attempting to address that. It is quite obvious that what the member is trying to do is to use the ILO conventions as a pretext for protectionism. He is just flat-out anti-trade. He does not want it allowed unless everybody meets a completely unattainable standard of compliance with conventions that we have not even signed up to. I think the member ought to consider the situation again and ask whether it is what he really wants. Does he want us all to be self-sufficient peasants who do not trade anything internationally? Does he seriously think New Zealanders could eat 20 times as much dairy product as we eat now in order to keep it revolving in the economy without exporting any of it? 
Richard Worth asked whether this is a high-quality agreement. The answer is that it certainly is a high-quality agreement. It is completely comprehensive in respect of goods. All goods will go to a zero tariff either straight away or over an agreed period of years. So that puts this agreement amongst the top 1 percent of bilateral trade agreements in the world. What is more we have a commitment to undertake a negotiation on trade in services within 3 years. Anybody who pretends to have any understanding of international trade and who does not understand why this agreement was done instead of trying to force Thailand to negotiate now ahead of its negotiations with much larger APEC trading partners does not have the wit to get involved in the game himself or herself. I am absolutely astonished that any member in this House needs to have it explained to him or her why we have taken this opportunity to defend our position in the Thai market for our goods and to achieve advantage over most of Thailand’s trading partners while we had the chance to do so now rather than waiting until we could have a perfect agreement with free trade in all goods and services. I can advise the member that there would likely be a very long wait for that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The National Party members keep on making the speech about the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in this agreement so I look forward to the National Party opposing the legislation as New Zealand First is doing. That is clear New Zealand First policy. I am pleased the National Party is supporting New Zealand First policy and I hope it will take that to the final conclusion and vote against the bill. I am reminded of the famous expression of the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “You can steal my horse but you’ve got to be able to ride it out of town.” National Party members are trying to steal our horse in saying that they oppose the reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Now they have to ride it out of town as well by voting against the bill. Can they do that? I do not think they can. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am interested in the response of the Minister in the chair Jim Sutton. He made a very fleeting response to the comments made by my colleague Lockwood Smith by myself and by others in reference to the issue of the treaty article in the legislation. I make one comment to Mr Dail Jones who talked about riding horses. I suspect that it is a while since he has ridden a horse and I doubt whether he could ride one out of town. He talks about being consistent. Well we have already said we support trade agreements so we will support this trade agreement. There are parts of it that we do not like—one that we have referred to is article 15.8 of the treaty and we will make sure that we keep talking about that. We want New Zealanders to know the inconsistencies that there are with this Government. 
But I say to the member who talked about getting on a horse and then riding it out of town that the way one does that of course is by becoming the Government after the next election which we are looking to do. When we are the Government we will take this horse with regard to the treaty stuff right out of town. It will be addressed at that time. We have made it very clear that those sorts of things will not appear. My colleague Lockwood Smith quite openly said that we made a mistake during the 1990s by including these sorts of clauses in agreements. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right but what the Labour Government does not like to hear is our admitting that we made a mistake. 
There is nothing wrong with that. People respect people when they stand up and say they did something but it was not right—that they got it wrong and they will address it. That is the problem with this Government. It is not prepared to stand up and say that it has made a mistake. It is not prepared to stand up and say that it has got this wrong. 
The Minister Jim Sutton tried to say that both he and his colleague Trevor Mallard were right and that my colleague Lockwood Smith was wrong. Well I ask the public to match this. I will read out article 15(8) of the agreement again for their edification: “… measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” The important part of that statement is “more favourable treatment to Maori”. Let us remember that this is the Minister Jim Sutton’s agreement. At the same time the Minister Trevor Mallard is saying that there are no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government for Maori. So how can Mr Sutton say that both he and Mr Mallard are right when there is absolute inconsistency between what they are talking about? 
First of all they should stand up and say they have got it wrong. Secondly they should then stand up and tell us why they are suggesting that Maori in this country need special rights and assistance. As I said my two granddaughters—one of Maori descent and one not—are equal and and are both fine New Zealanders who will make a great contribution to this country. One sure is not inferior to the other and neither are the people of Northland and the Maori of New Zealand. They are fine New Zealanders. Certainly like other people in this country some amongst them need help and assistance. National will be right there to give that assistance but we will not be condescending and we certainly will not entrap them into a welfare life that ends up binding them forever to the breast of the State. 
We oppose that. That is not what we intend to do unlike this Government which makes such silly statements that are meaningless and that no one can explain. When the Minister Jim Sutton gets up and says that we have to do that to honour our obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi and when members of all the Opposition parties have asked time and time again for the Minister or anyone in the Government—Prime Minister Helen Clark or Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen—to explain what it means they cannot do it. We do not need silly stuff in the legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in subparagraph (i) of section 7(1)(h) after the words “being the produce or manufacture of Thailand” the words “whose product processing complies with core International Labour Organisation Conventions”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Application of transitional safeguard measures and provisional safeguard measures  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill is the part that introduces a whole range of transitional safeguard measures. As I mentioned at the second reading this is the first time that such provisions have been entered into New Zealand law in a bill like this. I would really like the Minister for Trade Negotiations to tell the Committee why he and the Government have found this necessary. It will invariably invite a whole new bureaucracy and a rush of bureaucratic procedures. 
Let us look carefully at some of the provisions in Part 2. Let us take for example new section 15F(1)—inserted by clause 7—which enables the Minister to decide to apply a transitional safeguard measure. It states: “The Minister may decide to apply a transitional safeguard measure …” which will be higher tariffs or higher duties for a certain product when there has been an increase in the quantity of that product coming into the country and—I accept that there is an “and”; that an increase in the quantity coming into the country would not be a sufficient reason on its own—it could threaten to cause serious injury. I invite members to really think about that. If this trade agreement is worth the paper it is written on it should result in much-increased trade between New Zealand and Thailand. There will be if it works a big increase in Thai products coming into New Zealand. Some sectors may say that a big increase in products like theirs coming here poses the threat of injury to their industry and off we go. Those sectors will be able to apply to the chief executive of Trade and Enterprise and there will be a whole process of initiating an investigation to establish whether there has been such an increase and whether it does pose a risk of threatening to cause serious injury. 
We have seen this sort of stuff at work around the world. We know that it invites action and litigation. Obviously if for argument’s sake manufacturers in New Zealand are producing some kind of product and they see an increase in imports of it we will get into trouble. The part even tries to define what “like goods” are. One can seek an investigation into a transitional safeguard measure if a “like good” has been imported into New Zealand in increased quantities. We can see the kind of bureaucratic process that this sort of legislation invites. 
New Zealand has never required it before. The Minister could probably say we have not had a bilateral trade agreement with an economy quite like Thailand’s before. I accept that. But why do we want to bring into our legislation this kind of provision? The Minister should be honest with the Committee. First did New Zealand want it or did Thailand want it? Is it in fact just because New Zealand buckled to what Thailand wanted that we are putting this whole bureaucratic process into our law? It is so woolly. We know that the United States has safeguard measures; its procedures invite applications for consideration of safeguard measures and we know the problems that cause the United States Government. Do we want this kind of thing in our New Zealand law? 
There are other issues that I hope my colleagues will also ask the Minister about. Will the safeguard provisions in Part 2 be applied differently to Maori and non-Maori businesses? As our agreement with Thailand reserves the right for us to apply to treat Maori more favourably under the agreement could we see Maori applying for transitional safeguard measures—because Part 2 would enable them to apply for transitional safeguard measures—that non-Maori would not get? The agreement provides for more favourable treatment for Maori. If what I am saying is not correct and not possible the Minister should make that very clear. He should make it unequivocally clear that it would be impossible under the safeguard provisions in Part 2 for Maori to claim using article 15.8 of the agreement special safeguard measures that non-Maori could not achieve. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to follow up the issue my friend and colleague Lockwood Smith has drawn to the Committee’s attention in regard to Part 2. In particular the Committee needs to look at new section 15F(1) inserted by clause 7 which states: “The Minister may decide to apply a transitional safeguard measure if he or she makes a determination as a result of an investigation by the chief executive … that goods … (b) are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to an industry producing a like or directly competitive good.” That really needs to be given a thorough interpretation. I wonder what it means exactly. I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on that aspect of this part if he would be so kind. 
Under New Zealand regulations—occupational safety and health for example—and the laws of the politically correct system under which we work we now have such stringent rules that we restrict the public and our industries from doing all sorts of things in a way that is not thought of in other countries. I wonder whether that section means that we are taking the opportunity to put up trade barriers against the spirit of a trade agreement. Is this some sort of backyard deal that allows us to worm our way out of our obligations? If we are signing a free-trade agreement with another country then there has to be free trade. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What a sad speech. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That member will be sad when he is not back in Parliament after the next election so if I were him I would not worry about being sad now. If I were that member I would be happy to be taking calls because they will be amongst his last—which will be a blessing to Parliament. 
I ask the Minister what new section 15F(1) actually means. A free-trade agreement on my understanding of the situation means free trade. I know that people like Keith Locke do not agree with that. That is fair enough; he states his case. But the point is that signing up to a free-trade agreement means that we can put our goods into a country and it can put its goods into ours. We should not need barriers because of different rules and regulations within the countries yet surely that is exactly what that section states. I think that issue is absolutely important and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us what that section means. 
I want to go back to an issue I have raised already on which the Minister has not satisfied me and certainly I believe will not have satisfied any of the listeners to this debate. It is the issue around the Treaty of Waitangi. Again I ask the Minister to tell the industries involved—because they are the ones that are directly affected—what the agreement means in referring to the fulfilment of our “obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. What does that mean with regard to this trade agreement? I do not understand; I do not know what it means. That phrase is just parrot words unless we have some understanding of what those obligations are. I know that the Minister like his fellow Ministers when they are asked questions will ignore that question which is unfortunate. But if he is going to ignore it why was that phrase put in the agreement at all? Some bureaucrat at some stage will be asked a question about it and he or she will then be obliged to spend hours and hours on trying to figure out what it means—because the agreement states that someone will have to. It is likely that that person will get it wrong or after doing hours of research he or she will not be able to find the answer either. 
It is a serious matter when we have legislation and treaty articles that refer to things that are not defined and that people cannot understand. Quite honestly they end up being meaningless. Particularly in trade agreements that we arrange with other countries we should know what absolutely every word in a treaty means and know what impact an agreement has on our country and on the country with which we are making it. In this case the Thai people have every right to be able to understand the phrase. In fact it amazes me that they have not asked for an explanation. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The member John Carter has asked why we have agreed to a bilateral transitional safeguard mechanism. I point out to him that for the mechanism to apply increased imports must result in serious injury or threat of serious injury which is a very significant and relatively strict test. It is not expected that there will be recourse to this provision often if ever. It is a safety net. It was agreed reciprocally. Thailand did press for this provision and New Zealand agreed to it in the context of an overall deal that met New Zealand’s interests. 
I remind the member that under this agreement New Zealand attains over an agreed period of years completely tariff-free entry for amongst other goods our dairy products into the Thai market. If the member believes that the Thais would have agreed to that without putting in place this relatively modest safeguard against what a lot of Thai producers clearly fear will be an absolute torrent of New Zealand product that will destroy their market overnight then the member is dreaming. He is dreaming of a perfect world where he is the Minister and everybody around the world agrees with him. He will have a long wait for that. 
Opposition members have gone on again about the Treaty of Waitangi and what that clause requires the New Zealand Government or the Thai Government to do. They have suggested that the Thai Government would be forced to give preferential access or preferential exemption to products from Maori businesses when it came to applying the safeguard measure. [ 
Interruption 
] The member did indeed suggest that and it is no good his claiming now that he did not. All I can say is that that is a ludicrous suggestion. I point out to him that the Treaty of Waitangi clause does not require the New Zealand Government to favour Maori but it does mean that if we do something for Maori—such as assisting Maori language broadcasting—we do not have to do it for Thailand. Does the member want to commit the New Zealand taxpayer to pay subsidies for the production of Thai language TV broadcasting in New Zealand? Will those members say yes or no? Do they know what they are talking about? No they do not. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but the Minister for Trade Negotiations has provoked me now. Is the Minister really saying that this agreement will allow the Maori language to be broadcast in Thailand that the Maori people of New Zealand will be given a great advantage in their language being broadcast there and that is what he is aiming at? What a load of nonsense if that is what he is saying. He actually does not know just what he is saying. That is the point of the matter. 
The second point regards one being able to take action if one feels that Thai goods are flooding into New Zealand contrary to one’s wishes or vice versa with Thailand. That clause is really a lawyer’s dream because so many cases will be commenced under it. If something like that is allowed to happen it will happen and lawyers will just love it. Can members imagine a smaller New Zealand trader trying to compete against someone importing from overseas and wiping out that New Zealand businessman? The small New Zealand business—and remember 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are in that small to medium sized enterprise category—would not be able to compete with wealthy Thai exporters who want to destroy the New Zealand market and to set up something for themselves in terms of getting money from overseas. That is another reason for opposing this agreement. 
We should not look at this agreement as if it is the answer to all New Zealand’s worries. In the year ended December 2004 our exports to Thailand totalled $364 million. If we had to rely on that we would not be going very far at all. However our imports totalled $659 million. I can see this agreement being rather like the Singapore one where the Singaporeans are doing better and better relative to New Zealand. The Thais have gone into this agreement for only one reason: they have pulled the wool over the Minister’s eyes and over Helen Clark’s eyes. The Thais are going to do very well out of this agreement to the detriment of New Zealand workers and suchlike. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the member supporting the bill? 
DAIL JONES 
: David Cunliffe does not care two hoots about it; he is too busy with his comparative something or other theory. However people like Keith Locke I must say and New Zealand First members have their feet on the ground and are concerned about the real workers of New Zealand. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a little step forward that the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill includes the transitional safeguard measures. Although as the Minister for Trade Negotiations has just said it was not the initiative of the New Zealand Government to put those in; it was the initiative of the Thai Government. Perhaps the New Zealand Government even beat them back a bit if as the Minister says the Thai farmers are worried about a flood of dairy products. As I pointed out earlier Oxfam New Zealand in its submission on the treaty to the select committee talked about the problems of Thai dairy farmers and also quoted from a document of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that made a similar point. But surely whether it is protecting Thai farmers against New Zealand products or protecting New Zealand manufacturers and workers against Thai products this is a very limited arrangement on two levels. 
The Minister has said that the measure has to meet a very high test of serious injury to an industry. There is some good phraseology used elsewhere. A detrimental impact in relation to increased importation of goods is an “actual decline in output sales market share profits productivity employment and utilisation of production capacity;” or some threat to cause “serious injury to an industry producing a like or directly competitive good.” It is good that the provision is there but when one reads the fine print elsewhere one finds that that provision lasts for only a maximum of 2 years following the elimination of the tariff on the product concerned. So it might help New Zealand workers or Thai farmers for that little period of 2 years but beyond that we could be in serious difficulty. 
The Green Party has three amendments to clause 7. They are of the same theme as my amendments to Part 1 which was to insert into the clauses a little bit extra on labour standards and the environment. Under clause 7 if my amendment is passed there would be a paragraph (1)(c) in new section 15B that would include in the transitional measures products that “are being produced without acceptable labour standards or in ways which detrimentally affect communities or the environment.” Also my amendment would insert subparagraphs (i) to (iii) into new section 15D(d) to bring into account “(i) the extent to which the imports have been made by forced labour child labour or women who are paid less than men for the same work; or (ii) the extent to which the imports have been made in unsafe and sub-standard working conditions; or (iii) the extent to which the imports have been made without reasonable environmental standards”. My amendment to insert paragraph (1)(c) into new section 15F would take into account exclusions on items that “are causing or threatening to cause harm to Thailand because they are being produced without acceptable labor standards or in ways which detrimentally affect communities or the environment.” 
Those amendments would provide a lot of protection for the rights of people in Thailand particularly working people in terms of labour standards and in the broader community in terms of environmental effects and effects on communities. I think there is good reason to be concerned there. If members follow events in Thailand they will see that the Government does not protect the environment very well in terms of the expansion of industry. At least those amendments would allow New Zealand if there is a big outcry from the Thai community and non-governmental organisations that they are not being properly protected under this agreement to exclude the products that are producing that damaging effect on the Thai people. 
So I hope members will support those amendments. They do strengthen the clause. As I said it is good that the transitional safeguards are there but they are very wishy-washy and weak. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I have just become aware that on the closure motion I wrongly voted nine votes on behalf of United Future. It should have been eight. I seek leave to correct that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to correct that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to ask the Minister a question on something that is far from clear to me in Part 2 and express the hope that he will provide a response. We are of course talking about the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill which National supports with reservations. Part 2 is concerned with the application of transitional safeguard measures and provisional safeguard measures. There is a brief explanation in the explanatory note of the bill as to what all this is about. The note states: “The Agreement provides for the use of bilateral transitional safeguards by both Thailand and New Zealand. These allow either party to address situations of serious injury to domestic industries caused by increased imports due to tariff reductions or removal under the Agreement by reverting to higher tariffs for a certain period.” 
The actual part inserts new sections into the principal Act. There are interpretation sections and a code that involves investigative procedures: matters to be taken into account by the investigator who is the chief executive; publication of investigation results; and provisions dealing with transitional safeguard measures and also provisional transitional safeguard measures. 
I question the Minister about why this particular part is necessary and why it is not possible simply to rely on the current provisions in the World Trade Organization agreements. Of course it is the essence of the World Trade Organization regime that binding tariffs are key to the smooth flow of trade in goods but there are exceptions as I am sure the Minister is aware. Three of those exceptions that are well-known would be actions taken against dumping or selling at an unfairly low price; subsidies and special countervailing duties to offset the subsidies; and—the third is what we are on about here—emergency measures to limit imports temporarily designed to safeguard domestic industries. 
The rules around safeguards in the World Trade Organization context are well known. A member may restrict imports of a product temporarily—take safeguard action—if its domestic industry is injured or threatened with an injury caused by a surge in imports. The injury has to be serious. Well that is what this part is all about also. The safeguard measures were always available under GATT’s article 19. They might not have been frequently used in those days; indeed I understand that some Governments preferred to protect their domestic industries through grey-area measures using bilateral negotiations outside GATT’s auspices. They would persuade exporting countries to restrain exports voluntarily or to agree to other means of sharing markets. 
It also seems to be the case that what Part 2 is seeking to catch is wholly consistent with the safeguards regime in the World Trade Organization because we are talking about import surges justifying safeguard action and that can be either a real increase in imports—an absolute increase as it is called in the trade—or an increase in the imports’ share of a shrinking market even if the import quantity has not increased. That is the so-called relative increase. 
As I look through the safeguard provisions in the World Trade Organization agreement I cannot see why the Government is getting itself involved—as it is in this bill—with Part 2 issues. I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but I do not believe that that issue was fully considered by the committee. The only comment I can see about that issue in the recommendations of the committee when it reported to Parliament is this one line: “We are advised that the inclusion of these provisions is fully consistent with our GATT obligations.” 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I hope the Minister will answer those very learned questions from my good colleague Richard Worth because they cover important issues. I would like to come back to the Minister’s response a few minutes ago to questions put to him. I am really troubled by the rave he gave in response to the questions raised about the Treaty of Waitangi and the article about the treaty in the agreement and how they apply to the part of the bill we are debating right now. The Minister gave the impression in that rant that that provision will somehow avoid giving to Thai people an advantage that Maori may have in New Zealand. I want to make it very clear to the Minister that that is not what this part is about and I want to go over the words very carefully with the Minister. Article 15.8 in the agreement states: “… nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand”—it is nothing to do with Thailand; this is adoption by New Zealand—“of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement …”. So it is a matter of what New Zealand deems necessary and clearly the transitional provisions are covered by that agreement. 
I want the Minister to tell the House what he and this Government intend to do or are contemplating doing whereby they intend to deliver more favourable treatment to Maori that is not relative to people in businesses in Thailand but is relative to other New Zealand businesses. That is the issue and that issue concerns New Zealanders. All New Zealand businesses should be treated in the same way under this agreement and under this legislation but article 15.8 provides for the Government somehow to give more favourable treatment to Maori relative to non-Maori New Zealanders and non-Maori New Zealand businesses. That is what the wording states: “… in respect of matters covered by this Agreement …”—that is trade matters. Then it goes on to state: “… including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” I want the Minister to tell the Committee what bits of the Treaty of Waitangi confer more favourable treatment on Maori in trade matters relative to other New Zealanders. That article is nothing to do with people in Thailand; it covers a domestic matter. What does the Government have in mind? What will it confer on Maori that confers more favourable treatment on them relative to other New Zealanders? And where in the Treaty of Waitangi does it state that that should happen? 
I understand that the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi provide for all New Zealanders to be given the same rights so what does the Government see in the Treaty of Waitangi that may require it in its view to deliver more favourable treatment to Maori? This provision in this agreement means that the Government can do that—it can deliver more favourable treatment for Maori relative to other New Zealanders and not breach this agreement. Now that is what concerns a whole lot of New Zealanders. Sure we have done that sort of thing in the past but I thought that the Coordinating Minister Race Relations said that the Government’s policy of doing that was finished. Maori have no extra rights to quote Trevor Mallard in July last year when of course that was a big issue following the Orewa I Speech by National’s leader Don Brash. We know what this Labour Government is like. Its members will say anything when they come under pressure—especially Trevor Mallard who could not give a damn what he says; he will say anything. So in July last year following Don Brash’s Orewa I speech Trevor Mallard said that Maori had no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government. Then just a few weeks later what do we see? The Government has put into an international treaty a provision that shows it intends to reserve the right “… to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement …”. 
All I want the Minister to do is to tell us what is in his mind. What kind of more favourable treatment does he have in mind that Maori need? Maybe then the people of New Zealand could understand. And what obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi make him feel that Maori somehow should be accorded more favourable treatment than non-Maori? When we read the Treaty of Waitangi we do not see where it states that Maori should be accorded more favourable treatment. That is not a big ask I tell the Minister. I do not think that it is a big ask. What does that article mean? That is all we are after. Actually we want to know also what the Minister means when he says he reserves the right— 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to subsection (1) of section 15B the following new paragraph: 
(c)are being produced without acceptable labour standards or in ways which detrimentally affect communities or the environment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (d) of section 15D after the word “obligations” the words “such as but not limited to—” and the following new subparagraphs: 
(i)the extent to which the imports have been made by forced labour child labour or women who are paid less than men for the same work; or 
(ii)the extent to which the imports have been made in unsafe and substandard working conditions; or 
(iii)the extent to which the imports have been made without reasonable environmental standards. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to subsection (1) of section 15F the following new paragraph: 
(c)are causing or threatening to cause harm to Thailand because they are being produced without acceptable labour standards or in ways which detrimentally affect communities or the environment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance as to how you are assessing acceptance of closure motions in this debate because we are obviously not allowed to raise a point of order when you accept the closure. Could you give us guidance as to whether it is based simply on the time involved in the debate or on your consideration as to whether serious questions are being answered because I think the public has a right to have questions answered. 
An example of the seriousness of what I am raising is that a few minutes ago my colleague Richard Worth asked for the first time in the debate a question about a very serious issue relating to the consideration of the World Trade Organization’s provisions for safe transitional safeguards compared with those in this legislation. The Minister chose not to answer a question on a very serious issue yet you accepted the closure motion prior to that question being answered and before the issue could be pursued by other speakers. I would appreciate your guidance. Do you give any consideration to that kind of thing or is it purely a matter of the amount of time you consider has been spent on the debate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that the time does not come into it. The matter is one for the Chairperson alone and I make my judgment according to the debate. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Madam Chair I think it is time this Parliament had some decent answers from the Minister for Trade Negotiations. As I have just raised a moment ago you accepted the closure motion and the Minister had not given answers to serious questions. My colleague Richard Worth raised the question of why it is necessary to duplicate in a slightly different way the transitional safeguard provisions of World Trade Organization agreements. They have been used by various countries. World Trade Organization agreements supersede bilateral agreements. They apply automatically anyhow. Why was it necessary to introduce them into our law? Even Dail Jones from New Zealand First who is a lawyer pointed out that the provisions in Part 2 of this bill are a lawyer’s dream because of the kind of wording involved. We got no answers from the Minister on that issue. 
So Madam Chair we want some answers out of this Government as we now debate clauses 1 and 2—a general debate covering the whole bill. Madam Chair you cannot get away with it as easily as that because I have also asked very specific questions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will not bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I apologise—I did not realise that I was. But if you tell me I am— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member clearly said “you” to me. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that members should not be bringing you into the debate by referring to you directly as they make their contributions. On behalf of the Opposition all I would ask is this. I have sat in this Chamber for many hours during this urgency period. A raft of members have brought you into the debate at one time or another. During the time that I have been in the Chamber none of those members have been pulled up for that. Dr Smith is one of the most experienced members of Parliament in this Chamber and all I would ask you—[ 
Interruption 
] Well you can sigh Madam Chairperson but all I would ask is that the same rule is applied to all members of Parliament. Given that you have stated that matter I will now be listening for any member bringing you into the debate and raising points of order accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank that member for his comments. The member did bring me into the debate most inappropriately and also contested a ruling. I would certainly warn members not to do that. I take the member’s point. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would appreciate your making it clear to me how I contested your ruling. I made it very clear that I could not do that—that your acceptance of a closure motion was something that could not be contested. I sought your advice as to what guided your judgment which I believe we are entitled to do because this is a parliamentary democracy not a dictatorship. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please continue. I have given my ruling. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Let me come back to the bill that we are debating. We expect some answers from the Minister because there are important issues. I have mentioned those raised by my colleague Richard Worth in respect of Part 2 and I want the Minister to cover the issue around the Treaty of Waitangi. We know that it embarrasses the Government. We know that it is contrary to what Trevor Mallard told the people of New Zealand. We know what Trevor Mallard told the people of New Zealand after the public had made it so clear following Don Brash’s Orewa I speech that they did not like the Treaty of Waitangi being used in a way that would confer preferential treatment on Maori. The public of New Zealand made it very clear that they wanted all New Zealanders treated the same before the law. 
I want the Minister to tell us where the clauses in this bill give effect to what he has agreed. He signed article 15.8 which states specifically: “… nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement …” and obviously covered by this bill which gives effect to the agreement. I ask the Minister what that means. So far the Minister’s explanations to this Committee have made no sense at all because the issue is more favourable in respect of other New Zealanders. What does the Government have in mind in terms of intending to confer more favourable treatment on Maori compared with other New Zealanders? If there are issues in this agreement and in this legislation to stop Thai investors being given some advantage that is fine. But that should apply to all New Zealanders. I want to know from the Minister and I think New Zealanders want to know from the Minister what that means. What does the Government have in mind given that Trevor Mallard said that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the Government? What does that mean when the Minister has signed an agreement and the Government has signed an agreement that reserves the right to implement measures they deem “necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori”? 
I think the people of New Zealand deserve a response to that—the Minister’s attempts so far have been more to fudge the matter than to clarify precisely what the Government has in mind and precisely which obligation under the treaty it feels is involved here—because then the matter would be put to rest. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 We are looking at clauses 1 and 2 and I want to comment on clause 2. On the face of it clause 2 “Commencement” states: “This Act comes into force on 1 July 2005.” All New Zealanders know that Helen Clark was in Thailand some weeks ago signing this agreement with the Thai people without any regard for the New Zealand Parliament. She took another photo opportunity on that occasion as she loves doing that showed her signing the agreement on behalf of New Zealand and binding New Zealand to an agreement with Thailand. Of course the Thai people were doing the same not fully realising just what the protocols are in New Zealand for this type of agreement. 
When we were in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee considering the agreement itself we were very very concerned. In the short space of time that was made available to us and almost on the day in question when we were looking at it and despite the Cabinet recommendation that 15 working-days should elapse before the select committee had to report back to Parliament and that the Government should take no action within that 15 days to bind New Zealand and when only 13 working-days appeared to have passed—despite all that there was Helen Clark signing this agreement in Thailand in breach of all the protocols that New Zealanders expect her to honour in terms of Cabinet agreements. 
That was just another example of the arrogance of this Labour Government. It does not care about the people of New Zealand’s wishes is not concerned about Cabinet protocols and is not concerned about this Parliament. Its Prime Minister goes racing off and signs agreements and binds the people of New Zealand. 
The bill states that this agreement should come into effect on 1 July 2005. That is not what the people of New Zealand think. They saw Helen Clark signing the agreement and as far as the people of New Zealand are concerned they believe that it is already in existence—otherwise why did Helen Clark have yet another photo opportunity? She went over to Thailand signed this agreement and wasted the taxpayers’ money—or was she wasting the taxpayers’ money? Because this bill states “1 July 2005” yet there was Helen Clark before 1 July 2005 signing the agreement in Thailand. Which one is it to be? 
Clearly there is total arrogance on the part of the Prime Minister Helen Clark in so far as having any regard for the people of New Zealand and any regard for Parliament. The select committee procedure was just an absolute whitewash and a waste of time because the Government had clearly made up its mind and signed the agreement. Even this debate in the House is an utter waste of time because the Government has made up its mind. Helen Clark has been over in Thailand and signed the agreement. We are totally being used in this Parliament and in this country for the benefit of Helen Clark and yet another photo opportunity. No wonder New Zealand First opposes this bill! 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment under this part to clause 2 to extend the date when this legislation will come into force from July 2005 to July 2010. I think that the Government may actually support this amendment and I will just explain why that is—and the National Party members will be interested in this. Clearly there is a bit of a misunderstanding in the National Party ranks about the Treaty of Waitangi and our commitment as a nation to it and about the need for clauses in agreements and legislation referring to the Treaty of Waitangi. The National Party has referred to the article that allows more favourable treatment of Maori in respect of matters covered by this agreement—that is article 15.8 in the original treaty. In view of the misunderstanding in National’s ranks if we extend the implementation date out for 5 years and the National Party members have a bit more education and perhaps talk to a few Maori by July 2010 they may understand things a bit better and there may be more agreement in the Committee on this bill. It may also be the case that if we extend the start date out to 2010 members on the Labour side of the Chamber may think a bit more about the implications of this bill in the meantime and think that perhaps they should not go ahead with its basic provisions. 
An extension to the implementation date would also give a little more time for New Zealand industries Thai industries and the agricultural industries to adapt. I talked earlier on about the danger to the Thais in terms of their dairy industry. Perhaps in 5 years Thailand could with New Zealand’s assistance make its dairy industry a bit more efficient and there could be a win-win situation whereby our dairy products would not then undermine the Thai industry but would be on top of Thailand’s dairy industry and put dairy products into a richer society. Thailand would have grown a bit richer in those 5 years we would be selling more dairy products and everyone would be happy. We would not then get that rebellion from Thai farmers. So extending the start date could help us there. 
Also it may help in terms of the evolution of the international debate on free-trade agreements like this and of people coming to understand the strengths and weaknesses in such agreements and understanding what should be put in and what should not. At the moment this sort of blanket free-trade agreement does undermine certain sectors in both the countries involved. It actually hurts particularly the poor people in both countries. In this agreement the poor people in Thailand are affected because they are kept in poor conditions with low wage rates. We are not helping them at all because we are not putting clauses into this agreement that will help to protect them. The working people in New Zealand—those in the clothing industry in particular—will also be subject to unfair competition because of the much lower wages in Thailand. 
Lockwood Smith has been asking how the Treaty of Waitangi clause will affect trade with Thailand. I think you have to look a bit beyond this bill because he is talking about the agreement— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I believe he was bringing you into the debate Madam Chairperson and was not pulled up for it. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am sorry; I apologise if I did that. I do not recall doing so. I was saying that if Lockwood Smith looks at article 15.8 in the original treaty he will see it may apply not just to the tariffs that are contained in this bill but also to the investment provision and also potentially to any subsequent agreement on services. That could relate very directly to Maori in terms of some of their educational institutes and the special relationships we have in terms of fishing agreements land agreements and things like that. There may be special provision for Maori—and rightfully so in terms of settling past grievances—that means in terms of the competitive situation we would not allow full competition from non-Maori institutions in New Zealand. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 That is absolutely shameful but it exemplifies what has characterised this debate through the stubborn refusal of the Minister to answer reasonable questions put to him. There is a strange phrase for those who may be listening to this debate that finds its way into the jargon of Parliament and that is to talk about “strangers in the House”. Those are people who are not members of Parliament but are in the debating chamber. To the right of the Speaker’s chair are six or seven high-ranking and powerful officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They know the answers to the questions we have been asking the Minister. The Minister is determined to remain mute and not respond. He has offered three explanations some conflicting on one of the issues relating to the Treaty of Waitangi but he has not dealt directly with the questions that have been asked. He has not dealt with this other issue relating to the need for Part 2. 
I come to the particular part we are concerned with and that is the question of the commencement date for this legislation. The answer is very simple of course: because that is the date that this particular trade treaty comes into force. It was signed in April. The plan is for it to come into force on 1 July. That is why we are in urgency. Certainly it was a great and worthwhile—and I mean that—plan to embark on a bilateral trade treaty with Thailand. I think legitimately the public and I hope the negotiators saw the substantial benefits that might flow from a treaty. Those aspirations have been significantly eroded by limitations in the treaty that have been the subject of comment by others. 
But I would say that this closer economic partnership marks the beginning of a new era in which New Zealand and Thailand will work together and build on their long-established relationship. I would also say that the closer economic partnership is a building block for inter-regional trade with other ASEAN countries. So it has strategic as well as economic significance. Traditionally New Zealand’s main exports to Thailand have been commodities while Thai exports to New Zealand have been motor vehicles air conditioning and machinery. So New Zealanders are not really aware of the sophistication of the Thai market and conversely Thais have not seen New Zealand’s capabilities in business innovation and cutting-edge technology. 
I believe that Thailand and its neighbours are a key export market for New Zealand companies. Certainly with incomes rising in Thailand a growing middle class economic growth being steady and brand-conscious consumers all looks good in the context of the long-term potential of this market. There is huge scope for example in areas such as cooperation in automotive components. As others have said Thailand is the Detroit of the East. 
I urge the Minister to respond to legitimate questions that National has raised in the context of this debate. Why is there a need to be evasive? Why is there a need to hesitate and not furnish answers? Why must the Minister—as he has done—persist in this debate with cheap and sniping attacks on National members? We deserve better than that. In this critical area— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He’s one of the most expensive Ministers we have got. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: There is nothing cheap about this Minister an intervener says from across the way. Well the Minister has an opportunity to show what he is made of and I hope that he does because we are entitled to answers. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the term “2005” and sustitute the term “2010”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill allows the agreement negotiated between Thailand and New Zealand for a closer economic partnership to come into force once Thailand has also completed its domestic implementation process. The agreement provides for all tariffs applying goods of New Zealand or Thai origin traded between the two countries to be either eliminated immediately or phased out over a schedule period. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As well as providing for all tariffs applying to goods traded between the two countries to be eliminated the agreement provides for the early commencement of negotiation to liberalise trade in services. The agreement also provides for the use of bilateral transitional safeguards by both New Zealand and Thailand. Members opposite seem to have difficulty in understanding that concept. I am not sure what it was that they could not understand but I will just point out to them that the bilateral transitional safeguards under the closer economic partnership simply allow New Zealand to raise tariffs on Thai goods back to the level applying to imports from other countries in the event of serious injury or threat of serious injury because of a sudden and dramatic surge in imports. 
The World Trade Organization global safeguards apply generally to imports from all countries and can raise tariff rates above the World Trade Organization bound rates if a World Trade Organization safeguard is applied. I think that explains the relationship between the two. 
Clearly most members who have participated in the debate like most New Zealanders recognise the value of freer and fairer trade and have supported this bill accordingly. The National Party members have spent most of their debating time raging against the presence of a Treaty of Waitangi carve-out article in the bill an article that is identical in effect to the one they had proposed in the Singapore - New Zealand closer economic partnership and one that they cheerfully agreed to put in New Zealand’s treaty binding us to the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the World Trade Organization. However they seem to get particularly exercised by this article. Their necks turn red before our very eyes as they rage against it. 
The meaning of the article that they have trouble understanding is I suggest plain on the face of it. The Government has no particular plans for more favourable treatment of Maori but given the historical injustices perpetrated by the Crown on Maori in breach of the treaty over the years we deem it equitable not to preclude some favourable treatment by way of redress if this seems necessary to the Government of the day at some time in the future. National members may shout until their necks turn red but Labour believes in justice. 
I thank everybody in the House and in particular the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their attention to this important legislation. I would also like to thank the officials who were involved in the negotiation of the agreement especially the team leader Rachel Fry and the members of the public and private sectors who provided invaluable input into the process. They can all be proud of their special efforts and their achievement. 
The agreement opens up substantial opportunities for exporters both immediately and over the longer term and will enable New Zealand’s trading relationship with Thailand to achieve its full potential. Moreover the closer economic partnership will serve as a springboard for developing aspects of the New Zealand - Thai relationship beyond the economic domain. The conclusion of the agreement has already provided the impetus to introduce a working holiday scheme with Thailand and it creates a platform for greater cooperation in areas such as tourism education cultural links and scientific exchange. Beyond this the agreement with Thailand has added impetus to the pursuit of New Zealand’s wider trade strategy objectives in South-east Asia with negotiations now under way on free-trade agreements with Malaysia and indeed the entire ASEAN membership. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill I want to reflect on what took place in the Committee stage. The Committee did canvass a number of issues in relation to this legislation which I make clear from the outset National supports—not because we think it is a great piece of legislation or because we think the Thai trade agreement is a great agreement but because we believe that any trade liberalisation is positive for New Zealand and is worthy of support. I congratulate the Government on making some progress in trade negotiations and I congratulate the Minister for Trade Negotiations on having made some progress on trade negotiations. 
But having said that I am troubled by the quality of the agreement which this legislation implements here in New Zealand. I think any reasonably objective examination of it would show that on balance it is worth doing but there are quality issues. New Zealand up until now has set very high standards in our bilateral work. During the second reading debate I mentioned that CER was a very high-standard agreement. Our Singapore agreement is a high-standard agreement. I accept that the Singapore agreement was probably easier to negotiate although services with Singapore were not easy to deal with I think it is fair to say—but they are included. 
Of course one of the troubles with this agreement is that services are not included and services make up over two-thirds of our economy. It is a serious concern that they are not included. OK the Minister says that negotiations on that are to commence within 3 years. At least that is something and services are not left out altogether but it sets a poor precedent when agreements go ahead with bits having been left behind for a period of time. I guess the Government was getting a bit desperate. It had failed with the Hong Kong free-trade agreement. That one had been initiated a long time ago and the Government had failed on it. The Government had no runs on the board in respect of bilateral trade agreements at all so I guess it wanted to get this one in the bag regardless of the quality. 
There is a second concern about quality and that is the extension of New Zealand’s undertakings beyond our APEC goals. OK I accept that the Minister could not necessarily have negotiated with Thailand to phase out its tariffs earlier than the date it has agreed to do that—2025 from memory. But that is no reason for New Zealand not to agree to phase out our tariffs sooner. People are starting to learn a lot about trade. I have heard speeches this afternoon from members pointing out how important trade is to maintaining and enhancing peace and security in the world. I think I heard a member talking about trade lifting the tide and raising the living standards of all people in the nations that are trading. What I have not heard members of this Parliament begin to understand is that for us to remove barriers to trade with us for us not necessarily to have as long a phase-out time as other countries is to our advantage. It actually would have made sense to phase out New Zealand’s tariffs by 2010—our APEC goal commitment—because that would be good for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. Why did the Government agree to phase out our tariffs on goods from Thailand by 2015? That hurts our economy. All the research is so clear: the countries that open up their economies first will be in the strongest position in this globalising world. Here this Government has chosen to maintain a long phase-out of our own tariffs and that is a reflection of poor quality and confused thinking. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why does nobody do that in the real world? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: In fact quite a few successful economies have—Hong Kong for one. Singapore did not maintain tariffs around its goods. New Zealand of course legislated to phase out tariffs and Labour actually repealed that legislation and New Zealand’s economy will suffer because of that. The economies that are the first to open their markets are the economies that become the strongest in a globalising world. That is clear if the member would only open his eyes to see. 
We raised a number of questions and in fairness I must say that the Minister did start to answer those questions. But then I guess the questions got a wee bit harder and the Minister the Hon Jim Sutton got a bit petulant started to throw his toys out of the cot and refused to answer any more questions. Jim Sutton is not a bad bloke I guess. He used to be a good guy till Labour wrecked him. He certainly stopped answering questions. He became a bit more petulant and threw his toys out of the cot. These are the serious issues that we asked questions about and never got answers to. 
The first question was about the transitional safeguard measures. For the first time New Zealand is implementing specific transitional safeguard measures in our law. Sure we are party to the transitional safeguard measures involved in our World Trade Organization agreements but good questions were asked. Why legislate for this when we are already covered by the transitional safeguard measures of the World Trade Organization? It makes more sense for Thailand to want to put crazy restrictions into its law but why do we follow suit? Why do we not stick to the World Trade Organization provisions? Why are we putting into our law the set of measures in Part 2 of this bill? I think it was Dail Jones from New Zealand First who said that they will be a lawyer’s dream. 
One does not need to be much of a lawyer to realise that once one reads that the bill talks about a threat of injury and an increase in the volume of imports. I think the Minister in his third reading contribution talked about a rush of imports or a huge increase in imports. The legislation does not state that. It refers just to an increase either in real terms or in relative terms. Once we have those kinds of words in our law once we have words such as “like goods” lawyers will have a field day. It does not have to be an increase in imports of one’s own product; it just has to be an increase in imports of like products—and this legislation tries to define what like products are. 
Why put this sort of stuff in our law when there already are safeguard provisions in the World Trade Organization agreements which have some precedents around them? These provisions are a bit different a bit new in our law and I predict we will see a new industry emerge that challenges imports under these transitional safeguard provisions. If this agreement works—and we hope it will—imports from Thailand will increase. That is what we want. We want an increase in our exports to Thailand. So I think it was short-sighted of the Government to put those transitional safeguard measures into our law and it is sad that the Minister did not have the heart to respond to the very good questions from my colleague Richard Worth in relation to why we should do that when the World Trade Organization already has similar provisions that would be quite adequate for New Zealand. 
The last question on a serious issue that we raised with the Minister was why have in this agreement an article that states: “… nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” We asked the Minister—which I think was perfectly fair as this is now to be part of our law—what that meant. The Minister refused to answer. He got up and raved on but clearly did not answer. In fact he misquoted the article and sought to downplay it through misquoting it. The article clearly states that the Government intends to be able to accord more favourable treatment to Maori. 
New Zealanders find that objectionable. That was very clear following Don Brash’s Orewa speech last year. Trevor Mallard promised after that speech that Labour’s policy had changed that in future it would not accord more favourable treatment to Maori. Clearly Labour will say anything it if thinks it will help it in the polls. That is quite clear. The polls were running against Labour last year on these treaty issues so Helen Clark appointed Trevor Mallard as the Coordinating Minister Race Relations to quieten everything down. He made a public statement at Victoria University that Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand Government and within weeks—in fact at the very same time—he knew or should have known that the Government was incorporating into a treaty with Thailand a provision that does exactly that; a provision that does accord more favourable treatment to Maori. 
National members object to that although we do support the bill in its overall impact. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava sawasdee and warm Pacific greetings. I have much pleasure indeed in standing to speak during the third reading of this very very historic legislation the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill of 2005. I want to thank especially the honourable Minister for Trade Negotiations Jim Sutton and also the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked tirelessly in negotiating this special agreement between the peoples of Thailand and of New Zealand. It does indeed represent a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand. It not only opens up more opportunities for New Zealand businesses but is also an important step towards improving our trading environment in the region and worldwide. 
I want to respond to a couple of issues. One raised by some members on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was the Treaty of Waitangi. The relevant provision in this closer economic partnership does not have any impact on the nature of the Government’s policy in relation to Maori. It is not uncommon in international trade agreements for countries to reserve the right to accord more favourable treatment to indigenous peoples or ethnic minorities. In fact back in 1994 New Zealand recorded a reservation in its schedule of commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). That provided for more favourable treatment to be accorded to any Maori person or organisation but Australia Canada Malaysia the United States and France—on behalf of New Caledonia—have all included some form of indigenous reservation in their GATS schedules. 
I also want to respond to my colleague from New Zealand First in terms of the impact of the closer economic partnership on jobs. Although a lot of allegations about job losses are made by a lot of people who are essentially opposed to free-trade agreements there is no evidence to substantiate those allegations. The impact of opening up the New Zealand market to imports from Thailand is expected to be very muted. It is not expected that tariff reduction and removal on imports from Thailand will have a direct impact on employment. 
On the other side of the ledger a good number of export-focused industries have welcomed the outcome of the closer economic partnership and the opportunities it opens up for developing trade with Thailand. At this point in time I want to point out the benefits and how New Zealand will gain from this agreement. I will give some examples of the sectors that will benefit from the complete elimination of tariffs from 1 July this year. There will not be annual duty payments of about NZ$3 million on current levels of infant milk-food products. New opportunities will be opened up for the export of avocados cherries persimmons and kiwifruit as a result of the removal of the 30 to 40 percent tariffs on those products. The removal of the 40 percent tariff on carrots will allow New Zealand exporters to regain the NZ$2.5 million market lost to China. A large number of manufactured exports will see their tariffs completely eliminated including the 15 percent tariff on gas pumps the 5 to 10 percent tariffs on plastic moulding equipment and the 15 percent tariff on radio parts. 
I refer now to a letter that the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority wrote to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee urging it to support this special partnership agreement. The authority stated: “New Zealand fruit and vegetable exports have dropped from almost $13 million in 2002-03 to $7 million in 2003-04. This is the direct result of the free-trade agreement signed between Thailand and China coming into effect on 1 October 2003 providing tariff-free access for all fruit and vegetables. The New Zealand - Thailand CEP will reduce tariffs on a range of products from 40 percent to 0 from 1 July 2005 allowing New Zealand exporters to compete on a level footing with Chinese suppliers.” The authority stated in the last paragraph of its letter: “Thailand particularly Bangkok is a dynamic and rapidly growing economy. This positions the New Zealand horticultural industry extremely well to take advantage of growing demand and affluence. The New Zealand horticultural industry looks forward to the passing of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill which will deliver real benefits to our growers and exporters.” 
It is indeed a pleasure to stand to support the bill. I thank all those involved including the chair of the select committee the Hon Peter Dunne my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith our other National colleagues who have supported the passage of this bill the Hon Matt Robson from the Progressives and also my Labour colleagues. I also thank New Zealand First and the Greens for not supporting us. Other than that this is a great day for New Zealand and I thank you. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The first thing I should do is indicate the nature of the trade between Thailand and New Zealand based on Statistics New Zealand external trade statistics for New Zealand exports to Thailand in the December years—say December 2004 and also December 2002 and December 2003. The astonishing thing is that I have to disagree with the preceding speaker. She has misinformed the House based on the letter she received from the Horticulture Export Authority. I look at the reference I have to horticultural exports. The member said that they totalled $7 million last year. The member has the letter but I have the statistics. The statistics do not confirm what is in the letter. The letter is seemingly untrue and that member a Government member has not bothered to check the facts. She must not repeat things that are told to her assuming they are true. 
According to these—[ 
Interruption 
] The member should not look at me like that. These are the statistics and I will read them out. If we look at the top 20 subtotal for exports to Thailand there is not one dollar for horticulture and the statistics go down to $3 million. There is not one dollar of horticultural export goods mentioned there. These statistics are for the top 20 exports. We have milk-powder extract buttermilk butter timber fish raw hides frozen beef air vacuum pumps—$3.3 million for those—and $3 million for iron or non-alloy steel flat-rolled products. There is nothing for horticultural products. 
So if the member is going to quote statistics she has to get them right. She has to check what she is quoting. Just because somebody has told her something that does not mean that it is true. That is the basic rule of politics. She has been caught short badly. I read that letter and I thought I would check the figures. That letter was wrong. If it is right I will look forward to discussing it with the authority. I would like to see members of the authority tomorrow because these statistics must be right surely. This document has been given to me by the Parliamentary Library. It is quite clearly entitled “Statistics New Zealand external trade statistics 2004 2003” and there is a reference to 2002. It is as simple as that. So the previous speaker has mud all over her face. 
Of course this bill is also about horticulture. While we are on that topic I will make just one more point. Why did the member not quote this from the Horticulture Export Authority? The authority told the select committee considering the bill: “However new residue testing requirements proposed by the Thai Government have the potential to significantly reduce the benefits from the agreement. These requirements are viewed by both the New Zealand export industry and Thai fruit and vegetable importers as a non-tariff trade barrier focused on reducing imports of Chinese fruit and vegetables. We are working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to address this issue.” 
The barriers they are putting up against China affect New Zealand as well so the amount of fruit exported to Thailand from New Zealand will be virtually nil. I have those two documents here and the member can comment on them. I am prepared to table them to make them available to anybody. Clearly it is all very well for the Minister to parrot something and for this other Labour member to parrot something but parrots are only parrots. We have to think for ourselves sometimes and that is what we do in New Zealand First. 
We care about the workers of New Zealand. The National Party wants more and more imports into New Zealand and their members support this bill. The Labour Party gets its facts wrong and its members stand there and say how wonderful this legislation is. There are more and more imports into New Zealand and more jobs are being lost for workers in Porirua. 
What about the workers in Porirua? They will suffer as a result of this legislation. New Zealand First made that clear. Once again we quoted from the information in the report which was supplied by the officials. The national interest analysis on page 21 has the following statement and refers to the New Zealand First minority view on the agreement: “The clothing footwear and carpet sector where the highest tariff of 17.9 percent prevails has traditionally seen the most sensitive tariff reductions. Concern in relation to imports from Thailand was also raised in respect of whiteware plasterboard steel and certain textiles.” 
New Zealand First is concerned about workers in those industries some of whom I am sure are in the Porirua and Wellington areas. The previous speaker who represents an area of Wellington seems to have no regard for them whatsoever. I can say that New Zealand First does have concern for those workers. 
It is interesting to read about the imports from Thailand and I mentioned this in the Committee stage. One of the imports is caviar—$21 million of caviar is imported from Thailand. I can just imagine all the Chardonnay-sipping Labour socialists now will be adding Thailand caviar to their lovely lattes and coffees when they are in Ponsonby Grafton Parnell and wherever else one goes in Auckland to enjoy a Saturday latte. Now they will have a touch of caviar probably on their French-imported biscuits. That is what the Labour Party has to offer to the workers. If they cannot have bread they can have some caviar—imported especially from Thailand. 
What a state this Labour Party is in today. No one in this Labour Party has shown any concern for the workers of New Zealand. New Zealand First has been concerned and the Greens have shown some concern although they seem to be almost as concerned about the workers in Thailand as they are about the workers in New Zealand. 
National Party members made some very good speeches on this bill. I had regarded them as being in opposition to the legislation. I commend Dr Lockwood Smith for his speeches. They were all in opposition to the legislation. He has admitted that it is a poor-quality agreement. I think he is just going on the basis that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement it does not matter what the quality is. As far as New Zealand First is concerned it has to be a good-quality agreement and the prime requirement is the welfare of the workers of New Zealand. 
What does this agreement offer New Zealand in that very important area of services? This agreement does not include services and that is despite services contributing 68 percent of New Zealand’s GDP. This agreement provides for negotiation to be only initiated within the next 3 years. Initiated negotiations do not necessarily end in completed negotiations. They begin in 3 years’ time and how long will they go on for? We are talking about services being 68 percent of our GDP and they are not even included in this agreement. 
Dr Lockwood Smith said that it set a bad precedent. It sets a terribly bad precedent. One can imagine that if we are going into a deal with China and they see what we have agreed to in this agreement well the Chinese will have read every last word of it and they will be going for the same sort of deal. They will not want to give us services because they will say: “Well you agreed to do that deal with Thailand so why should you not do it with us as well?”. It is an appalling agreement in that respect also. 
As far as services are concerned it seems to be a bit of a one-way street. As the reports from the officials pointed out it seems we make provisions for Thai chefs and Thai female massagers to come to New Zealand. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Really? 
DAIL JONES 
: That is true yes. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: The member seems to know all about them. 
DAIL JONES 
: I do. I had to read it a few times. I cannot pronounce it—there are too many “ths” and I lose track of it so I have abbreviated it a little I have to confess. Dover Samuels looks up. Yes there is a special provision for Thai chefs and Thai female massagers. What sort of an agreement is that? I asked the Minister in the chair Mr Sutton when these people actually go back because they seem to be here temporarily. I never got any answer from the Minister. He was too flabbergasted himself to think about it. Although I think I did get an answer about how wonderful it would be for me to have a Thai female massage. What sort of an answer is that? We in New Zealand First want to know how long these people are going to stay in New Zealand what they are going to do here and why New Zealanders cannot do those jobs. New Zealanders should get those jobs first. Surely after all these years of links with Thailand we should have people capable of doing massages and knocking up a nice Thai curry for us all without having to go to Thailand or having a Thai chef to do it. 
 Finally I just make the point that the bill is a travesty as far as parliamentary process is concerned. The Prime Minister in her arrogant way and ready to get any sort of photo opportunity had already signed this agreement. We saw her and the Thai people signing it yet here we are wasting our time in Parliament pretending to approve an agreement that the Labour Government has already signed. That is an arrogant attitude. I draw the attention of the member concerned to the submissions on the agreement which are not necessarily the submissions on the bill. She clearly has not read the submission of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority. I have read the letter that she has given. I checked the facts in it about trade and they are wrong. 
I seek the leave of the House to table the extract from Statistics New Zealand’s external trade statistics showing New Zealand exports to Thailand in December of the years 2002 2003 and 2004 and imports from Thailand which make no reference to horticultural products being $7 million. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the letter from the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority the chief executive of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Association and the New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to support the New Zealand - Thailand closer economic partnership agreement. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will oppose the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill because although there are some advantages for New Zealand exporters—fruit and vegetable exporters have been referred to—overall it will be a disadvantage to a good many people both in Thailand and in New Zealand. Workers in both countries will not be the beneficiaries. In my earlier contributions I talked about the disadvantages that Thai workers face at the present time with very low wages with international labour standards not applying and with very poor conditions in the factories they work in. They actually want our assistance. Thai workers have been out here campaigning against this agreement because what they want are agreements that have attached to them some advantage for them in terms of better wages better conditions and more adherence by their Government to international labour standards. 
Just last week I received an email from a New Zealand unionist a friend of mine in Thailand. He was visiting various unions there and he said: “Yesterday I met again the president of an electronics factory union. He also works in the factory. They have problems including how hot the factory gets. However he was telling me about the number of relatively young people who are dying as a result of chemicals at work. One worker was just 27 years old. She had breathed in solder fumes continuously for 5 years. Another young woman 32 years old agreed to give a newspaper interview about her work-related fatal illness but died 2 days later on the day she was to be interviewed. Two of the women workers I have met on the last three visits seem to be suffering from some effects of chemicals at their work.” 
Then he goes on to say that another major in the factory is subcontracting. One of the subcontracting companies in the factory again did not pay its employees on time. As a result the workers have to pay an extra 50 baht a day in rent until they pay their due rent. He says: “I am wondering about the Thailand NZFDA and how we can work closer with Thai workers on issues like chemical poisoning and subcontracting.” So there are contacts between New Zealand workers and Thai workers to try to get mutual benefits for both. This free-trade agreement and the legislation we are discussing today do not really advance that. In fact if we work in such a way with these agreements so as to increase the wages and conditions of Thai workers that helps us because it reduces the wage gap in production both in Thailand and in New Zealand so there is less likelihood of the very low wages in Thailand undermining the exports of New Zealand manufacturers or undermining the production of New Zealand manufactures here which could accompany goods produced by cheap labour flooding into New Zealand. 
We have to realise that we should not take an ideological approach to trade and say that all free trade is good and it will all come out right at the end or as one speaker said today that somehow it raises the level of us all. In fact that is not true. Industries are undermined and destroyed by free trade. The Greens do not say that we have to be totally self-sufficient or that we have the complete full range of manufacturing that we once had but we do not want to undermine all our manufacturing by competing with very low-wage economies. As I quoted earlier from Oxfam there is a potential for New Zealand trade in dairy products to Thailand to undermine the Thai dairy industry whereas if we build in transitions where we help increase the efficiency of the Thai dairy industry at the same time as we are easing in imports then it is a win-win situation. There is a growing market in Thailand as other speakers have said and it can accommodate efficient Thai dairy production while not destroying those farmers as well as exports from New Zealand. That is what we should be working towards. 
Sometimes these free-trade agreements are surrounded by myths. That applies not only to the agreement we are implementing in legislation here today but also to the free-trade agreement with China that is in the pipeline. One of the myths is that New Zealand will keep its manufacturing industry because we will move out of mass production of manufactured items and into high-level high-value-added quality goods. That myth has been in New Zealand society for some time. I remember many years ago when the Japanese were just starting to pick up their industrialisation New Zealanders used to say: “Oh these cheap Japanese goods—they’re no good. They’re not really a threat to us.” and put them down as low quality etc. There is a bit of that myth around in relation to the newly emerging economies of east Asia be it China or be it Thailand that somehow they are producing in a mass way and we can compete with quality goods. In fact if one does not have a proper manufacturing base one does not get the quality at the top end. 
One has to realise that countries the size of Thailand and particularly China have both. They have the mass production and they have a very strong and growing quality-research end a high-tech end that will compete directly with us on all levels of manufacturing. If we destroy our manufacturing base or limit it so much that we do not have the skills in the economy be it in clothing or other forms of manufacturing we will not be able to compete at any end of the market. Even our fashion designers are finding that at the moment. They look around for really skilled people to sew up their garments and they are finding a shortage because of the collapse of the clothing industry in New Zealand which this bill we are discussing here today will increase. It is the same in other forms of manufacturing as well be it metallurgy or whatever. We need the tradespeople and the designers to be able to produce for the domestic economy and compete in the international economy. To use an analogy with the rugby game that is going on tonight one does not get a quality team be it the Wellington Lions or be it the All Blacks if one does not have a big playing base. The quality comes out of that big base. We have to take note of that if we want to protect our own manufacturing here. 
The Greens tried to improve this bill with amendments to make any transitional agreements subject to ILO standards but we failed. I think we have to remember that this bill is the first of a range of bills that may come in to cover the other aspects of that agreement in relation to investment and later to services if that gets agreed to. We have a problem in New Zealand at the moment with quite a foreign takeover of our industries and land and we do not want to increase that through these free-trade and investment agreements that make us even more like foreigners in our own country in the sense of our ownership of infrastructure industry and agricultural land. Labour should be a little bit ashamed about this. Traditionally Labour has had a close association with the trade union movement but that association is loosening now because Labour is not taking note in terms of this bill of the criticisms made by the Council of Trade Unions of the free-trade agreement and what has come out of it. Unfortunately Labour is adopting more and more this ideology that free trade is everything and that we should just pursue it wholesale without taking into account the interests of New Zealand workers. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT will certainly be supporting this bill. We are the champions of free trade. We recognise the benefits that come from freer trade in the international community. In fact my colleague Kenneth Wang New Zealand’s newest member of Parliament was just saying to me that those Green Party people are mad. That is what he said. He said that because the Greens believe that New Zealand can just lock itself in a cocoon—the “fortress New Zealand” approach—when at the end of the day New Zealand is perhaps as a percentage of GDP more dependent on trade than just about any other economy in the world. If we accept the basic fact that New Zealand is dependent on trade then we can see that it is certainly in our overwhelming interest to be the champion of free trade and to look at breaking down barriers wherever we can. 
The harsh reality is that trade liberalisation is progressing at glacially slow speeds. We had the Tokyo round in the 1960s and 1970s followed by the Uruguay round which slowly crawled on. We had the Cairns group trying to promote agriculture right through that era. We now have the Doha round. It is frustrating. I commend trade Ministers from successive Governments because I think that trade is non-partisan. We as a Parliament should be supporting our trade Ministers whatever Government they are from. Some say that those Ministers are just swanning off around the world and having meetings every other week in some other place. It is actually a hard slog. I know that. Any gains we make are made very slowly. Right from Jack Marshall’s time onwards through successive Governments we have had good trade Ministers who have worked in New Zealand’s interests. 
It is overwhelmingly in our interest to get comprehensive liberalisation of trade because we have been disadvantaged proportionately very highly. The Rogernomics Government of the 1980s transformed the New Zealand economy. I was very proud to be a member of that Government. Most people in the ACT party relate to those reforms—the current Labour Government of course denies them—and those reforms are the reason for the prosperous situation this country is in today. That is the reality. The Government of the time broke down those barriers and took the hard yards back in the latter part of the 1980s and that continued in the early 1990s under Ruth Richardson until Jim Bolger sacked her. That is when the hard yards were done. That is when we took the bold decisions to take away our subsidies and to start taking away our tariff protections and to the extent that for a long period we as a nation led the world we are in a stronger position. We are in a stronger position because we have already taken away many of our trade barriers and therefore we are poised to gain proportionately more than most by getting breakthroughs in agreements. 
I understand that the tariff against our sawn timber going into Thailand is up in the 15 to 20 percent range. Officials could probably confirm that. That is a very serious obstacle to the profitability of our very important forest industry. Yes we may lose in footwear clothing and textiles because in those instances Thailand has the comparative advantage. But that is the beauty of freer trade. Both economies will be better off. Both peoples in both nations will be more prosperous. Overall the global benefits and prosperity that come from freer trade are overwhelming. That is what the Green Party and I regret to say the xenophobic New Zealand First Party simply do not understand. They do not get it. They believe in “fortress New Zealand”. They like to stoke prejudice and say that people will lose their jobs to foreigners. What utter nonsense! The benefits for New Zealand in freer trade are overwhelming because freer trade is based on comparative advantage. That is Economics 101. Therefore the ACT party is very enthusiastic in supporting freer trade. 
However I have to say that regrettably this agreement which has been signed does have some serious shortcomings and deficiencies. Unfortunately the current socialist Labour Government has imported into it all sorts of extraneous and strange concepts that actually debase the value of it—like the fact that we will have more favourable treatment for Maori. That is PC socialist nonsense—absolute nonsense. That provision is a foolish addition to this free-trade agreement. I am sure that the officials did not recommend it. It was a straight policy decision from this Labour Government—this misguided Labour Government in this instance—and I actually feel sorry for our Minister for Trade Negotiations Jim Sutton for having to tolerate that sort of pollution of what could have been a much more robust and sensible negotiated position. 
I am sure that the Minister did not support the insertion of that silly provision. What are we actually saying here? Is there something special about Maori apples? If we want to put apples into the Thailand market are we saying that if they are grown by Maori there is something special about them? What absolute nonsense—what absolute patronising pap! Who on earth thought up that provision other than perhaps some Maori militant who is going for separate sovereignty or something and sees this as part of the leverage towards that. There is no place for that sort of nonsense in international trade agreements. We would certainly oppose it if another nation tried to impose those sorts of provisions so why on earth did this Labour Government succumb to that sort of nonsense? I bet that the young member for Otaki Darren Hughes did not support that proposal. He is a rational young man from what I have seen of him. I do not know who in that Labour Government carried the day and imposed that sort of nonsense on a trade agreement. 
I have to say to the House that although the ACT party champions free trade and although we have indicated our support and will be voting for this bill that provision almost swung it for us. We find it totally objectionable that stuff like this—like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—continues to be perpetrated in legislation and ACT consistently votes against them. The “Winston First” party members always oppose them verbally. They go out to public meetings and say that they are opposed to bills that refer to the principles of the treaty but every time it comes to a vote in Parliament they vote for them. The ACT party walks the talk and it was on that basis that we were almost spun out of voting for this bill. It is a particularly foolish provision to have in this negotiated free-trade agreement. 
I note that there are rules of origin and we have been given some assurance that they will not be exploited. We take that on trust. We also note with disappointment that services are not provided for in this agreement. I understand that the only commitment Thailand has made is to initiate negotiations in 3 years’ time. Of course that is pretty meaningless; we appreciate that. But that is the nature of these trade agreements. The big picture is that we have taken a step. We have a commitment between two nations to move forward with a bilateral agreement. We would far rather have a multilateral agreement. Multilateral trade agreements are far preferable but because of the sluggish progress made under the Doha round—and it will always be so I fear. In the meantime we have all these bilateral agreements between nations. It is only when one gets to a collective point at which a sufficient number of these bilateral agreements exist that one gets a culture globally to swing in behind the multilateral agreement. That is the reality. So the ACT party will support the bill but again I must stress that we express our serious disappointment with these foolish extraneous clip-ons that the Labour Government for politically correct reasons has put in the agreement. They do not belong in it they are foolish and they are perverse. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 As I look around the House tonight I see the member who has just resumed his seat Ken Shirley and the member who spoke a little earlier Dail Jones. I can see no one else who has actually experienced what is it like to be part of Government that is about to lose an election. Those who have been through that like Ken Shirley Dail Jones and myself know what the smell is like. They know the feeling. They sit there and they look. They smell the stench. They feel the decay. They understand what a party on its way out feels like. That is what we are seeing— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Have you got only one speech? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Ruth Dyson has asked me whether I have only one speech. Quite honestly at the moment it is the only one I feel like giving and it is glad tidings for New Zealand. At last it looks as if this lot is on its way out. The point I am making is that members sit there emitting hope thinking they may be able to hang on and not looking at reality. I look at things like this legislation and I look at the headline: “Labour backs ‘sorry’ envoy” and I see that it has happened again has it not? This is what happens when a Government is going out of power. The stories are bad. The Government brings legislation through because it worries that it will not get another chance to do some of the socialist things it wants to do as a socialist Government. 
We have had the first reading debate the second reading debate and today the Committee stage of this bill. We have pushed this bill through under urgency. It is an important bill because it organises free-trade relations between our country and another. But underlying it are all the things this Government was asked to tell us about but could not or would not—one or the other. Those of us who have been around for a while know why. It is because one gets to the stage when one is too tired to respond. It is such a big effort to bring legislation of this nature forward that when the Opposition starts asking deep questions such as why there are exceptions in the legislation and why there are clauses in it that refer to the Treaty of Waitangi—we want to know that means what the implications are and what the words “obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi” mean—the Government cannot answer them. We know that it has spent all its energy on getting the legislation into the House and that it is beyond its ability to explain its reasons any more. That is why someone with a few years’ experience in this place can smell the decay and the stench. One can smell the rotting carcass of a Government on its way out of office. 
This is a great day. Here we are debating the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill which is an important piece of legislation. The Labour Government after 6 long years—far longer than 9 years under National—has finally given us something positive. I must say that I commend the officials who have worked hard to make this happen. Good on them. I commend their Minister for the work he has done because undoubtedly lots of hard work has been done. But unfortunately there are so many qualifications around the agreement that it is limited at this stage. But that is OK because at least we have a foundation so that the incoming Government can fix it up and that can be done too. 
I want to focus on two issues tonight. The first is the fact that we have all these exceptions—all these issues that really matter. The fact is that all the qualifications around the agreement will cause lots of complications. Mark my words—as previous speakers have said there are issues that will cause us problems as we develop this agreement. In fact one of my colleagues said to me earlier as other speakers have said that it is a lawyer’s dream. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes well one of them was unkind enough to say that there is some good in it because it will help the lawyers but of course that is not the intention. The agreement is intended to help the country and it will. But sadly it will cause some legal complications on the way through. The second important issue is the fact that this Government is still trying to tell the nation—as in the speech made by Mr Mallard in the middle of last year—that there are no preferences for Maori under the Labour Government any more. Yet in this bill we have a clause that gives preferential treatment to Maori. In my view that is an absolute insult. 
Jill Pettis 
: When are you going to mention the whanau? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I do not need to. I seriously do not need to. The fact that this clause is in the bill says enough. It says that this Government has not moved away from patronising the Maori people of this country. The Government is saying that the Maori are not as good as the rest of New Zealanders whereas people like me who represent a good number of Maori people know that they are just as good and make as big a contribution to this nation as any other New Zealanders. And they do so because they are New Zealanders not because of their race. That is the issue that Labour unfortunately cannot get its mind around. It is not a matter of race; it is a matter of contribution. It is a matter of doing what is right because one is a New Zealander and the people of Northland Maori and non-Maori do. 
I am proud to represent the people of Northland. I am proud that those people if they were in this House today would support my saying these words regardless of their race. They are Northlanders and they are New Zealanders. They want to see this nation go ahead and they do not need clauses in legislation that give special preferences to anybody. They are not those sorts of people. They are here for New Zealanders. They do accept that there are some in our society who need assistance from time to time and who for some reason have not done as well as others and need some support. They understand that the incoming National Government will give those people that support. What they cannot accept is the fact that they currently have a Government that thinks it can condescend to Maori and give them a special preference when they do not need it. That is one of the reasons—one of the many reasons—why this Government has suddenly acquired the smell of an outgoing Government. It suddenly has that aroma—one that it cannot wash off. Members can put on as much under-arm deodorant aftershave and spray as they like but the aroma does not go away. Ken Shirley knows that; he has been there. Dail Jones knows that; he has been there. I have too and however much one washes it does not disappear. When members are on their way out they are on their way out. We support this bill but we do so with some qualifications. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.