Smith Lockwood: General Debates 
Smith Lockwood: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4985] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I have just listened to the Hon Jim Sutton’s weak attempt at humour. I thought he might have tried to justify why he has achieved nothing as this country’s trade Minister—not a thing. The one thing that has been achieved is the signing of the free-trade agreement with Singapore but I signed the heads of agreement on that. Labour tried to do a trade agreement with Hong Kong but failed. Where is the Doha trade round at the moment? It is absolutely stalled. I ask Jim Sutton where is our trade relationship with the United States right now? What does the 2003 US trade agenda say about New Zealand and our attempt for a bilateral free-trade agreement? Why does Jim Sutton not get to his feet and tell the truth just like the Prime Minister so often tells the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an implication that a member is telling a lie. It will have to be withdrawn. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I withdraw on your insistence Mr Speaker but if I am not allowed to say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will just withdraw and that is the end of the matter. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I withdraw and I do not want to waste further time on that. However I do want to tell Mr Sutton that if he examines the pages of the US trade agenda for 2003 he will find that right now the US is planning bilateral free-trade agreements with Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Botswana Lesotho Namibia Swaziland and Vietnam—Vietnam is on the list of possibilities. 
Do members know that New Zealand is mentioned once in dozens and dozens and dozens of pages of that trade agenda where the US talks of liberalising trade with 100 countries? New Zealand is mentioned once and that is only to complain about our pharmaceutical purchases our parallel importing and our quarantine services. Not one word was mentioned about the possibility of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand when the US talked about liberalising trade with 100 other countries. Yet Jim Sutton has the temerity to talk garbage in this House when he should be standing up and apologising for taking New Zealand from being at the vanguard of trade development with the United States to now not rating a mention amongst 100 nations. 
What does Jim Sutton’s leader do? What does Helen Clark do? She makes it worse. The comment about Al Gore was not just a loose comment. She mentioned Al Gore on 24 March on the TV1  
Breakfast 
 show. On 30 March 6 days later she repeated it. On 1 April she repeated similar comments. When she was told on 2 April 9 days later that she might have been damaging New Zealand’s international relationships she said she thought her comments were “bleedingly obvious”. Has Helen Clark now apologised for those objectionable comments? One might have thought she would have the integrity to apologise fully for the comments. However she has made it clear to this House that she has apologised only for any offence that might have been taken for her bleedingly obvious comments. Does Prime Minister Helen Clark think that the United States will not be offended again when she refuses to withdraw and apologise for her comments and apologises only for offence taken for her bleedingly obvious comments? She insults the United States administration again. 
I say to Helen Clark that in March—before her insulting comments—New Zealand did not rate a mention among 100 nations on the United States trade agenda for 2003 in respect of trade liberalisation work. Following her comments we will be further out the back door. She should apologise to New Zealanders as well as to the United States. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.