Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21426] 
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.