Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill

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.

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 Māori, 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 Māori 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 Māori, 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 Māori 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.

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.

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 Māori 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 Māori, iwi, hapū, or whānau. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I want to pick up—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: A bad hair day!

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.

It will not be just to this side of the Chamber, it will be right out of the House. [Interruption] That fellow from Ōtaki, “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 Māori, it is saying that Māori 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 Māori blood in her, is not as good as my second grandchild who has no Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori and non-Māori 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!

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 Māori 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 Māori business and Māori trade, the Government reserves the right to impose more favourable tariffs for Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori. All New Zealanders have every right to feel insulted by that. Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 Māori. 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 Māori in this country need special rights and assistance. As I said, my two granddaughters—one of Māori 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 Māori 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.

I move, That the question be now put.