Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill

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 Ōrewa I speech, that they did not like the Treaty of Waitangi being used in a way that would confer preferential treatment on Māori. 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 Māori 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 Māori 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.

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!

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 Māori 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 Māori, 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.

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 Māori, 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 Māori—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-Māori institutions in New Zealand.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.