Reports — International Treaty Examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus.

I’m pleased and confused to take a call on this—pleased in so far as this is a very good treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, which we basically know as PACER-Plus. It’s a good treaty. It was led primarily by the Hon Todd McClay when he was the Minister of Trade. I acknowledge, though, of course, our current Minister, who will be bringing this to conclusion. But it was Todd McClay, in particular, who’s done a lot of work to bring this about, and I’ll elaborate on that a little bit further soon.

I do say I’m slightly confused as well. Here we are, after a two-week recess, and the first Government order of the day is not work around welfare or a Kiwi housing bill or the like. We are here talking about a foreign affairs piece of process, which is the examination of a treaty. I find this, I suppose, again, confusing, in that, as the chair of a select committee, we always welcome the opportunity to speak on our work, but it’s highly, highly unusual for us to be spending time as a House actually debating these topics. But seeing that we’ve been given the opportunity to do so, I will point out a few aspects which I think we should draw attention to. As I say, this is a good agreement. Todd McClay’s worked very hard at it, and I do look forward to the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Export Growth bringing this to a successful conclusion.

The agreement is interesting in so far as when this committee reported back in August—and I should acknowledge Todd Muller, who was the chair at the time and is with us here; he was the one who was chair of the committee at the time and brought this report to the House in August. They worked very hard to examine this treaty to point out, obviously, its benefits. The long and the short is enormous benefits to New Zealand and to the Pacific. No one’s losing out here.

What was interesting, though, is that New Zealand First actually spoke and voted against PACER-Plus. It’s in the report itself. I was a little surprised, I must admit. I was flicking through the notes when I took over the chairmanship of this committee, looking particularly at the trade agreements, and, yeah, was a bit surprised to find New Zealand First opposed—and now I understand because of a coalition deal in behind it. I would be interested to hear a bit of a further discussion today on that. The Greens, as well, have thrown up a number of red, or perhaps green, flags around this treaty. It will be interesting to get their sense of where they are now and if, in particular, they are now supporting this trade agreement because they’ve transferred onto the Treasury benches. I’ll be interested to know why.

Look, the agreement affects the Pacific Islands Forum, so it’s about 18 countries, in effect; 11 of those have signed up, New Zealand being, of course, one of them. The report itself, as tabled in August, refers to 10, but since then we’re up to 11. One of the first things I did as chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was to ask for an updated briefing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I acknowledge the Minister in allowing the officials to come in and speak to us and bring us up to speed there.

So 11 countries have signed up. None yet has ratified, but that is coming. I understand New Zealand and Australia are committing to be the first two countries to do so; I’m looking forward to that happening. Three countries are working to finish their negotiations at the moment—that’s the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands—and four, in my own parlance, are still thinking about it. That’s the likes of Fiji and Papua New Guinea, and I think it’s in their interests, and certainly in New Zealand’s, that they come on board. So 18 countries in total; 11 have signed up.

We now have to go into this ratification process. Obviously, this debate today has nothing to do with the ratification process. As I mentioned earlier on, it is slightly confusing that this is what we’re choosing to spend the House’s time on, but I look forward to that ratification process. It’s my understanding that eight countries are needed out of those to effectively bring this into effect, and most of the changes are just on our domestic legislation.

What I think this does, though—this agreement—is really show New Zealand’s continued commitment to the Pacific. Obviously, it’s a trade agreement, but this is slightly different than many. One difference is that it’s not just, obviously, wanting to trade between these countries, but, I suppose, we understand there’s a bit of an imbalance between a number of the Pacific Islands and New Zealand, particularly in the space of trade. We are a stronger economy compared to many, so it’s pleasing to see in the agreement that there is a readiness package as part of this agreement. The long and the short of that is that New Zealand and Australian aid, effectively, will be going into these islands, into these countries that are signing up. So over two years we’ll actually help those countries—the likes of the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, and the others—to help them move through the ratification process. Their Parliaments often are still maturing or evolving, so assisting them with some of the legal and ratification processes will be important. We’re also proposing a $25 million fund to help develop trade, to develop that economic development. If we want to work with free trade, well then, we want those Pacific Islands to be operating very well.

Finally, I suppose, a part of it is around the aid for trade, as it’s called. We’re looking, along with Australia—you can see we’re working quite closely—to work towards a 20 percent target of our aid in the Pacific going to these islands, ultimately to help facilitate their trade. We know, I think on both sides of the House, and certainly this side, that trade is good, and not just for the respective economies. It actually flows right through those countries, and, having lived and worked in the Pacific, more trade, I can say, will be very well welcomed and have excellent flow-on effects on everything from their healthcare through to anything like welfare, social development, and the like.

So I’m pleased, as I said at the start, that this is progressing—pleased in some ways, that we do have a chance to discuss this today, and still a little miffed, to use the vernacular, that this is how we’ve chosen to use the time. I am pleased, though, that the Government is engaging more on the trade space. I think engaging with our closest neighbours is really important, and while, obviously, this side of the House sees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been primarily worked from the last Government, I do acknowledge the Minister for Trade and Export Growth being in Chile recently and signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think it’s a great step forward for us. Speaking personally, I am keen to see that we continue to have engagement, particularly with the EU and with Great Britain—that we proceed there. I do have reservations around the continued statements around Russia, in and of itself, but certainly with what has happened in recent days, and I would ask the Government to consider that more fully as we continue working towards these free-trade agreements.

So I will leave it there. The committee has been very pleased to examine this. We are very pleased that we’ve been able to have further briefings from officials and the chance to better understand it. I look forward to this returning to the House for ratification at some point, and look forward to seven other countries joining us so that we may proceed with this agreement, for the betterment of this country and those in the Pacific.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of the motion. Just dealing with the question as to why it is important that we debate issues relating to trade, I would have hoped that the members of the Opposition now see that one of the mistakes that was made not by the last Minister of Trade, Todd McClay, but by his predecessor, Tim Groser, was to think that he knew best, and that there was no need to engage with the public in order to build support for trade. Now, there’s no doubt in my mind that New Zealand is a trade-dependent nation, and that, whilst trade agreements are not the be-all and end-all of trade, they are important to accessing other markets and for other countries to access New Zealand, particularly for the Pacific Islands. But, notwithstanding that obvious truth, it’s also clear that there is disquiet in the international community. A lot of countries around the world are experiencing a backlash against open trading relationships. That’s been true in New Zealand in recent years, where, when the prior Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was proposed to be signed, there was a protest of about 20,000 people, who blocked the motorways in Auckland.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: 10,000.

10,000. Well, whether it’s 10,000 or 20,000 is a moot point, but there were a lot of people. In contrast, the protests this time have been a lot smaller, and I think that’s, in part, because we’ve been willing to engage with people on the importance of trade agreements, on their concerns about inappropriate provisions that can be found in some trade agreements, and on how their interests are protected by the detailed provisions of trade agreements.

Now, in respect of the PACER-Plus agreement, although it is a less significant agreement for New Zealand in terms of our own economic future, in some ways it’s more important to New Zealand in respect of the settled security arrangements that we have in the Pacific, because if New Zealand’s going to maintain a strong relationship with the Pacific, and aid the Pacific to succeed economically in a way that means that there are less likely to be problems in those Pacific countries because they will be more prosperous and settled in their way of life, then that’s really important to the future security issues of New Zealand and the Pacific.

That’s the reason why the last Government, with the support of the Labour Party—then in Opposition—concluded the PACER-Plus agreement. The PACER-Plus agreement isn’t so much for the benefit of New Zealand as it is for the benefit of the Pacific Island States who trade with us. Most of New Zealand’s trade agreements push pretty hard for other countries in the agreements not to be persisting with subsidies for their industries. This agreement expressly allows Pacific Island countries to take a development path that enables them to support emerging industries in a way that we would not agree, for example, in a trade agreement with Australia.

So there are provisions in here that, in strict commercial terms, New Zealand would not typically accept in other trade agreements. That’s important because some of the critics of trade agreements with the Pacific say that in New Zealand we are somehow being paternalistic in the Pacific, forcing upon them a trade agreement that they don’t want. I reject that criticism. I think that the Pacific Island States have been sovereign and considered in their decisions to join PACER-Plus, partly evidenced by the fact that some of them have chosen not yet to join. I think it’s a little bit paternalistic—or maternalistic—for other critics of this scheme to somehow claim that there is a naivety in the Pacific on the part of those countries’ sovereign decisions to join this agreement.

I certainly back those other countries to take their own decision as to whether they join this agreement, and I know from my understanding of these issues that those countries have chosen of their free will to join this agreement because they think it is beneficial to their country to do so. I applaud them for doing that because I truly believe, as the last Government did, that one of the things that the Pacific needs to do is to grow the prosperity of their own economies for the benefit of their own people so that they can enjoy a standard of living that is closer to ours. I believe that, through their trading relationships with New Zealand, they will be able to sell our goods and services to New Zealand, to have some more labour mobility at times to New Zealand, and through those measures they will be a more prosperous economy.

Having said that, there are also protections in here for New Zealand should those countries that are part of the PACER-Plus agreement then do a separate bilateral agreement with another country that is on more favourable terms to that other country—then those benefits flow through to New Zealand and Australia. So that’s fair. If New Zealand and Australia are at one level entering into an agreement from which a strict free-trade agreement point of view is less advantageous to New Zealand than our agreements normally are, if those other countries enter bilaterally a separate agreement with another country that is more beneficial to that other country, it’s only fair to New Zealand and Australia that those same benefits flow through to New Zealand.

In respect of the separate agreement and labour, I don’t have much time to dwell on that, but I think most of us in this House know that some of the existing labour mobility schemes—for example, the regional seasonal employment (REC) scheme. The REC scheme, as it’s abbreviated to, has worked well for both Pacific Island countries and for New Zealand. It’s assisted us to get grapes harvested, pruning to be done, apples harvested, and at times kiwifruit harvested.

Now, we always have to be mindful that we owe a primary duty to New Zealanders to be employed in those industries, but when the REC scheme was introduced it was absolutely clear to the original Labour Government that introduced it that if it weren’t for the additional labour that was coming from Island countries to meet that labour shortage, there would be less output from our horticulture and that would have been a diminution in value to New Zealand. Other people who have jobs in those industries would have had those jobs at risk, and the money that was being returned to the Pacific islands would not have been earned by them.

I would make a note of caution in respect of that. We’ve got to be careful that we are not creating additional dependency in the Pacific Islands on only low-value labour, because in the next 20 years I expect many of those jobs to be replaced through technology. We are getting ever closer to robotic fruit picking and robotic pruning. When that happens, the need for the summer seasonal labour for fruit picking and pruning will disappear. It would be unfortunate if we have created a level of dependency in Pacific Island countries on that as an income source, which is why PACER-Plus, outside of labour mobility, is important and it shows a shared ambition between New Zealand, Australia, and the Pacific Island States in the agreement to help them build their economies to a more sustainable position and a more prosperous position.

We know that as countries improve their standard of living they can afford better health services, better education services, and better environmental services to enforce the rule of law and the like, and we hope that the development path that we want Pacific Island countries to take is improved by this agreement.

So I’ll end there. I deserve no credit for this agreement. It should all go to the prior Government. The final point I would say is the criticisms that were made of New Zealand First in respect of their minority view—they did not say that PACER-Plus was a bad agreement; they said that they would have preferred that all of the countries, like Fiji and Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, had committed to the agreement before it was brought to New Zealand for ratification. I can understand that as a viewpoint. I think, though, I differ in that view, and I think we were appropriate to bring it into effect when we can with the countries that have already committed themselves to it.

So I am very happy to support this motion. I think if this treaty proceeds, the Pacific Islands will be better off and we will be a more secure neighbourhood generally in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand, I think, should be thanked, as should the other countries that are participating in this for bringing this advance to the House’s attention.

I, too, rise to speak with pleasure on this debate around the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus. I do so because it is a very long time coming—whilst maybe not so much for this House or New Zealand, certainly for the small and, in many cases, vulnerable Pacific Island countries who, in good faith, started negotiating with New Zealand and Australia in August of 2009. It’s often said that nothing good happens quickly in trade negotiations—or, some would say, any negotiation; look at the coalition agreement—but, putting all of that aside, certainly, nine years or eight years is a long time for these vulnerable States to wait for us to reach agreement about their future.

As Minister at the time—or when I became associate trade Minister under the last trade Minister, Tim Groser—I asked for specific responsibility for PACER-Plus because I was of the view that the only way we would make progress is if we, with Australia, shared a vision of driving this forward. I would say that there was great animosity and concern from our Pacific Island neighbours about the harm a trade deal could do or might do to them, and we spent a lot of time talking about it being more than just trade. The PACER-Plus agreement is a model agreement that Pacific Island countries I know are proud of and should take to other parts of the world—the European Union, the Americas—and hold it up as something that, actually, large countries can do with small, vulnerable nations to help them secure a brighter and a stronger future.

We said it was not a trade agreement; it was a trade and development agreement, because we’ve found a way of marrying together trade and the importance of international trading rules with the development component of how we want these countries to grow, to develop, for poverty to be eradicated, and, in many cases, where they’re able to, a greater self-sufficiency. It is a model agreement, as I’ve said, because it has achieved things that have never been done before with developed countries. So New Zealand, with Australia, I think, can be quite proud of that.

The last speaker, the Minister for Economic Development, spoke a bit about labour mobility and the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, which is extremely important for the Pacific Island countries. There were challenges that we faced as a larger trading nation with trade deals with others around the world in not being able to make the commitment to them in a trade deal that they wanted. My approach—and, in fact, the approach of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—was not to say no but, where there was an issue, to find a solution to that with them. That’s why I agree with the Minister that it is important that we are going ahead even though not all of the Pacific Island nations are ready to sign up and join, because, actually, if we decided we’d wait till they would all sign, we wouldn’t be good neighbours. What always happens in trade negotiations is arms are twisted and things are done to make people come to the table and to, finally, decide they have to sign.

In the case of particularly two countries, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, that they need some more time, as larger economies, and want to work through some other things, I think is acceptable. What wouldn’t be acceptable is if we made all of the other nations that have worked very hard to persuade their citizens of the importance of this agreement—they have made some very tough decisions around the table to put their name on paper in Tonga; it wouldn’t be fair to them to then make them wait for what could be an extended period of time. They’re ready to go ahead with it now, they want the better access to New Zealand and Australia, and they want the development assistance funds—more than $50 million—that will flow to help them with trade, to get them ready. They want the aid-for-trade component of the agreement that says much more of New Zealand’s development assistance will go towards the Pacific.

I want to make particular mention of a number of people who have worked very hard here, and, indeed, the officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and particularly the Pacific desk, who actually have made friends with many of their counterparts in these countries to help us all arrive in a place where we can find this is acceptable. The Australian trade Minister, Steve Ciobo, put a lot of effort into persuading not only his Government but also some of the countries that PACER-Plus was in their best interests. I want to recognise the Hon Shane Jones, as a former ambassador, who joined me in Australia not so long ago—where there was no dining, it was working hard right throughout the night with our colleagues in the Pacific. That was the meeting where we concluded PACER-Plus was done and, then, that it would be signed.

Finally, to all of the parties in this Parliament—the Minister mentioned a desire for bipartisanship. Well, we’ve had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the last little while about the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and exactly what bipartisanship means. It’s the Opposition’s job to absolutely hold the Government to account, and, Minister, we will continue to do so over the revised TPP, but when it comes to other areas of trade, if he is genuine in his desire to be bipartisan, we would welcome that, because trade is good for New Zealand, and New Zealanders don’t do well when this Parliament fights over trade.

That’s why I’m grateful to all other parties who are in this Parliament who accepted an invitation from me as Minister—from New Zealand First, from Labour, and from the Green Party—to go to Tonga to witness the signing. It was a real show of strength and support on the part of the New Zealand Parliament—and, whilst Australia was there, it was not in the significant numbers or representation that New Zealand was. That sent a very clear message to the Pacific Island nations who were there to sign and the ones that weren’t yet ready to sign, that the New Zealand Parliament—not just the Government but the Parliament—supports them and wants to work with them, and we do so through respect as neighbours and as equals.

Finally, for some of the nations that are yet not ready to put pen to paper, the very good news was Vanuatu, who couldn’t be at the signing because they had some issues, have since signed, and we left the door open to them to be able to. So I would say to Fiji and to Papua New Guinea and a few of the compact countries in the North: we want to continue to work with you, because it’s a high-quality agreement, it’s done in partnership, it will help our nations grow closer together, and it will really deliver a better future for islands that are full of wonderful, talented people, in many cases who are vulnerable. Thank you.

The Hon William Su’a Sio.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on the PACER-Plus agreement. I want to begin, firstly, by acknowledging that more recently the right honourable Prime Minister, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, led a delegation to the Pacific, supported by members of this House and a strong community and business delegation from New Zealand.

Prior to that delegation visiting the Pacific, the tone and scene was set by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he declared at a leadership forum that this new Government was looking at resetting its relationship with the Pacific. Many would have seen a number of reports in the media that flowed around as we were travelling from Samoa, Niue, Tonga, and the Cook Islands that the leadership provided by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister was about treating the Pacific with respect, treating it as a different kind of relationship—more of a partnership relationship. This was the first time for some of us who are new in our ministerial roles to sit and participate in the bilaterals that took place. I can say to this House that the number one issue that was raised constantly by the Governments we saw was the need for their island countries to grow their economic wealth, to grow the benefits that go back to their people. So I think it’s timely that we’re talking about this PACER-Plus agreement.

I’ve also been a student of the previous agreements, the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA), which once existed in the 1980 and is a precursor to the PACER agreement in 2001, and now this one. In those days, one of the biggest issues that the Pacific would highlight with us was the fact that the benefits of our trading arrangement were always one-way, that the benefits were to New Zealand and that over the years from 1980 onwards it became harder and harder for the Pacific Island nations to secure some economic benefits to their own population, because it was one-way mostly throughout those years.

There was also a provision made in those days that where a product began its inception through the raw materials from New Zealand and was produced in the Islands, it could also be exported from the Islands back to New Zealand and Australia, and whoever was producing that product would have favourable benefits to them, and they would not be charged out by increased tariffs at our borders. I think it worked at that time, but I know that in the case of one such company called Yazaki—which once upon a time was in my electorate of Māngere, producing wire harnesses for dryers, refrigerators, washing machines—it was, once upon a time, profitable to have it there. Then it moved to Samoa and now it no longer exists because of the competitive world that we live in.

I’ve not been part of this PACER-Plus, but I get a sense from the reports that I’ve seen and from the discussions with some of our counterparts in the Pacific that we’re moving forward, that there’s a step up from the original SPARTECA agreement, and that this PACER-Plus seems to be a renewed focus on creating, with some sense of genuineness of recognising that the Pacific is a special area. I have said to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and a number of my colleagues that we really need to circle the Pacific and treat it with some distinction, because of the Realm Island nations that are part of New Zealand—Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau—but also because of the special nature of the treaty of friendship; the one and only that New Zealand has with Samoa, and other close relationships.

But of the 400,000 Pasifika people who live in New Zealand and call New Zealand their home, all of those people have strong and deep connections back to the Pacific. It’s in our interests that when these Pacific Island nations are strong and thriving and are generating wealth for the local population back in the islands, it actually means less expectation or less burden on those of us who are living in New Zealand, constantly engaging, constantly providing remittances back to support our families and relatives, whether it be for funerals or whether it be just basically helping them to move forward.

We met on this trip to Samoa the Samoa Small Business Enterprise Centre, and New Zealand has a significant investment in that. I saw the benefits many, many years ago, and those benefits continue in helping small businesses and social enterprises in making a profit but giving back to their community. For these small islands, tourism seems to be their biggest focus at the moment. I know that in Niue what was raised by the Premier there was our assistance and support as they look to market themselves as a niche market for those high-value tourism dollars. So it is to the benefit of this country, New Zealand, that we support and do all we can in terms of ensuring that wealth is generated for the Pasifika, for the Pasifika countries, and that the potential employment opportunities are provided to the local population, because when we do that, when we assist the Pacific Island countries to be strong, to be thriving, we’re actually helping ourselves move forward.

I know that not all countries have signed up to this, and this, I suspect, has a lot to do with the historical relationships and the way that, perhaps, we have treated the Pacific. So that’s why I’m highlighting that the theme and the tone that the Prime Minister and Winston Peters set for this latest mission, the first mission of this Government, was important. It is important to look at that reset, and many of us are going to be offering up our advice to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about what it means to reset that relationship from a Pacific perspective, providing a Pacific lens, because that’s important going forward.

The relationships in these economic trade agreements are critical at personal levels, not just at the Government levels but at personal levels. I think we have an asset in this country in the 400,000 Pacific people whose potential we’ve not yet fully utilised. I know that when the Hon Shane Jones was our Pacific economic ambassador, Matua Jones, he got it. He understood those relationships because it’s the same kind of relationships that we here in Aotearoa have to build with our various iwis up and down the country. I believe that at the higher level, with the leadership of Winston Peters and the Prime Minister, we’re getting that. That’s an important higher message. But that message also has to now filter to our officials—that the relationship of Aotearoa New Zealand is interlinked. There is that strong connection, because the Pasifika population of New Zealand, one of the youngest populations, is the population that this country is going to have to rely on and depend on in years to come, combined with the Māori population, simply because it is the fastest growing. We’re growing faster in numbers than other populations whether we like it or not.

So I just want to re-emphasise that this is an important agreement going forward. Not all members of the Pacific are members of the World Trade Organization, so it’s important. But I believe this is a stepping stone, and I think the scene that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has set by talking about this reset relationship, a new partnership, a new dawn for the Pacific is important for us to build on, going forward.

Before I call the next speaker, can I apologise to the member for the incorrect address and correct that for Hansard as the Hon Aupito William Sio.

Can I just say that we have always been for trade when it’s fair and it’s free, and that’s why we are supportive of this deal. We have sought to go out there to ensure that they, as much as they can, in combination, advance the wealth and security of their part of the world; we have—both Australia and New Zealand—facilitated it. I want to pay my respects to the previous Ministers who have worked on these projects in the Pacific and, in particular, the Hon Shane Jones, who cut quite a figure as our ambassador in the Pacific itself—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: He never walked past a single umu.

No, no, but the reality is, you see, Mr Jones understood these people, like we do, because it’s in our DNA, and it’s very, very important that we in this part of the world give other countries in Europe and in Asia, and indeed the United States and the Americas, to clearly understand the level of severity and earnestness of our approach in the Pacific when we say we’re going to have a Pacific reset of our policies and that we’re going to go into it with our eyes wide open. That means we’ve got to ensure that we do a whole lot better to confront some of the challenges, some of them very untoward and very adverse, that are emerging in the Pacific. I’m not identifying any one partner or any one player, because there’ve been a number of players where their interventions have not been in the interests of the Pacific in the way we would have liked them to have been.

The reality is that New Zealand is defined by the fact that we are in the Pacific and we are a Pacific nation. I can recall a former National Party leader saying that we’re an Asian nation, and I was staggered by that because it was so geographically wrong. We may be in a part of the world where the populations are not great, but, given the resources in this world—and the sea is one of them; we occupy an enormous theatre, where our DNA goes all the way to Hawaii and around the Pacific itself. So this is a very important arrangement. I’m sorry that we haven’t got Papua New Guinea and Fiji in on this deal, and the Solomon Islands as well, but if there’s something that we can demonstrate to them very quickly that works, well, I hope to see them sign up.

Can I just say that there’s never been a time when we have mattered more to the Pacific or the Pacific matters more to us, and trade facilitation is seriously important. I saw recently a comment by, I think, an Australian attacking this Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus arrangement. What was staggering about this attack on it was that he didn’t put out one definitive argument to support his opposition to it; he just ridiculed it. I often would think, at this point in time, why other members of the media didn’t demand that he actually justify what he was saying.

PACER-Plus is situated firmly within New Zealand’s broader trade and development objectives in the Pacific region. It’s about liberalisation, but only at the pace the Pacific can sustain. It’s also about protecting New Zealand’s commercial interests and supporting the objectives of New Zealand’s aid programme. New Zealand and Australia have made serious commitments here, at $7.7 million over two years to fund support to Pacific signatories with their domestic ratification processes and $25.5 million over five years to fund the management and delivery of the development and economic cooperation work programme, an aid-for-trade funding target of 20 percent of total official development assistance for the Pacific. This funding will be delivered through New Zealand’s existing bilateral and regional programmes in the Pacific, adopting a framework that will monitor and measure the development and trade impacts of PACER-Plus for the Pacific and for New Zealand. This will include determining how PACER-Plus can contribute to positive progress under the global sustainable development goals.

But here’s the real point. If you look around the world and the trade arrangements we have, in nearly all of them we’re in serious deficit. That is, we’re importing a whole lot more than we’re exporting, except when you look at the Pacific, where the ratio is over 8:1. And maybe we should have paid more attention to how that could advantage us, because, seriously, the more trade we can do in the Pacific, the better it will be for the Pacific nations and the easier it will be for us to transition them to a more wealthy, sustainable future. It’s in our joint interest to ensure that we do the maximum we possibly can, so that when others come knocking on their door—as they do—they don’t forget where their friends really are and who that country, in our case, really is.

It’s best evidenced by the recent cyclone in the Pacific, and, before that, a cyclone appallingly named after a certain politician, in Fiji—I can only think by some malignant person in the meteorological service who came up with that. But the fact is when it was all over, the Fijians and the Samoans and the Tongans got to see very quickly who their friends were. In fact, we had a plane provisioned, ready to go in the case of Tonga before the cyclone happened, and I have to commend our foreign affairs officials and all those involved in the preparation of those missions for the work that they’ve done, as we’re doing right now in flying resources to the highlands in Papua New Guinea as a result of the appalling earthquake that they had there.

So, whilst I could go on, I think my colleagues have very adequately covered that. But I suppose the biggest part about this, which is probably what we would hope would be more likely the future of New Zealand politics, is that this has been bipartisan. It hasn’t been petty and it hasn’t been nasty, and if we put that aside, then maybe we can make far more progress when it comes to trade deals.

Now, the other trade deal that I could mention but I won’t is the Eurasian economic deal that involved the three countries at the time last August when the Opposition spokesman on trade was so loquacious and anticipatory about how it would work. He thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now, just because something else happened that we couldn’t have forecast, it does not mean that trading arrangements should be set aside permanently, and we hope that when we have had more information on these and other deals that we will sign up as a Parliament—bearing in mind, of course, that one of the beauties of our approach when it comes to trade deals is we approach Parliament before we pass the law, not after. Do you see what I mean? I mean kind of getting the horse before the cart, so to speak, is what we’re trying to do, because in previous times we’ve sat there in this House and had deals foisted upon us where we have no parliamentary capacity to change it. That is not democracy, and I want to say that I do commend Mr Parker for ensuring that when it comes to trade deals in the future, we’ll come to this Parliament where the basis and authority of this country really lies.

Can I, firstly, just acknowledge the previous speaker, and I want to put on record that I was wrong. I was told, when I came into this Parliament and we were doing a lot of work on free-trade agreements, that New Zealand First were low-level flyers; they wouldn’t support trade agreements, they had a history of not supporting trade agreements, and, like I said, they were just low-level flyers when it comes to trade. But I’ve been proven wrong, because since they’ve gone into Government they’re soaring like eagles. They’re supporting the TPP, they’re supporting PACER-Plus, they’ve got right in behind trade, so I just want to congratulate and acknowledge to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that I was wrong, that you weren’t low-level flyers, that actually you’re soaring with the eagles.

But, in all seriousness, the PACER-Plus is a very important agreement. We are a small trading nation in the Pacific, as well, and our interests must be bound with those of our Pacific cousins, whether it be security, whether it be our economic well-being, whether it be our environment, and the PACER-Plus agreement is just providing another very strong platform for us to be able to work together with our Pacific partners.

On that note, can I please acknowledge and congratulate them. We’ve got Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Tuvalu who have all signed the PACER-Plus agreement, and the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and also Vanuatu are still completing their domestic approval processes and will be joining the agreement, also. So you can see just how strong and how important this agreement is.

I just wanted to make one other quick observation, which is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, was talking about a deficit. I’ll acknowledge those comments that he was making, but I’d also add that if you look at us as a nation and our trade—the countries that we actually have free-trade agreements with, or a trading agreement with, generally speaking, annually, we experience about 10 percent annual growth in that trade. The countries that we don’t have free-trade agreements with, it’s quite the opposite: we’re seeing a decline, annually, of about 10 percent in our trade. So it just highlights the importance of these agreements.

Finally, can I just acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay. Like he said, when he became Associate Minister to the Hon Tim Groser he made a point of saying as part of one of his delegations, could he please take on the PACER-Plus. Without a doubt, it’s been his commitment, focus, and energy that has driven this agreement through as quickly as it has—and, of course, with support from our Australian partners—and so I just want to acknowledge him and the work that he’s done in getting this agreement across the line. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to answer my colleague Simon O’Connor’s question: to maintain the Greens’ principled and substantive opposition to this trade agreement. The stated aim of the PACER-Plus agreement is to provide benefits to the development of Pacific nations. That would be a trade agreement that we would be very happy to support. But, in reality, the previous Government’s pursuit of this agreement at any cost has resulted in an agreement that threatens some of the most unique but vulnerable nations in the world: our Pacific neighbours. This trade agreement undermines the interests of the majority of the Island nations who have joined—their social equity, their environment, and their cultural heritage.

PACER-Plus is a trade agreement that involves Australia, New Zealand, and a handful of small Island nations. It’s 16 years in the making. It’s designed to have those countries drop tariffs on most goods being imported from Australia and New Zealand and for them to rewrite their regulations for us to much more easily pressure them into privatising their core State-owned enterprises—for deregulation, for them to drop policies that would protect domestic innovation, and to make it harder, or impossible, for those nations to trade with countries outside of the zone. It’s very difficult to see what benefit there is to the Island nations signing on to this agreement.

Like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) that New Zealand entered into just a couple of weeks ago, this is an agreement that’s far less about trade and far more about impeding Governments from regulating big foreign business—this time, ours and Australia’s. PACER-Plus, rather than creating free and fair trade to help development and stability in the Island nations, undermines those nations’ sovereignty. It’s much more about ensuring unfair and unfettered advantage to us. We gain privileged access to Pacific markets while they gain no new access to our markets—for example, nowhere in this agreement is Australia and New Zealand required to drop our protectionist policies against the export by those nations of fruit and vegetables that are also grown here. While New Zealand exporters will gain a small benefit in the dropped tariffs, by our standards, we deprive Governments who are already struggling to provide basic healthcare and education for their populations.

The supposed gain for the Pacific nations is that 20 percent of New Zealand’s already allocated aid budget will go to Aid for Trade. Now, according to the mandate of the New Zealand aid programme, aid should be for the promotion of sustainable development and poverty alleviation, not to sweeten trade deals. That is not new money that is going to the Pacific; that’s money that’s being reallocated from helping with their education system and their healthcare system—money that would have prioritised growing social equity—that’s now just going to go to big business. All it’s doing is helping those businesses—urban centres—to have access to our markets. It’s not going to benefit those Island nations in combating climate change, for example, or helping them to bring about gender equity—the types of things that our aid programme would otherwise focus on.

For this illusory benefit and ill-placed pay-off, the Pacific nations are threatened with forced privatisation. This means that their telecoms, their ports, and their airports are now vulnerable to forced privatisation—something that comes from an archaic, neo-liberal world order that we saw collapse and cause catastrophic loss in the last global financial crisis. Now, it’s being enforced against our Pacific neighbours by us.

This deal will also cause food insecurity to rise in the Pacific, as privatisation of family-owned land, where families grow crops and feed themselves, will threaten that source of food. It will also open up their markets to cheaper food produced offshore that’s far less healthy, contributing to a rise in already pandemic proportions of diabetes and obesity that these nations are facing and combating. All this for some small amount of tariff gain by us—taking that away from struggling Governments.

Now, it will be of no surprise to find that, like the negotiations of the CPTPP, the negotiations for PACER-Plus were done in secret with very little consultation, though they do affect the vital interests of the Pacific people. There’s been some talk—and the Minister himself said that it is paternalistic to criticise the ability of the Pacific nations to maintain their sovereignty in those negotiations. An example of how that was, in fact, undermined is that because these small nations did not have enough experienced negotiators among them, the negotiators used by the Pacific nations in this negotiation process were paid for by Australia and New Zealand. The lead negotiator was a Ghanaian, an Australian-educated negotiator who had no experience of the complexities of the economies of the Island nations. That is the level of disparity in power involved in this negotiation process, done in secret. The text of the agreement was not released until very recently.

The PACER-Plus negotiations took some 16 years, and, even then, the two largest economies in the Pacific, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, did not join. They knew that this deal was not in their best interests. Vanuatu is still deciding, so only 14 percent of Pacific Island people are actually involved in this trade deal—something that is a blow to Pacific cohesion and regionalism that New Zealand has invested huge amounts of aid in in the past, as have other donors over the years.

So, as a reasonable, responsible regional actor and as a Pacific capital, why are we contributing to undermining stability and cohesion in these communities by pushing them further into abject poverty through gaining an unfair buck? For all the real damage and loss of trust that we engender through this deal, it is unlikely to be in our collective best interests in our Pacific neighbourhood. We are undermining democracy. We are pushing for privatisation. We are pushing communities who are already poor and struggling further into poverty by bullying their Governments into an unfair trade deal. That is why the Green Party does not support this deal. It’s not in the collective best interests of New Zealand, Australia, or the Pacific.

The proposition just put forward by Golriz Ghahraman, the previous speaker, is utterly ridiculous. PACER-Plus did take 16 years to negotiate and only some of the Pacific nations have come to the table, but those who have have recognised that their small economies are going to be best served by getting greater access to the markets of larger economies. It never ceases to amaze me that there are many people in this world who believe that tiny little countries are going to be somehow swamped to their detriment by larger countries who trade with them. The usual way these things work is that smaller countries, with their smaller markets, actually are able to expand their economic base by getting access to those bigger markets, and that’s exactly what PACER-Plus does in one part of it as an agreement.

There are many aspects to it, and those aspects all are about favouring smaller countries in the Pacific. The speaker previously mentioned that both Fiji and Papua New Guinea have not joined. Well, it will interest her, I’m sure, to speak to relevant Ministers inside the Government that they are part of, to find from them that Papua New Guinea does want to progress to the signature stage, and that part of the reason why they didn’t previously was because they were in the middle of a general election and somewhat uncertain about exactly who it would be that would go and sign the agreement.

Further, when you look at a country like Fiji, you’ll see that it is an economy that is much bigger than most others in the Pacific, but they are also a country that has, for a time, been slightly closed to their other Pacific neighbours. Up until very recent times there was a case there of them being ruled by, you’d say, a military rule anyway, but now, of course, they have come into the fold of democratic nations by having their elections. You will see also over time Fiji wanting to be part of this agreement as well. It is a good agreement; it is to the betterment of small Pacific nations, and it is only right that a country like New Zealand that spends currently some $700 million a year in the Pacific on aid looks to maximise that sum of money by trying to focus on development in the Pacific, as opposed to just aid.

It’s interesting that the Rt Hon Winston Peters recently gave a speech, which he entitled “Resetting New Zealand’s engagement with the Pacific.” There is nothing new in that speech at all. It has been the policy of the previous Government and now continues to be, albeit with a flash new title, the policy of the current Government, to make sure that the significant aid funding that we put into the Pacific has some enduring effect, and it’s not just there project by project, but it does have a long-term focus.

I’d actually encourage the Minister responsible for regional development in New Zealand to have a look at what’s happening in the aid space, and then perhaps revert to a similar position where he’s looking at development in the regions of New Zealand as opposed to the aid programme that appears to be going on at the present time. So this is an agreement that is one that will work very, very well for those small Island nations. It’s one that will give them a bigger voice in all sorts of fora around the world, and one that I’m very pleased our party supports.

This is a split call—five minutes, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s not often I will ever agree with that previous speaker—in fact, I can’t ever recall agreeing with him, in the history of Parliament—but he did have some very relevant views with regard to the perspective of the Greens with regard to this argument.

We must be very careful when we start inferring that Pacific Island countries don’t know what they’re doing—we must be very, very careful. These are not stupid people, and good old white New Zealand doesn’t always have the answers, you know. Just because a people have signed up to something—it doesn’t matter whether it’s National or Labour—we know what’s needed in the Pacific. So, I find sometimes this view—that the poor islanders don’t what they’re doing—is patronising and arrogant. And that can come from all sides of the political spectrum, and today, sadly, it came from the Greens.

But anyway, we’re really glad to support the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. You know, Mr Brownlee, it’s a lot better than when you were involved at the start. Things are moving along and—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be an appropriate point, for the order of the House, to make it known that the agreement was signed during the term of the National Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There’s nothing to rule on, I don’t think.

Kia ora. I just want to thank him for that clarification. But I think things have improved, particularly since the Pacific talk, which was led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Shane Jones—and Gerry Brownlee, I believe, joined the team over there, supporting the Government in our relationships with the Pacific, and apparently everyone enjoyed his company over there.

So I want to thank him for all that support, but I say to the Greens today, you must listen to the speech of the Hon Aupito William Sio over here. This is the Minister for Pacific Peoples, who we have within our group, within our Government. He is clear that this agreement is good for his brothers and sisters in the Pacific Islands. So I would think that the Minister for Pacific Peoples would know a little bit about this agreement and why it’s so important.

“Strong local economies that work for their people and will assist them to not just grow and strengthen the economic benefits of their nation but the social aspects too.” So this agreement “aims to create jobs and wealth in the Pacific region by making it easier for countries in the region to trade and attract investment”, while it’s also seeking “to create greater certainty and transparency for businesses operating in a region where most of the countries are not members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and not subject to its rules.”

I just want to relate to some of the things that are happening with what I’m doing at the moment as Minister of Employment, because I’ve had the opportunity to get around the regions and speak to the communities. These are the communities that were starved by the previous National Government. They weren’t resourced; they weren’t funded. But the one thing, I suppose, that’s clear was that, without the ability to create jobs, their young people are forced to look elsewhere for opportunities. So I got to see first-hand the commitment of these regions to work alongside their people, businesses, and with Government facilitation to find local solutions that not only grow the ability for people to work within those regions but also strengthen community ties.

So, you know, the same sorts of principles apply in this PACER-Plus agreement. I’m excited about this, because we need similar outcomes for our Pacific Island neighbours. The importance, I think, of growing a resilient economy, which was emphasised by Mr Brownlee, by Mr Peters, by Aupito William Sio, is just so important. By growing strong employment pathways, our Pacific Island cousins are able to also grow their people and provide them with opportunities to build careers without necessarily having to leave their homes. That’s really important, given that 400,000 Pacific people reside here.

I want to commend our select committee. I think we get on pretty well, apart from Mr Brownlee dominating as much as he can. And Todd McClay—it’s hard to get a word in. But it’s also a committee that is committed to supporting the sovereignty and the tino rangatiratanga of people in the Pacific. This is significant in order for us to help grow the economies of our Pacific Island cousins, which has certainly been made clear by some of the Government speakers and most of the Opposition today. I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this time to support this kaupapa. Kia ora.

Five minute call—Alastair Scott.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am surprised slightly that I also agree with much of what the previous speaker, Willie Jackson, has spoken of—in principle at least.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not about me trying to dominate the committee.

Well, I was going to mention that I thought he’d have the confidence and mana to contribute to the committee despite Mr Brownlee’s expertise and experience. So I’m sure he will contribute more going forward.

I do want to agree, alongside the previous speakers, and just clarify for the benefit of the Greens; I’m sure no matter what I say it won’t make any difference to their philosophy. And that is, free trade is a good thing—free trade is a good thing for both parties. Free trade is a win-win situation. Free trade allows people to contribute, to focus on what they are good at, and to trade their expertise or their products with each other freely. The fisherman can focus on the fishing and the farmer can focus on the farming. The benefit, of course, is that they can have a balanced diet.

But if there are barriers of tariffs in place, one can only eat fish and the other can only eat red meat, and that is not a good thing. So I really want to emphasise the benefits of free-trade agreements to the Green Party. In this, I would also like to agree particularly with Minister Sio when he talked about the benefits of this agreement being another stepping stone in closer trade agreements and the free flow of people and goods and services between particularly this country, New Zealand, and the Pacific Island nations. I agree with the Minister, that there is a huge potential—400,000 I think was the number talked about. Whatever is good for the Islands is good for New Zealand, and I absolutely agree with that sentiment.

There is the untapped potential, I agree, in the point that we can see the benefits of the Chinese free-trade agreement that we’ve had with China for a number of years. We’ve seen a huge increase in trade between those two countries, and a lot of that has to do with the New Zealand - Chinese community based here, with connections back home, back to their cousins, back to their whānau. I think that this agreement will contribute to more trade, more communication, and to the free flow of trade and services between New Zealand and the Islands, and I think that is a potential yet to be realised.

So the free-trade agreement is part of it. The other part of it is the facilitation, by using the aid money that is dedicated to aid, to not be used as a handout, but more as a facilitator, to be invested—to be invested in trade facilitation, to give people the education to allow market access. Market access is a huge part of that. Labour mobility is a huge part of that. Increasing the knowledge and capability of those small and medium sized businesses in the Pacific is a huge part of that. So that is a very useful and productive and constructive use of what is termed aid, in my view.

So, two parts to the agreement. Both are very good and very positive, and I look forward to all parties to the agreement benefiting from it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is not a free-trade agreement. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a genuine free-trade agreement. It’s a managed-trade agreement. And that, indeed, is why it’s a good agreement for the Pacific nations and also for New Zealand.

It’s with some disappointment that I see the Green Party doesn’t support this, because if we do look at the terms of the PACER-Plus agreement—and it is 806 pages, so I can see why perhaps it hasn’t all been read—we’ll see that it’s much, much more than a carte blanche. In fact, it’s quite different to any of the other free-trade agreements we’ve seen.

It recognises the disparities between the various nations. What it really does is look to provide a pathway, and in doing that it isn’t a sudden leap into a borderless world, without tariffs or barriers. It is, therefore, with some sadness that I disagree with both the Greens view on it, which seems to think it to be an evil neo-liberal document, and also, to an extent, the last speaker, Alastair Scott, who presented it as if it was an entirely free - trade agreement. In fact, free trade, we know, is indeed an illusion. What we really have in any agreement is managed trade—a set of rules around which trade may be liberalised in some respects and not liberalised in others.

It’s also important to recognise that this agreement—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but could the hui that’s taking place over there go outside? Kia ora.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. This is, of course, much more than just a treaty about trade in goods. It’s a treaty about trade in services and also the flow of investment. If I may say, investment in the Pacific Islands is of particular importance because we know that investment in infrastructure, investment in businesses, is very, very important. What we do need is to have some transparent rules around that, which will give investors from New Zealand, from Australia, and from other nations the confidence to be able to put their money in those jurisdictions.

So it’s heartening to see that that is the case and also, of course, trade in services. We know indeed, and we must, of course, value extremely highly, the fact that many Pacific Island workers come to New Zealand, and those services move relatively freely across borders. It’s great to see that we’re now having that approach that is much more widespread, so we can have trade in services of all kinds between these various nations.

What I want to say is that this agreement, the PACER-Plus agreement, is in fact not just an agreement in which New Zealand is seeking to advance its own fiscal and financial interests. I would put it that this agreement is, in fact, part of New Zealand stepping up and playing its role in the Pacific. In fact, on a purely financial basis it would be a close-run thing. The national interest analysis makes that very clear—that it’s only when we look at the much wider perspective and the fact that we are a citizen of the Pacific, and that when the Pacific flourishes, New Zealand flourishes, that we can say that this is, in fact, in New Zealand’s national interest.

It also does something else, and that is that it throws the mantle of legitimacy over a lot of the trade between these various Pacific nations. A number of these nations are not members of the World Trade Organization. They do not have well-developed international jurisprudence. And it brings them into a trading and a legal framework, so that when there are disputes, there’s a disputes resolution framework that introduces them to concepts such as most favoured nation clauses, so that, ever so slowly, these nations can be brought into the international fold.

So whilst over time, and I must say it will be over a very long period of time, tariffs will be reduced, that is by no means the only thing. There’s other rules—for example, the rule whereby those nations all agree that there will be no arbitrary expropriation by the State. In New Zealand, that almost goes without saying. It’s not something we think we need to talk about. But in some of the smaller nations, where the rule of law is not as well entrenched, it’s important that we have that—have it expressed in an international treaty, so that in fact it can be set there. It can be there for international investors to know, so we can also have international investment rules, so that, once again, international investors will know the rules by which they’re bound.

It is interesting, also, to note that the indigenous nature of these economies is also recognised. There’s not a suggestion that these economies westernise. One of the things that’s carefully recognised is the unique nature of many of the landholdings and the fact that land is not freely transferable and that that is a matter that is in fact very close to the hearts of Pacific nations. The sale of land is not something—and this is something, of course, we’re talking about ourselves—that is encroached here. In fact, it recognises that leases are important but freehold sales are not likely and aren’t necessary.

So it recognises disparities. It recognises that many of these nations are very, very small nations, that they are developing nations, and that they are nations with particular cultural and indigenous approaches. And that’s a really good thing. If I may say, it is a real step forward in trade treaties, in trade deals, to recognise that not all nations are equal—that we need special approaches to bring different kinds of nations into the fold, whether they be very small Pacific Island States or whether they be elsewhere in the world.

It’s also important to recognise that these States are fragile States; we know that. Their economies are fragile, and their geography is fragile. The freeing up of trade in this way in fact will give them greater resilience. They’re not necessarily going to be dependent entirely on food. They’re no longer going to be subsistence economies that are reliant entirely on food produced in their own backyard, so to speak. And, further, if they enter to trade, they will be able to generate cash reserves, they will be able to earn foreign exchange—something which is a real challenge at the present time for many of these Pacific nations. So this is a way for these nations to diversify their economies, and it’s simply not the case to say that any free-trade deal is a deal which is bad. One of the things is that the linking in with aid and development—and I entirely endorse the foreign Minister’s approach, which is that we need to have another look at aid and how it works. We certainly need to examine the split between humanitarian aid and development aid. That’s something which is being looked at actively now. But, absolutely, it’s appropriate in this context to look at the use of aid to build economic resilience, to build trade, and to build trade networks.

So if we think about this agreement standing back, it is an exceptional deal. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the net couldn’t be cast so wide as to capture all Pacific nations, but the door is still open. I suspect that as this progresses, as States accede to it, and once it comes into force, other nations will indeed be very interested in joining the PACER club, because it will be very much in their favour. Why they didn’t is a matter for those nations. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it wasn’t in their interests. There are many and complex questions for those nations. Papua New Guinea, in particular, had a lot of matters before it.

But if we look at it, this really is New Zealand being part of a cooperative network—a network which recognises differences and where we can use our economic strength and our knowledge in a way which is beneficial for our Pacific partners, and, equally, we can benefit from what goes on in those islands. I entirely endorse this PACER treaty. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise to talk on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. As most of us would be aware, trade is of huge importance for the New Zealand economy, and we have a significant number of agreements in place supporting those opportunities with our trading partners. Whilst, as the previous speaker mentioned, they may not be, in the purest sense, free-trade agreements, that is certainly what we would refer to them as, and so I will be doing as such as well.

Despite that strong reliance on trade—or, perhaps, because of it—we are a very small nation, and so it’s so important for us to have that connection internationally, to be able to trade with the significant volume of goods that we produce. Conversely, if we wind that back to the Pacific scenario in particular, we’re actually a much larger player in that environment. So whilst we enjoy the benefits of free-trade agreements with many larger international parties, which add significant benefit, wealth, and opportunity to our country, we also need to be responsible Pacific citizens and make sure that we’re extending the same opportunities with our smaller neighbours in this region. So this agreement, indeed, gives those countries the opportunity to grow, to expand, and to enhance their prospects as individual nations as well.

I certainly agree that it is very important here to be focusing on encouraging their development and building that economic cooperation, rather than just providing aid handouts to support them. It goes back to that classic story about giving someone a fish for the day versus teaching them to fish. This is an extension of that, where we are providing a platform by which these trading partners in smaller nations will be able to develop their own systems, their own prosperity, and build strength within their communities off the back of that.

I just think it’s really important, again, to acknowledge the leadership role we can play in the Pacific, given our scale in this area. We do need to lead these, be on the front foot, and take these opportunities where we can, and that’s something I think we saw strongly reflected through the last Government’s stance with bringing this forward, and I’d just like to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay for the work he did in progressing this through to the signatory stage. Well supported within the Pacific—yes, there’s a few countries that aren’t on board yet, but they’re working through that and intending to get to that position if that is possible. So, look, I’d certainly encourage them to be involved with that as well.

It just reminds me, I was fortunate enough in the Waikato just a couple of days ago to be at a business start-up event where they were looking at creating new initiatives, and this is an extension of that as well. One of the themes that came out of that was “better together”, and I think that’s really relevant in this situation as well. When we support other countries, other trading partners that are doing the same as we are, we can actually all be better off as a result of that combined contribution, that support, the initiative, the extension, and the programmes you develop through those cooperation agreements.

So off the basis of that, I think this is certainly a great agreement to be in place. It’s fantastic to see it well supported around the Pacific, and with a few additional signatories still to come to the table. I think this will be a fantastic agreement, and I look forward to seeing it play out to the benefit of those Pacific countries and New Zealand. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to debate the report prepared by that committee on the international treaty examination of the PACER treaty. I think a lot of people are wondering what PACER stands for. It actually stands for Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. It relates to the 16 Pacific Islands Forum countries, of which New Zealand is a member, with Australia. I’d like to just read who else is involved in this particular agreement. It is the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand—sorry, I’ve said New Zealand—Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu who have signed the agreement. The Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands have completed their negotiations, so we’re waiting for them to sign the agreement. Another four forum members, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, French Polynesia, and New Caledonia have the option of joining.

So this particular agreement was first committed to in Nauru on 18 August 2002, and, essentially, it is a development and trade cooperation agreement. Over the last eight years, a process of negotiations has been entered into, and I do want to acknowledge the former trade Minister Todd McClay because it’s true that this agreement was finalised in April 2017. In preparing for my contribution, I thought it’d be really interesting for people to know what the benefits, challenges, and way forward was for PACER-Plus, and this was released by the Institute for International Trade in its final report in June 2008, which is essentially when we started the process of negotiations. What it said was that what this PACER-Plus agreement provides is actually a framework for an optimism for the future for Pacific regional collaboration.

At that time, in 2008, then Prime Minister Rudd from Australia announced that they would be investing in what they called a Pacific Partnerships for Development programme. There was a huge focus on an increase in labour market access, and specifically for Pacific workers into the Australian and New Zealand markets, which is actually seen as the most beneficial outcome for this agreement to the Pacific Islands. What does that currently equate to from a New Zealand perspective? That’s $40 million every year in remittances that goes back to the islands, because Pacific Island workers have access to New Zealand as employees.

What did they also focus on? They focused on increased investment, particularly in agriculture and fishing, and I too would like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, who in his previous role was very much focused on that agriculture and fisheries development to increase capacity, to increase productivity, and to increase infrastructure development opportunities that would then facilitate trade-related capacity development for our Pacific Island whānau. But it was also to build a job base at home in the Pacific Islands. So, yes, one part of it was providing work opportunities here in Aotearoa, but the other part of it, actually, is providing work opportunities in the Pacific. I think, from all of our perspectives, it would be a much better option for Pacific people to have high quality, well-paid jobs in their own countries, as opposed to coming to New Zealand and being dislocated from their whānau for periods of time to then send money back.

So this PACER-Plus treaty, this trade agreement, actually was trying to ensure that our Pacific Island brothers and sisters have opportunities that, in their own words, must not see them left behind because of economic globalisation. So for people to suggest that the Pacific have not been fully engaged in what has been now an over-17-year process in the fruition of the PACER-Plus free-trade agreement—I think they’re actually undermining a lot of the work that has been done from a lot of people over a long period of time.

I did also want to highlight, particularly, that part of this arrangement has seen the opportunity for our Pacific whānau involved in this PACER-Plus agreement to apply for funding. So we created a $7.7 million fund that allowed for jurisdictions to prepare legislation to enact this—what will be a piece of legislation. We also provided money for public awareness campaigns so people understood the benefits of the PACER-Plus trade agreement.

The other part of this arrangement—well, there are two more parts that I think really emphasise that this is not just a trade agreement; that it is about Pacific development—was the implementation of a $25.5 million fund to look at priority trade and related needs. And I think that we should really focus on what that means, because, actually, for most trade agreements we would say, “What’s in it for us?” But, actually, what’s in it for us is the collective well-being of the Pacific region that we are proud to be a member of.

And the other part of the agreement that needs to be emphasised is a commitment that we will spend 20 percent of our aid for trade. So 20 percent of our total official development assistance spend will be committed to the implementation of this PACER-Plus agreement. And I know my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee has been speaking quite a lot in our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meetings about what aid is versus what development is, and I think that this provides a really good context for why and how we should spend money in the Pacific. It does create, I guess, a bigger opportunity for a conversation about how that then is going to interfere, possibly, with our current funding allocations, but if that means that this provides a bit of a motivation and an impetus to look at whether or not we’re spending enough in this area, then I think that’s a good thing.

I also wanted to highlight that this PACER-Plus agreement also enables us to fulfil some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and I do want to highlight those because the SDGs are about alleviating poverty. They’re about increasing living standards. They are about helping support the United Nations in its quest to make the world a better place for everybody and not leave anyone behind. So this agreement, particularly, will give effect to SDG 8, which looks at decent work and economic growth, and I think I’ve outlined how that will happen, both in opportunities for Pacific workers to come to New Zealand but also for us to help create that base for that decent work in the Pacific. There’s also a commitment through this investment for support for affordable and clean energy, which will help us—or help the Pacific—achieve SDG 7. And there is also an SDG goal around industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

The last of the goals, actually, is a focus on women’s economic empowerment. So SDG 5 is all about gender equality. I suppose, if there was one thing that I’d like to see from the agreement, it is specific opportunities for women, because I believe, through the interactions that I’ve had, that our capacity in the Pacific, particularly through our Pacific Women’s Parliamentary Partnerships programme—you know, we’ve heard and interacted with Pacific women who talk about the continued use of their mātauranga, their knowledge, and their cultural practices around crafts, and utilising their natural resources to continue to have trade in that area is incredibly important.

So what I would hope to see from this PACER-Plus agreement into the future are, in fact, those opportunities and how we can help sustain that cultural practice to make sure that that cultural practice has a trading base. And, obviously, we’ve got the Pasifika Festival in Auckland later this week, and I know that there will be a lot of artists who will come over from our Pacific Islands to participate in that. So I see a lot of opportunity for the PACER-Plus agreement, and, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, it’s been a pleasure to speak on this. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.