Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, I enjoy rising to take calls on trade-related bills. I’ve always had a passion and interest in trade, and the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill here in its second reading is no exception to that.

This is a piece of work that was started under the former Government. Actually, it was first developed in 2009. It’s gone through a reasonably prolonged process to ensure that it meets the needs of all the expected signatories of this particular bill. As this House will well be aware, the previous Government had a strong focus on trade, understanding the benefits it presents to us as New Zealanders when we get these sorts of trade agreements right, when we can match those with the needs of the countries we’re looking to trade with. It provides a significant mutual benefit to all concerned parties. Certainly, that is the intent of the PACER-Plus bill as well.

We have 11 different signatories forming part of this particular agreement, and I’d just like to touch in fact on not only the fact that we’re doing this PACER-Plus agreement but also that there’s been a lot of other work in some of those different free-trade agreements that I touched on. We’ve seen the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a significant trade agreement progress under the last Government as well. Obviously, we had a bit of a name change and a few other tweaks that added a couple of extra pages into the end of it, which, effectively—those changes to it were, I think, the two words at the start of the title, which then subsequently, allegedly, made it comprehensive and progressive. Regardless, though, we’re encouraged to see that the now Government has understood some of the benefits that these trade agreements can provide and were able to come to the party and support that one through, noting their significant objections earlier in the debate on that particular bill.

Also, PACER-Plus—another good piece of work. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement—that’s still progressing at the moment. There are a number of trade elements that were a key focus for the previous Government, and I just encourage this Government to continue to maintain, to enhance, and to grow those trade opportunities for New Zealanders, because we are such a high-export - focused nation. We need these continued, ongoing, and access-improving opportunities to provide us the potential to grow and to develop, and, actually, that’s exactly what we’re trying to offer here for some of our Pacific partners, too.

So this is a trade agreement. As I mentioned, they all need to be mutually beneficial, and what we’re looking at here is, of course, providing some benefits to New Zealand in terms of more secure and more stable access, more certainty, reduced tariffs, and reduced red tape, but, actually, it’s focusing on providing significant opportunity into the Pacific community. We do take our leadership role in the Pacific seriously. We are a major player in that space, and, of course, it is important that we provide opportunities where we can to support the trade focus, the economic development, and the general prosperity of our Pacific partners, as well.

We currently have exports of about $650 million - odd.

💬 Simon O’Connor: How much?

It’s $650 million a year in terms of goods and services exported into the 11 countries involved in the PACER-Plus agreement, so this will be a great way to help reduce some of those tariffs. Actually, it’s worth noting that a number of the signatories are not currently part of the World Trade Organization, which means there are no maximum tariff levels in terms of what they can potentially impose on goods coming across their borders, and that’s something that we are facing as a challenge in some of those areas. So this will help to reduce that over time.

There’s actually quite a long time frame involved in this particular agreement to enable those Pacific countries to adapt and to evolve and capture the benefits without being unnecessarily hamstrung or impacted negatively by the potential revenue impact that may have from reduced tariffs. It was good to note that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee focused on that as one particular area and were comfortable that the revenue impact had been addressed and was acceptable, and that there were time frames and options around extending the reduction in tariffs if there was to be a potentially detrimental impact from the result of bringing those in earlier.

So, actually, this was progressed through select committee and supported by the majority without amendment, so it’s a good piece of legislation. Obviously, the Green Party did oppose that. That’s no surprise when it comes to trade. Hopefully, perhaps under Government they might be able to expand their understanding of the benefits of trade and what that can provide to all signatories. I reiterate that, actually, for any agreement to be successful, it has to provide benefit to all parties, or else why would they sign up for it? And that’s exactly what we’re looking at here as well.

Coming back to some of those benefits these Pacific partners will capture, it’s about improving the economic development opportunities for them, creating jobs and wealth, raising the standard of living off the back of that, and actually providing them with a more predictable trading environment, as well. These things are really important for a small country looking to participate in a larger international context. To have that certainty is absolutely key, and this will provide that for them through the measures proposed under the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill.

Now, unlike a number of other free-trade agreements, there are actually several different development components to this agreement as well—requirements of New Zealand and Australia to add additional value into these particular areas. So, combined, we’re injecting A$25 million to help modernise customs facilities and biosecurity services, to reduce those biosecurity risks, and to help meet international obligations in those Pacific settings so that they can trade at a more sustainable and internationally accepted level with their particular partners, not just those incorporated in this deal but, actually, in other areas that they may look to trade or interact with as well. So that A$25 million is a pretty significant injection to help promote that development and those systems as well.

Alongside that, we are committing to spending 20 percent of our development assistance in the Pacific region for the first five years once this agreement comes into place. We’re talking 20 percent of around $340 million, or it will be about $340 million—that’s the 20 percent. That’s injecting a significant amount in terms of economic infrastructure and capacity-building, so this is, again, a significant benefit for these signatories.

I encourage the Greens to understand that, actually, there are benefits alongside this. It’s not just about providing additional income and more security for New Zealand’s exporters and reducing their risks and tariffs; it’s actually about providing significant opportunity through that wealth creation, through the certainty of trading parameters, through the improved systems that enable them to interact internationally, and, actually, through wealth creation via more jobs, more certainty around those jobs, and the raised standard of living that I talked about initially.

I’d just like to come back to those 11 signatories. Now, this agreement comes into place six months after at least eight of those signatories sign up. So there are 11. They all, obviously, have to go back and gain agreement with their individual country settings in terms of what their expectations are, how they align that, the time frames, etc., but once we have eight signed up and on board—and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t believe that will happen promptly—then this will come into place. So we progress from there. That would be the start point of the five-year contribution when we are committing that additional 20 percent to economic development as well.

Alongside that, this is providing additional benefits into those communities. It enhances their access to trade but also their access to sourcing finance or additional capital and to supplying markets that may be perhaps outside their reach at the moment or that perhaps they are unable to access because of the inability to provide confidence around the biosecurity risks or the particular processes that they manage with their export products. So this really helps to provide that additional capacity for them as well. Alongside that, that additional injection of capital from New Zealand and Australia can provide significant opportunity in developing aviation and maritime infrastructure, for example.

So, really, this is a collective agreement that is providing, of course, benefit for New Zealand but also for all of our Pacific partners that are looking to sign up as signatories. It comes back to—as I said at the start—our importance around taking a regional leadership role in the Pacific. We take that seriously on this side of the House, and so I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I say “with pleasure” because I’m actually a new member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and this is the first trade-related bill that I’ve had the honour to speak to in this House. Mr Simon O’Connor has left, but what a fine select committee it is under his chairmanship, as well.

The Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill and, indeed, the time that I’ve spent on the select committee has given me a much greater insight into how we can use trade policy to contribute to addressing some of the global and regional issues of concern. Indeed, our Trade for All Agenda that the Government recently announced—and, indeed, we’re launching public consultations on the Trade for All Agenda, and I’m looking forward to the Auckland consultation that I’ll get to attend next week. Indeed, that’s what the agenda does.

Even though I’m a relatively new member to this House, I’ve had the privilege of going on some of our overseas trips that have been trade-focused as well. I’ve seen the kudos that this Government has received because of the inclusivity of our trade negotiations internationally, where trade isn’t just “trade for the sake of” but also looks at mitigating some of the impacts that it might have in terms of our environment, being inclusive of some of the more marginalised groups when it comes to trade, and, in fact, looking at some of the gender aspects of trade as well, which is what our Trade for All Agenda does—mitigating the climate change impacts that our Pacific nations are undergoing, in fact, as well.

That’s why the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill is so exciting. It’s not just a trade negotiation but a trade negotiation that takes into account some of the aspirations and the needs of our Pacific partners as well, because we all know that a stable and prosperous Pacific is a secure Pacific, and New Zealand is part of the Pacific. The global trading environment is one that’s becoming much more challenging for small countries, particularly like—

Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Colleagues, the House is resumed. We are debating the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. When we broke before dinner, Priyanca Radhakrishnan was speaking, and she has seven minutes 25 seconds remaining to speak should she so wish to do. Otherwise, is—

💬 Alastair Scott: Madam Speaker.

Oh, I call Alastair Scott.

Whew. Just about—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I couldn’t see. There were so many people standing up.

No, no. I wasn’t clear and we just about missed the call, so here we are.

💬 Matt Doocey: No, no, we took their call. Well done.

Oh, we took their call, excellent—excellent.

So it is a great pleasure to speak on the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. It sounds like a—

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Paper Plus.

—Paper Plus advert or a pacemaker advert—I’m not sure—but it does relate to trade agreements. Trade agreements are good things. They enable parties to get together and to mutually agree beneficial mutual agreements on how they’re going to structure and arrange things in the future so that their communities on both sides of the agreement—and in multilateral cases, many sides of the agreement—can benefit. It is also known as a win-win situation if we can promote and continue to develop and update these trade agreements that we have with counter-parties all round the world. Just because it might be completed doesn’t mean it ever finishes. These trade agreements do evolve, do change. Situations change so that these—and, as we know, we were the first country to sign a free-trade agreement with China, and, as we also know, that is up for renewal and will be improved so that both parties can see the changes that have occurred over the intervening years and make amendments. So, again, both parties can have mutually beneficial agreements.

We are talking about PACER-Plus, which deals with the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. There are 11 countries involved. It is, if you like, a cut-down version of what might be expected of, say, a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in that there is no reference to the ISDA—is that the right term?—International Swaps and Derivatives Association clauses. Is that right, Mr McClay?

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Yeah.

That’s right. Exactly. So it’s a very simple, it’s a starter for 10, if you like. These trade agreements, as I say, are mutually beneficial, so I can absolutely understand why, generally, both sides of the House are supporting it.

But it is disappointing to see that the Green Party have put a minority view into the report. If I can just quote from the Greens’ minority view: “We remain concerned that, among other considerations, the PACER Plus agreement undermines efforts to promote Pacific regionalism”. So, if it does undermine the ability to promote Pacific regionalism, please explain how that is the case, because no one’s compelled or obliged to join these agreements; it’s an opt-in situation. If a country does not see the benefit, does not see the overall arching benefit to their community, there is no obligation, and there is certainly no way that it would undermine Pacific regionalism. In fact, it will promote Pacific regionalism. There are 11 countries involved, mostly from the Pacific. So I’d like to hear from the Greens to explain how this undermines—as it says in the report—efforts to promote Pacific regionalism.

Then it goes on to say, “reprioritises New Zealand’s existing aid budget into problematic ‘aid for trade’ initiatives”. Why would it be problematic to promote a free-trade agreement that is mutually beneficial so that all parties can benefit? Then, finally, it says “and burdens Pacific states with unfair export rules.”—burdens Pacific States with unfair export rules. So if it is unfair and it is burdensome on those parties, why would they sign into it? Why would they put their name to the paper if it was burdensome and unfair and it was, essentially, against their export—or did not promote their export—markets? So that’s what I’d like to hear from a Green speaker at some point. I see free-trade—[Interruption] They won’t speak on it? No, because they’ve got nothing to say on it? No, no. So are we going to get a Green speaker to speak on it?

💬 Marama Davidson: Just carry on with yours.

No, doesn’t sound like we are.

Free trade is a really good thing, so I’ll give you a little example. We’ve got two islands and one is very good at fishing—excellent fishermen, they’re the best in the region. Then you’ve got another island who are excellent at growing—I don’t know—lamb. The marginal costs for both those products in their respective countries are very low—they’re really good at it. But the fishing country, the guy that’s really good at fishing—he’s hopeless at growing lamb. He just does not know how to graze sheep. In fact, do you know why? He has very little grass on the island, but he tries. He struggles. He needs to diversify his diet. He wants red meat on the side as well as fish. He’s a little bit sick of fish, but he needs the red meat, so he continues to struggle away and produce very expensive sheep.

But the problem that he has is that his Government won’t allow the really efficient lamb grower next door to bring lamb into his country. And wouldn’t it be great if it did, because the marginal cost of lamb over here is so cheap that if we can get lamb into the fisherman’s country, that would free up all those guys struggling away trying to grow lamb, trying to produce red meat, and would let them focus on fishing, which they’re really good at.

Then the fishing guys, they’ve got more fishing guys fishing. They don’t need to bother with the lamb because they’ve got a free-trade agreement with this crowd now, and they’ll be able to import it cheaply. Do you know what? They’re really good at growing fish or fishing for fish, and, hey presto, these guys over here, they’re great at growing sheep, but are they fishermen? No, they are not. They wouldn’t know how to bait a hook if their life depended on it, but they have been trying, and their Government has in the past supported them by putting barriers in place to protect the few fishermen—inefficient fishermen—that they have on their island. Then, hello, hello, the free-trade agreement is now in place and those guys that just did not enjoy getting on a boat—they were prone to seasickness, didn’t know how to fish—they don’t have to fish any more. They can import the cheap fish from the guys who love fishing and are very good at it. Hey presto, these guys who were struggling away growing lamb, they can now, more productively and efficiently, provide fish—are these guys the fishermen or the lamb guys?—to the guys across the way.

So that’s the benefit of a free-trade agreement. You focus on the stuff that you’re good at. You are able to be really productive and efficient at that thing or that production, and you share and you collaborate—you share the knowledge and expertise and product—with the other country, who will have to take away the barriers over time.

I think this agreement—coming back to the bill—does take time to take these barriers down. It’s quite, as we know in this country, extremely disruptive if we take barriers away very quickly all in one hit. We’ve seen that here. This enables the barriers to be drawn out and reduced over something like 20 years and 25 years. Of course, as time progresses over that 20 years and 25 years, and the parties agree—mutually agree—those time frames can be shrunk, the agreement can be amended so that both parties, again, can find ways of agreeing to mutually benefit one another.

That’s why I’m very pleased to see pretty much the Parliament, except for the Greens, support this agreement. They see the benefits and mutual benefit of supporting free-trade agreements. I commend this bill to the House.

Malo e laumalie. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will indeed be rising to strongly support the Green Party’s position. We will be vocally opposing the PACER-Plus agreement tonight in the House. We have long vocally opposed the PACER-Plus agreement. We believe it undermines the interests of the majority of the Island nations. I think it’s worth noting that only 14 percent of the actual Pacific population are on board with this, because the other bigger Pacific nations—we’re looking at population here—have said, “This deal isn’t for us. What is this deal actually going to produce in terms of benefits for us?”

So I might start by acknowledging the really fantastic analysis—actually, Alastair Scott, the previous member, might want to have a listen—of Dr Cleo Paskal, who goes back to the purpose of what this trade deal says it is trying to achieve and how it fails on every count. If the PACER-Plus deal is trying to create economic integration, it fails. Some of the countries are not signing up and some are pulling out. How can that be economic integration? If this deal is supposed to create stability, it fails. There are internal frictions and political problems being created by this deal and we cannot deny those—not least with Tonga and Vanuatu. If this deal is supposed to ensure—as it actually says in the bill that it is supposed to—that all trade passes through Australia and New Zealand, then why would other nations and other trading partners even consider this? In actual fact, Washington DC and London have actually questioned this deal and asked what on earth the purpose of it is and what it is actually trying to do.

So we’re on good ground in the Green Party in continuing to oppose this PACER-Plus deal. We have always said that it doesn’t include the largest Pacific regions and nations—as I’ve just pointed out, for example, Papua New Guinea and Fiji—and that it undermines initiatives towards greater Pacific regionalism, which, apparently, this trade deal was supposed to be about. It actually does the opposite.

We have said it provides for New Zealand to divert 20 percent of the aid budget to Aid for Trade purposes, coming from the existing aid budget. What is that about? That’s a bit of a rort. We know that the burden of trade rules in the agreement is on the small and the poor Pacific countries, not on Australia, which maintains its high barriers—so what is that about?—to the export of fruit and vegetables from the Pacific. So, actually, what it says—especially under the initiative of the previous Government—it is trying to do is a bit of a farce.

I want to acknowledge that this Government has a new approach to the regions and the relationships. This Government has a new direction, and there is opportunity, therefore, to reassess how this deal could actually benefit the Pacific region in the way that it says it wants to. I do want to acknowledge there is that opportunity here and, particularly, that voices from New Zealand’s and Australia’s domestic strategic community raised the undermining and the trade-off, actually, between what has largely been driven by business interests, which can, in actual fact—and an analysis says that it is—undermine the strategic and economic interests of the Pacific economies themselves. So I don’t understand—and that’s why we are proud to oppose the direction that this Pacific trade agreement is going in.

Coming in from and led by the last National Government, it was absolutely a bad deal. I do acknowledge the opportunity that we have under this Government to reassess this, but the Green Party will be continuing to oppose it.

If I can—yep, there’s time—just pick up in more detail three of our concerns that I mentioned at the start of my contribution. So, tariffs: under this deal, New Zealand gains privileged access to Pacific markets, while they gain no new access to our markets. There has been some analysis of a little bit of bullying—that has been the word that has been used—from Australia and from New Zealand as a nation towards Pacific nations.

Now, if this is correct that we gain new access but they gain no new access to our markets, then I think that holds true. For example, nowhere in the agreement are Australia and New Zealand required to drop our protectionist policies against the export by those nations of their fruit and vegetables that are also grown here. So these small Island nations have to drop tariffs on most goods being imported from Australia and New Zealand, but not on the other side—for example, Australia maintains high barriers to the export of kava and of fruit and vegetables from the Pacific.

So we have pointed out previously that New Zealand exporters will gain $20 million in reduced tariffs, but this is lost revenue for Pacific Governments that are already struggling to provide basic healthcare and education to their people. For example, Tonga spends $270 per person, annually, on healthcare, compared with New Zealand’s spend of $4,016. So we may be better off, but they will be much worse off.

Secondly—yep, we’ve got time—it’s about deregulation and promoting corporate rights, and this was clear from the get-go, particularly under the previous Government. As a result of this, experts have said that we’ll likely see these small States face pressure for them to privatise their core State-owned enterprises, and that is what allows external players to come in and section off parts of the Pacific economies—to actually fractionalise Pacific economies—when this trade deal is supposed to be able to bring in and regionalise their economies.

So if we really are after a trade deal that will help integrate Pacific economies and provide a regionalised base where we can give fair trade deals that look to the long-term sustainability of Pacific business, economies, and equalities—social and economic—then this is not the deal. This is why the Green Party is proud to continue opposing this bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Malo e laumalie, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. It seems particularly appropriate to commence this speech on the second reading of the PACER-Plus bill, given that we are in Tongan Language Week, but—

💬 Matt Doocey: That’s right—keep going in Tongan.

I probably won’t carry on in Tongan, Mr Doocey, but thank you for the encouragement. I wouldn’t wish to upset my Tongan constituents by murdering their language. I would, however, like to wish talofa lava, kia orana—and I would say “bula vinaka”, but, of course, the Fijians are not part of this agreement—and warm Pacific greetings to all who are parties to the agreement in what is a very important measure for all the parties who at this stage have committed to signing up to it. At some stage in the future, it is certainly my hope that many more from throughout the Pacific region will feel encouraged and welcome to do so.

I am conscious of the fact that there is always a danger when readings have been interrupted of a degree of repetition. In fact, this second reading commenced several weeks ago and it was interrupted at that point. It then recommenced before the dinner adjournment, when I was not able to be in the House, so I apologise in advance if anything that I say repeats some of the information that is critical to the consideration at the second reading, but I do think it’s important to get some facts on the table.

I have to say that there is a certain irony in having so much enthusiasm from the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party for a free-trade agreement when those of us who are on this side of the House, who were on the other side of the House just a year ago, remember that this agreement was at that stage being concluded—or, rather, the negotiations were coming to a conclusion—in June of last year, under the fine leadership of the Hon Todd McClay, and we had just emerged from a period of sustained, belligerent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement from those parties opposite. At that stage, it seemed that they hadn’t a good word to say about free trade. Now, suddenly, they’re on that side of the House and they’ve become converts, and I do welcome their conversion, but, as I say, there’s a little bit of irony in it. I do think it’s therefore important to give credit where credit is due and say, “Malie Fakafofonga.” I apologise if I’ve got that wrong, but I understand that means “well done”, “bravo”, “a brilliant effort”, and I want to say that I won’t say it again to the Hon Todd McClay, but he and his partners throughout the Pacific did a very good job. It is, naturally, something that we would all hope will be of mutual benefit to all the parties who are concerned.

And I have to say to the Green member who’s just resumed her seat, it’s always fascinating to hear Green arguments on topics of this type because, listening to Ms Davidson, you would assume that there was not a single benefit to any of the Pacific partners who have at this stage committed themselves to PACER-Plus.

💬 Simeon Brown: What have they been vaping?

I shall leave that question to the realms of being a rhetorical question, Mr Brown, but still happy to have written you into the record for asking it.

In all seriousness, I say to the Green Party: do they seriously believe that all of the nations that have gone through a very detailed consideration of this topic, who have had the benefit of expert advice, who have had the benefit of trade commissioners and others going to their countries, talking them through in detail what the opportunities would be, showing them that it’s not only trade but also services that can make an enormous transformational difference in many of their countries—are we seriously meant to believe that at the end of all of that, they would say, “Well, there’s no benefit to us in that. That’s absolutely predatory. We will be seriously disadvantaged, but hey, we’ll sign up anyway.”? Because that is the logical conclusion of the argument that is being put forward: “There’s no benefit to us in any of this, but we’ll sign up anyway.” Well, I want to suggest that that is a fairly farcical—

💬 Alastair Scott: Patronising.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “patronising”, Mr Scott, but I thank you for your assistance. I would, nevertheless, describe it as a farcical conclusion. So I just want to refer to some of the documentation and, in particular, draw the Greens’ attention—now this is presumably not new to them, but there is a very detailed national interest analysis that has been produced on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, the PACER-Plus agreement. Now, admittedly, this is for the New Zealand tradespeople, but, nevertheless, we read it and we look into it to see—well, what does it tell us of the national interest for each of the member nations who are a part of it? There is no question that there is a very significant economic cooperation package being made available as part of the PACER-Plus agreement, and this is being made available to help Pacific countries to meet their obligations and realise the benefits of the agreement.

Now, New Zealand and Australia have offered to provide more than $55 million in direct and indirect trade-related support for the Pacific through PACER-Plus and associated initiatives. So that’s one commitment. “PACER Plus will leverage New Zealand’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) investments to increase regional trade, investment, and labour flows.”, and New Zealand has committed to investing at least 20 percent of its total official development assistance in Aid for Trade in the Pacific for the first five years after the agreement comes into force.

Now, previous speakers have drawn attention to the Government’s commitment to the Pacific reset. I would make the point that much of that work was already under way under the previous Government, but I acknowledge the fact that they have taken it a stage further. They’ve put some more money into it, and I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, and I think there’s pretty broad agreement in this House on the fact that we have a strong, not just a sense of obligation, but almost a family tie to our Pacific neighbours, and we have a very strong desire to be of assistance to them. While New Zealand tends to think of ourselves as a small country, when it comes to Pacific matters, suddenly we become a very large country, and I’m pleased that, as a country, we are stepping up to acknowledge that and to do our best to help.

So you read in the national interest analysis that “PACER-Plus seeks to facilitate trade in services between New Zealand and Pacific Island Forum countries by building on current commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA)”—which is a Trade in Services protocol—and “It covers all service sectors and modes of supply, with exceptions which preserve services supplied in the exercise of government authority, government procurement, subsidies, and air transport services.” Now, that all sounds fairly wordy, but when you look down the list of how some different countries can be affected by this, these include the following sectors: taxation services to Tonga; veterinary services in Samoa; services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists, and paramedical personnel in Tonga and Vanuatu; computer and related services in the Solomon Islands; research and development services in Tonga; real estate services in Tonga; rental/leasing services without operators in Samoa and Tonga; advertising services in Samoa—and I’m only not quite halfway through a list in this particular assessment.

So the point that I’m making is that this is comprehensive in its application. It is designed to ensure that there is very real benefit for all the parties that take part. I don’t see why on earth the Greens would think that there is absolutely no benefit in that, and, of course, they haven’t been compelled to sign up.

There are a number of Pacific nations that at this stage are staying outside PACER-Plus and looking to see whether there will come a point when it might be more attractive to them. I hope that in time it will be and we’ll—certainly in New Zealand, I’m sure—be keen to ensure that, and I wish the current trade Minister, who’s in the House, well in his efforts to do that. I’m sure he’ll represent us very well in reaching out to those Pacific nations because, as I say, we take our obligations to our neighbours seriously, and, as I say, the very important point to note is that this is an agreement that has real benefits to all the parties involved.

Inevitably, when there is a trade agreement, there are things that have to be compromised. There is a bit of give and take. That’s in the nature of negotiation, but to suggest, as the Greens are doing, that this is a horrific agreement where there is no benefit whatsoever to the Pacific nations is, to my mind, absolutely farcical and completely refuted by reference to the facts. I do suggest to any member of the public who may be interested to have a look at the national interest analysis. By all means, agree that you’re reading our particular analysis through New Zealand eyes, but also reach out and see how this will have attractive benefits for many other nations.

So I am absolutely delighted to welcome this particular bill that will see PACER-Plus advance to the next stage in the process in the House tonight. I’m sure that from this point on, the Government will be keen to ensure that we complete the remaining stages fairly soon. I will be pleased to take another call at that point. I commend the Government for the work that it’s doing, and the National Opposition is very happy to support it.

This next call is a split call.

Malo e laumalie ‘Eiki Sea. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I want to thank my colleague Tim Macindoe, because I won’t be now having to outline what this bill means in terms of benefits for our Pacific brothers and sisters, can I call them. But what I do want to say is that what this bill will do specifically is ensure the application of preferential tariff rates for parties to the PACER-Plus agreement and amend the rules on goods re-entered after repair or alteration.

So, actually, it hugely benefits our Pacific whānau, this piece of legislation. I’m not quite sure about others’ interpretation of the bill, other than to say that we know, as members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and having to hear submissions about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership itself before then considering the bill, which is before the select committee, that people are just anti-trade, and those that are anti-trade don’t believe that it benefits anyone other than the corporates. But what this piece of legislation does—this specific one—is actually provide better access. We’d reduce those tariffs, as I’ve said, so that commodities from the Pacific can enter our country and they are advantaged in doing so.

We only had one submission before the select committee. It was a really interesting submission by Rural Women and the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women of New Zealand—so, Angela McLeod and Hellen Swales. They came to present on behalf of their sisters in the Pacific, and they wanted to make sure that the voices of women were included in these agreements because, from their perspective, women actually have been explicitly excluded.

So what I want to share with the House is that part of this piece of legislation—and I do want to just focus on what the objectives were when this particular agreement was discussed at the Pacific Islands Forum at their 40th meeting in August 2009. The “why” was all about jobs. The “why” was about increasing standards of living, it was about regional, sustainable economic development, it was about reducing poverty and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and that really is what I want to focus on, because what SDGs are we talking about?

We’re actually talking about SDG 9, which is about improving industry, innovation, and infrastructure. It is about SDG 8: creating decent work and economic growth. It is about SDG 7: providing affordable, clean energy. It’s also about SDG 5, which is all about gender equality. Herein lies the commitment that we managed to put in the select committee report. We were told—and I know Minister David Parker, who is sitting in a chair beside me now, is committed to ensuring that women are consulted on in terms of the Trade for All Agenda and the Pacific reset.

So I just want to take the opportunity to thank Angela McLeod and Hellen Swales for bothering to make a submission to our select committee, for coming, and for advocating for our sisters in the Pacific. I’m reassured because of some of the statements our Minister has said, and because we have committed to the Trade for All Agenda. I saw a press release on 6 August 2018—this is in the New Zealand context—and I quote, “We want small and medium sized businesses, women and Maori—who haven’t always benefited as much as big business from trade deals—to succeed on the global stage.” So there it is in writing.

This Government is going to engage with groups such as indigenous peoples and women to make sure that these agreements actually fulfil the potential that we all hope them to have. It isn’t just about big business; it actually is about supporting small and medium sized business owners—you know, the mums and dads who are harvesting in our Pacific Islands—and providing clearer pathways, easier pathways, for their goods to come to New Zealand so we can purchase them. We can help to grow communities in our Pacific Islands whose main source of income isn’t from their family who live in New Zealand, who send that money back to the Islands; it’s actually providing them with the tools and the resources to be able to look after themselves. Kia ora.

Malo e lelei, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my sister across the House, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. This is acknowledgment to the Tongan reo this week, as we will also, next week, pay acknowledgment to Te Reo Māori. So I acknowledge you, e tuahine, and in acknowledging you I also acknowledge the people of Tonga, who may be viewing this debate this evening, and also our brothers and sisters throughout the Pacific realm.

Speaking specifically to this proposed legislation, having presided as a substitute sit-in member on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I’ve been privy to only part of these discussions, but, in saying so, I will continue the pace of the debate this evening as we speak about the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. For those who are listening out there in the public, the PACER-Plus—as previous speakers this evening have addressed the House upon—is a landmark trade and development agreement. It will lower barriers and provide greater opportunity for New Zealand businesses whilst raising living standards, creating jobs and opportunities, and increasing exports in Pacific Island countries.

I’ll just hearken to some kōrero that was shared by the co-leader of the Green Party this evening, and with the Greens taking a minority view on this, it’s somewhat not surprising that, again, they’re jumping the waka when it comes to trade. It’s not surprising that, again, it’s calling into question a level of integrity around this coalition Government, where one of the parties to that is challenging what the views are of its other party participants.

However, I will come back to the bill. It’s known that this Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus—the PACER-Plus—is a free-trade agreement, and, coincidentally, it was signed in June 2017 in Tonga. Under the national interest analysis that has been provided around this agreement, PACER-Plus is a plurilateral, treaty-level agreement that has been negotiated between 14 countries. Eleven of those have signed to this. Those 11 countries are Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru—which is very topical in our news at the moment—New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and, none the less, Tonga.

Just in summation, the background has been canvassed. Statistics: New Zealand is home to almost 296,000 Pacific people. It has a growing youth population of our Pasifika peoples here in Aotearoa. New Zealand exports around $1 billion of goods to the Pacific regions a year. Around 30 percent of Pacific nations’ exports go to Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand and Australia, notably, are the largest source of tourists for the Pacific. New Zealand has also committed to invest at least 20 percent of its total Official Development Assistance into Aid for Trade in the Pacific region. It’s important that in relation to that, for the first five years after PACER-Plus has been entered into, there is an estimated $340 million invested into economic infrastructure and capacity-building within those Pacific nations.

The intended benefits of PACER-Plus are, in summary, a more predictable trading environment, more consistent and transparent rules throughout the region on sanitary and phytosanitary measures—that’s around animal and human imports and exports—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Are we exporting humans—what? Didn’t read that bit.

—technical barriers to trade, and customs procedures. It also—well, that bit, if you’re interested, is at page 58, I refer to the member across the House. It’s at page 58 of the agreement, so you may be enlightened by learning something this evening, as well.

Also, just by way of summary and in concluding around that, the benefits are that PACER-Plus will enter into force 60 days after eight of those negotiating parties, that I outlined, of the 11 have notified Tonga that they’ve completed their domestic requirements. In due course, this will come into implementation. To our trading partners in the Pacific Rim, this is something to be celebrated for all. Kia ora.

Malo e lelei, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 Simeon Brown: What’s on page 58? What’s on page 58?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I’d like to start by acknowledging—

💬 Simeon Brown: Page 58.

—the Hon Todd McClay, and ask that the incessant buzz from the opposite side of the House stop. I was with the Hon Todd McClay when this was signed by those in attendance at the time, and I acknowledge his efforts. I have no doubt that the other side of the House has brought up New Zealand First’s position at the time. We did write a minority view on PACER-Plus, and I’d just very briefly like to touch on the thinking of that.

I acknowledge the Minister for Trade and Export Growth for his fantastic effort, but our position at the time was around, essentially, the timing of where PACER-Plus had got to in the conversations with our Pacific neighbours. So when you look at the current state of the signatories and at the time it was signed, we still have the critical issue of not having signed in, or brought into the conversation to any great degree, some of the biggest players in the Pacific.

Fiji is still not a signatory, Papua New Guinea is still not a signatory, and they represent, in terms of Pacific trade, population, economic activity, and actual export/import figures, a large and significant proportion of trade in the Pacific. At the time, New Zealand First said “Well, what is the rush? Why are we trying to push this now?”, and we wrote our minority view. Now, some have made the point in the House of why have we changed our position. Well, I’ll tell you why. As many have acknowledged, this isn’t a traditional trade agreement. This is an agreement where New Zealand has sought to empower that blue continent and to say to our cousins, our neighbours, “Actually, what we’re trying to achieve is to grow your economies through trade, to make a sustainable economy through good export—and, yes, to help you with imported goods where we think New Zealand has those efficiencies.”

What’s changed, what is fundamentally different—and it’s very important to note it in the House tonight—is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs with this Government, set out to reinvigorate, to make significant again, our relationship with the Pacific to say that together, and only together, can we move this blue continent forward. So what we have created, what this Government has done, through the Rt Hon Winston Peters, is the Pacific reset. I acknowledge the contribution—I think it was the contribution from the Hon Tim Macindoe. He acknowledged that this Government has absolutely raised the stakes in terms of monetary contribution.

Actually, I now am very proud to talk to the House about my efforts in the Pacific, because I personally see PACER-Plus now in connection with the Pacific reset, and, actually, I’d like to acknowledge our trade Minister in regards to our focus on trade and our Trade for All Agenda, because that has resonated in the Pacific. They understand what it is we’re trying to achieve. So if you put all of that together and in this House talk about the potential synergies we’re trying to create with the Pacific reset—and I would argue tonight that New Zealand First is absolutely focused on using PACER-Plus as an enabling tool to engage with our Pacific neighbours.

The previous contribution from Harete Hipango spoke about phytosanitary measures—biosecurity. Well, actually, what we’re trying to do here—and, once again, I say it for the House’s benefit: this isn’t a traditional trade deal. This is an attempt to empower our Pacific neighbours, our cousins, and to build capacity for sustainable exports and sustainable economic growth so that long term, this blue continent grows together, and New Zealand is absolutely a part of that.

So already, on the ground, for those Pacific Island countries who have signed up to PACER-Plus, we have deployed resource in terms of empowering and enabling the issues that they’ve had with the compliance issues in terms of our quite high standards for accepting imports in New Zealand. We’re adamant that we must maintain those standards, but we’re absolutely adamant that we cannot block our neighbours from exporting into New Zealand, because that’s potentially a great income generator for them. So the question is: what do we do? Well, we don’t tell them, “You haven’t met the requirements.” We go to them and say, “How can we help?”, and that is what we’ve been doing. Those are the conversations I have had the privilege to have on behalf of this Government in the Pacific about empowering the Pacific itself to take advantage of that.

We see today—and we saw at the time—that there are nations there who have said “Yes, this is a way forward for us.”, but if you take the Marshall Islands and Palau, for example, they had a regime change, and in my conversations with them, they hadn’t been briefed by their own bureaucracy, their own administration, on what PACER-Plus was and what potential it represented for them. So New Zealand needs to be part of the solution there because I believe that if they knew what it was that this agreement had to offer for them in conjunction with the Pacific reset, in conjunction with New Zealand’s philosophy on Trade for All, I think that is a conversation that they want to have. Actually, I think that New Caledonia and French Polynesia have been mentioned. They are excited about the possibility of PACER-Plus; we just need to have those conversations with them.

So look, it’s something that’s important. I’m proud to be part of the efforts in the Pacific in this space. I do believe that PACER-Plus is a tool that we can use for empowerment for our Pacific neighbours and for New Zealand. Let’s not kid ourselves, this Government thinks it will be good for New Zealand exporters as well. So on that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf New Zealand First to support this enabling legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m not going to attempt Tongan, out of respect for the language, but happy Tongan Language Week.

I want to talk a little bit about the change in attitude by New Zealand First. I think that’s great that they’ve had an epiphany, although I don’t quite follow the logic, given that the Pacific reset has been criticised by officials as being poorly targeted. It just seems strange that this sudden epiphany and embracing of free trade only comes with the Treasury benches from that side. We’re quite consistent in our view and unapologetic for that, and I think that’s what comes with—

💬 Darroch Ball: Come on, Matt. Tell him he’s wrong.

💬 Matt Doocey: You know he’s right.

Well, yes, absolutely, and it’s disappointing. Perhaps political maturity might come upon that party in time and they’ll understand the benefit of trade—the true benefit of trade—right across the Pacific and, particularly, for our close neighbours.

Actually, I want to also touch on the Green Party’s attitude on this. The previous speaker from the Green Party, Marama Davidson, was defending their position in opposing this, and I did find it quite condescending, really. Some of the language around it I just find quite strange. In their minority view, they said, “We remain concerned that, among other considerations, the PACER Plus agreement undermines efforts to promote Pacific regionalism, reprioritises New Zealand’s existing aid budget into problematic ‘aid for trade’ initiatives, and burdens Pacific states with unfair export rules.” I just don’t understand that, quite frankly. It seems strange that the party claims to have all of these principles and that it stands by them, and yet Rod Donald’s principles against the oxymoronic name of a bill in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—they simply abandoned them then, in what would’ve been so important to the Green Party. Then, in this case, where it’s for the good of everybody, they maintain a “no way will we support this bill” attitude, and I think that’s very strange. I don’t understand those principles.

I want to give an example of Pacific trade that is working well, and it actually comes from the RSE scheme—the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. Around 2,400 RSE workers come during the winter into my electorate in Kaikōura, particularly in the Marlborough region, and one of the employers there, Vinepower—in Jono and Claire Bushell and Jason Kennard, who are the principals of that company—employs people from Vanuatu, particularly. But they’ve gone further than that: Jono and Claire spend six months of the year in Vanuatu, out on the island of Tanna, and they have helped the villagers set up a business bottling coconut oil and selling it. In fact, they sell it at the farmer’s market in Blenheim and other places. I think that is a small but important trade.

It seems as though having anything to do with big business is a dirty word, but big business, like little business, is all about trade. It’s all about getting goods from one market into another market for the betterment of both parties, and, as is certainly well-known in business circles, you’ve got to leave something in it for the next person when you’re trading. If you don’t, then it won’t work—you won’t have a business for very long—and I think that’s quite poorly understood.

Remittances are also quite important, from the RSE workers going back into the Pacific Islands, but not only that: when it comes close to the end of their time working in New Zealand, the groups from villages go and buy a lot of goods, put them into containers, and send them back to their islands. Those goods can be things from building materials to tractors to all sorts of things, so that they can enhance their own businesses and their own lifestyles in their villages. Now, that is, I admit, what you’d call a cottage sort of export industry, but it is a very important industry for those villages and for the lifestyles of those people, and it’s lifting up their lifestyles. To sit back and say, “Well, we don’t want to support free trade in the Pacific because we don’t believe those people are actually able to make their own decisions in that area.”—I just don’t accept that.

To draw another analogy for you on that argument, if we look at the Brexit situation at the moment, who’s the UK looking to for help in getting a trade policy together to actually negotiate trade agreements? It’s New Zealand. It wasn’t that many years ago that the UK joined the Common Market and New Zealand had a complete reset in its trade policy. We were in a very poor situation, and now we’ve become a leading trading nation. How have we done that? By being in the game—that’s how we’ve got there.

So I think that to gloss over it in the way that the Green Party did shows a very poor understanding of trade in general, and a very poor understanding of business in general. That may not be surprising to anyone. I’m absolutely delighted that the Labour Party is behind this—they always have been—and now it’s great to see an epiphany on the part of New Zealand First. It would be great for them to have a few more. We could perhaps have a general debate where I could point out a few more epiphanies that they might like to have in the future, though that might be hoping a little bit too much. Anyway, look, with that in mind, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. It’s with real pleasure that I rise to talk and commend this bill, the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill, to the House on its second reading.

This is not a bill about free trade. There’s never really been such a thing as free trade, and it’s a bit pernicious to bandy that term about. What this is about is a framework of rules. We need regulated trade and we need fair trade, balanced trade, and sustainable trade. That’s what this bill is about.

I must say, it is a huge step forward in trade agreements because, for the first time, it recognises that equitable trade does not necessarily mean the same rules for everyone. I’m very pleased to see that in this PACER-Plus agreement, New Zealand and Australia are really stepping up to build the capacity in our Pacific neighbours to engage in meaningful trade by building capacity around customs procedures to ensure that the biosecurity measures are in place so that, in fact, those economies can develop, and wherever they develop, whether it be in agricultural exports, or whether it be in light industry, or fishing—whatever it might be—in fact, they can generate real wealth in their own countries by trade around the Pacific with New Zealand and Australia and elsewhere.

So this trade agreement is an outstanding one because it’s really based on the concept of trade for all. It isn’t simply trade that benefits developed nations; it’s trade that’s based on a genuine understanding of both the economy and the culture of our neighbours, genuine friendship, mutual benefit, collective ambition, and sustainability. That really ties in with the Pacific reset. We simply don’t want to have our neighbours limping along and leaning on us. We want to have them as empowered, fully developed nations with developed economies, generating wealth for their families. That is what this bill does, and for that reason I commend it to the House.