Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this motion. Passage of this amendment to the tariff is one of the last steps New Zealand needs to take to be in a position to ratify PACER-Plus. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the Minister. Could I ask members of the gallery, please when they’re leaving—could you leave quietly please? We’re continuing with the business of the House. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.

I understand the emotions running high and the celebrations after the long journey that has led to this point, so I’m not at all perturbed by that.

Passage of this amendment to the tariff is one of the last steps that New Zealand needs to take to be in a position to ratify PACER-Plus. It makes the minor amendments needed to enable ratification. Most of the obligations in PACER-Plus can already be met—or are already met—by New Zealand’s existing domestic, legal, and policy regime, and there are only a small number of legislative and regulatory amendments required to the Tariff Act to align New Zealand’s domestic legal regime with the rights and obligations created under PACER-Plus.

In the very week and on the very day that New Zealand and other Pacific countries conclude the annual Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Nauru, it’s heartening that the majority of this House has shown its support for PACER-Plus, and through that it’s support for regional economic integration in our neighbourhood, the Pacific, because, as we have all heard before—and there is no doubt that we see it in our own communities and constituencies—New Zealand is intrinsically part of the Pacific through the fact of geography and through our shared DNA.

The passage of this bill and the consequential early ratification by New Zealand of the agreement reflect the importance that we in New Zealand place on this agreement and the positive impact our development assistance is having and will have on our Pacific neighbours. New Zealand, together with Australia, is providing significant development assistance to Pacific signatories of PACER-Plus to support their efforts also to be able to ratify PACER-Plus in the coming months.

Pacific Island countries who attended the first meeting of PACER-Plus signatories recently in Apia, Samoa, reaffirmed their commitment to agreement and to ratification. Like New Zealand and Australia, other Pacific signatories are keen to see PACER-Plus enter into force. This reflects their national interest in being part of PACER-Plus. It reflects the benefits countries have already received and will continue to receive as part of the implementation phase after entry into force. It also illustrates that Pacific signatories are sovereign countries, and they have made their own considered decision to join PACER-Plus.

Eight signatories need to ratify the agreement before it enters into force, some 60 days after that milestone. As part of the preparations for entry into force, work is already under way to establish a PACER-Plus implementation unit, which is expected to be hosted by a Pacific country, not New Zealand. So the sooner PACER-Plus enters into force, the sooner PACER-Plus can be implemented in a way that realises its potential as a catalyst for sustainable economic growth in the Pacific. There remain 11 signatories at this point. Discussions are continuing with three compact States—the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Republic of Marshall Islands—on when they intend to sign, in order to have the interests of our northern Pacific neighbours reflected in the implementation phase.

Dialogue is also continuing with the larger economies of Fiji and Papua New Guinea, as they are with new forum members New Caledonia and French Polynesia. New Zealand would like to see all Pacific Islands Forum members join PACER-Plus, but, again, acknowledge that is a decision for each country to make. In New Zealand, we celebrate that the majority of the forum membership has already decided that PACER-Plus is in their national interests and will build the economic resilience and self-reliance that they seek. The Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting is providing further opportunities to discuss PACER-Plus at the higher levels.

PACER-Plus is part of New Zealand’s wider interest to ensure settled security arrangements in the Pacific. We know that a stable and prosperous Pacific is a secure Pacific. With the global trading environment becoming ever more challenging for small countries like ours, and ever more challenging for even smaller economies in the Pacific, we believe that PACER-Plus is a welcome addition to the region’s tool box to bolster all of our collective interests.

Through the vehicle of PACER-Plus, New Zealand is already having conversations with the Pacific about what can be done to boost Pacific exports to New Zealand. This is of key importance to the signatories, who are keen to utilise the opportunities provided by PACER-Plus to go beyond simply exporting more of the limited range of commodities currently exported. This is an opportunity to create higher value - added products that are cheaper to transport and less likely to need the biosecurity screening that is sometimes an impediment.

Concluding PACER-Plus last year was a long time in the making. Can I acknowledge the last two Ministers of Trade, at least, who put so much work into that. The Hon Todd McClay and his predecessor did more to bring this to fruition than I or my Government have, and I acknowledge that. Support for this bill today means that New Zealand and the Pacific are one important step further on the road to the entry into force of this milestone trade and development agreement.

Finally, I note once again that there are provisions in this agreement that New Zealand does not normally agree to, in respect of our free-trade agreements which have a development focus, recognise the special status of the small developing economies, especially in the Pacific region, and enable them to have protection and industry development initiatives that we would normally see as anti-competitive in an international trade context. But we agree because, in the case of these economies, we want to help them develop so as to maximise their potential, the prosperity of the Pacific, and, through that, the security and peace of our region.

I take great pleasure in rising to speak in the final reading of this bill, which will allow, as far as New Zealand’s concerned, one step closer to the entry into force of the PACER-Plus trade and development agreement. I say “trade and development agreement” because when we were negotiating in the final days with our Pacific friends and neighbours and equals, we stressed to the strongest degree possible that this agreement was about development as much if not more than it was about trade.

As New Zealand trades with the rest of the world or we go and negotiate with countries around the world, we often find ourselves at a great disadvantage because we’re far away and we’re very, very small. Bigger countries often can ask more of us than we get to offer them, and therefore we, with our negotiators, must work very, very hard to keep those agreements high-quality and balanced for the benefit of New Zealand exporters. Indeed, when I was trade Minister—and I would believe, hope, and assume, with the new trade Minister—when we go out on the world stage, we go overseas to get the best deal possible for New Zealanders and New Zealand exporters, without consideration for, necessarily, what happens in the countries we’re negotiating with. It’s for their negotiators to make the case for a better deal for their people and their exporters. But when it comes to the PACER-Plus trade and development agreement, we actually set aside our desire to get a great deal or good deal for just New Zealand exporters, and we take a development approach, which means we look at what also is good for our Pacific Island friends.

If we think that we have challenges being small and remote to the rest of the world, as far as the Pacific is concerned, those challenges for them are so much greater to their relative size than we experience. That’s why this agreement is very much as much about development as it is trade. In fact, we should call it the PACER-Plus development and trade agreement because wherever we came to an obstacle in the negotiation that was difficult, rather than what normally happens in a negotiation, where one party says no, we took the time to understand that challenge that our Pacific friends had and to find a solution for it.

With a few exceptions, we were able to find solutions. There were some where we just couldn’t get there because it actually would’ve harmed New Zealand exporters in as far as our relationship with others in the world were concerned, or, more concerningly, would’ve meant that as the Pacific entered into agreements with other countries in the world, their exporters could have a better deal than we had, and we believed that wasn’t reasonable or fair. But in all cases, we worked very hard to understand and find a solution.

That’s why I’m so pleased that in Tonga last year, a cross-party group from this Parliament travelled with me to be able to sign this agreement. The Hon Annette King was there, Fletcher Tabuteau, and a firm former member of Parliament from the Green Party, to show our solidarity with the Pacific and to show our intention, as a Parliament, to work with them and to support them to have a better future. That’s why I’m very pleased that the majority of this House will support this. I am sorry that the Green Party won’t. I think that in a third reading of a trade and development bill, we shouldn’t make it political, but I would ask them to go and look more deeply at, actually, not those few in the Pacific that say, “This isn’t a perfect deal.”, but the many others who have spent a lot of time understanding it and believe they are doing what’s right for their countries.

It’s not for the New Zealand or Australian Governments or our parliaments to tell those small Pacific Island nations what is best for them; it’s for them to make the decisions themselves. Every single country willingly decided to sign, and I took the principled position that if some weren’t ready, we wouldn’t do what often happens in negotiations, which is that you force them, but we left the door open to them. For those that had worked hard and saw that there was opportunity and wanted to make the most of that, and to build their economies and invest in their people and share in the significant resource that New Zealand and Australia are providing them to get ready to be able to trade more with us and to trade more with the rest of the world, we welcomed them and they put pen to paper. But for some countries, they weren’t ready—the Compact of Free Association countries in the north—and that was merely because they wanted to fully understand what that might mean with another important relationship they have with the US. I think they will work through that and can sign today, but it is for them to decide, not for us to put pressure on them.

As far as Fiji and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are concerned, we, with Australia, must make every effort we can to help them understand and bring them to the table when they are ready. I think there is good progress there with PNG. I am less hopeful with Fiji, because they said they were pulling out, and I think there are political reasons for that. I would make a plea to their Government to actually be as understanding as they can, because we moved further in this agreement than we have ever done before and we will ever be able to. All we really were asking of Fiji was a clause in the agreement that said if they do a future agreement on better terms in some areas with another country in the world—China—then that, too, would be offered to New Zealand exporters, but until that date they didn’t need to open up their markets as much as some would suggest, and, actually, they could keep the protections that they asked for in place until then. Unfortunately, the Fijian Government wasn’t willing to do that, and, therefore, we would’ve put New Zealanders—who, in this case, are committing considerable resource and aid money to support these countries, and we are opening our markets up and helping them trade here much more—at a disadvantage with other countries who might not sign a trade and development agreement; they might just sign a trade agreement only.

There are two components I want to mention here that I think show the degree and extent to which we went to to understand and help the Pacific. There was a lot of talk about labour mobility, the desire for Pacific Islanders to have open access to come and live and work in the New Zealand market. We couldn’t do that, for many reasons, including the precedent it would set, but, actually, as we have seen a drain of bright, intelligent young people with skills from New Zealand to other parts of the world, so too Pacific Island countries see a drain of some of their best people towards our economy. It doesn’t help them grow when some of the best exports they have actually are their people.

But what we found was a solution to this, when we understood it better: young Pacific Islanders can come here and can train, they can get experience and earn money in areas of fisheries and construction, and then take those skills back to help grow their own economies. I know that the fisheries are taking a little bit more time than we would want. I hope we can find a solution and a way forward on that. We should do the same for tourism for them: bring people from the Pacific Islands here and allow them to learn and to train and gain experience and earn a bit of money and take those skills home. That was a solution, a commitment we made to them, that would benefit them more than just exporting people who would send remittances back.

The final thing I want to say is to our very good friends in the European Union. Many years ago, before I came to this Parliament, I worked for the Cook Islands and Niue as their ambassador as they and the other Pacific Island nations negotiated a trade and development agreement with the European Union. We failed to deliver that because it was more about trade and it was less about development, and the understanding was wrong. I say to the European Union, which have almost done something with the Pacific, that they are missing an opportunity to help build one of the most beautiful areas of the world that deserves our support and our protection. They can take the PACER-Plus agreement. It is gold standard. They don’t need to change anything but swap out Australia and New Zealand’s names and put their name in it, and they should sign it. China should do the same, and the US should do the same as well.

If we want to support these countries, we should be more understanding. We should think more about development than trade. There is a way through. I commend this agreement and this legislation to the House. I’m very pleased we will be one of the first countries to ratify it. The European Union and China and America can step up and show leadership, as New Zealand is today in this Parliament, and do the same thing for the Pacific. Thank you.

Is someone taking a call?

💬 Simon O’Connor: Madam Speaker.

I call Simon O’Connor.

Sorry, I was anticipating more wild enthusiasm to come from the Labour Party, who has finally kicked in behind free-trade agreements now, in Government, which is a tremendous, tremendous thing. So I’m very pleased, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to speak in support of this Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I might start with the basics and develop from there. I will, though, be speaking, in a sense, with two hats on—both, I suppose, my political hat, as a National MP, and as the chair. Look, PACER stands for the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, but, importantly, we heard from the member who just sat down, Todd McClay, that this agreement is fairly unique in so far as it is also about development.

I might just say, to acknowledge the Minister, who has taken this through, for the work that he has done, and to acknowledge Todd McClay, who is also in the House, for the work that he did leading the majority of this work. I think this free-trade agreement is a good example of where cross-party cooperation works best, and I’m particularly relieved to see that that bipartisan—at least Labour-National—approach has returned to free trade. It’s how we as New Zealand are going to continue to grow and become wealthy, and it’s also, I believe, how we’re going to continue that, I suppose, multilateral approach towards peace, security, and stability across the world, because it’s actually through trade that we end up having conversations and dialogue. I can think, just in recent months—with the chairmanship hat on—of the number of groups that come in that you sit down and have meetings with, often around trade, that turn into much wider, wider discussions.

I will touch briefly on the disappointment that one party in the House is not supporting this. Obviously, it’s their prerogative—we are a democracy after all—though I am disappointed. As I say, this is an agreement where currently 11 countries are signed up, and for the interests, perhaps, of the House, that obviously includes New Zealand, Australia, Kiribati, Nauru—which is obviously very topical at the moment—Niue, Samoa, the Solomons, Tonga, Tuvalu, and, of course, Vanuatu. Three other countries at this point in time have not agreed to sign up: Papua New Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Fiji. Like Todd McClay, I would certainly encourage—as far one country can to another—them to consider signing up. I’m optimistic that we may find agreement with—or rather that Papua New Guinea may find its way forward. The Federated States—I suppose the nature of being a federation adds complexity. Fiji—having lived there for a while—is a wonderful country and set of islands, but there’s a political complexity that occurs there, probably more internally than externally, but it’s having an effect here.

Look, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee well considered this treaty and then the bill to make this come into effect. As I’ve noted before, and it was actually topical today, the committee’s also been looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). What we’re doing here today is bringing about the small but significant piece of domestic legislation to make the larger treaty take effect within New Zealand. Treaties are the prerogative of the executive. Ministers and their teams—their officials—negotiate said treaty; they present it to the House; we go through it, have a good look over it, make sure we listen, hear, and report back on what the public say; and then, once we’re though that part of the process, rightly we put a bill before the Parliament.

The second thing I’d say is acknowledging actually the members of the select committee and those officials who worked on it. Why I want to do that—if I could start with the officials—is they brought great expertise. I’d like, once again, to put on the record my thanks to them, particularly those within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their expertise and professionalism. But also what was evident was their commitment not only to the Realm of New Zealand but also to the good of their neighbours in the Pacific Islands. But can I thank members of the committee, too. We were very conscious that we wanted to get this bill through the Parliament relatively quickly. When I say it was an expedited process, we didn’t leave any stones unturned. We heard all that we needed to hear from all those who wished to be heard, but the committee was keen to make sure that no other obstacles were put in the way, and the fact that there was the opportunity therefore in this sitting block for the bill to pass—most likely, without presuming the final result—is a positive thing.

I’d say that New Zealand is often very keen on, in a sense, trading statements. In other words, we want to be one of the first parties to sign, to send a very strong signal about our enthusiasm to those that we’re trading with. That’s obviously something in mind around the TPP. I know that New Zealand is keen to be an early signatory in that, and it’s no different—in fact, it may be even more so—when we are dealing with PACER-Plus; that New Zealand, probably along with Australia, are the two major players, and want to show their commitment by having this bill done early. Of course, the treaty has been ratified—that’s already been done—but actually the signing of this legislation helps us progress forward.

Look, really importantly, this is more than simply about free trade and the removal of customs and duties and other non-tariff barriers; it’s also about a redirection of New Zealand and Australian aid—I think about $55 million into the Pacific to help our Pacific friends and neighbours develop not just their economies but the systems in the background, in order to allow that economy to work efficiently, particularly in the trade space. So a very simple example is working with the likes of say, Vanuatu, the Solomons, or the Cook Islands to help them with their customs brokering systems so that they benefit from a more efficient system. That makes a lot of sense to me, and the great thing is it makes a lot of sense to them as well, because they’re happily signing up to this agreement. Over time, I think we will see it—obviously that initial relationship where we are helping them—becoming far more organic. In other words, as their economies grow, become stronger, and develop, they’ll be able to trade more with us, which is absolutely fantastic. We’ll be pleased about that, but similarly, we’ll be able to trade more with them.

So I think it’s probably important to say—because I think it’s true—this is not a purely altruistic treaty or bill. I suppose no trade agreement ever is out of pure altruism, but there is an altruistic element to this: that New Zealand and Australia are keen to focus their trade, to focus their aid, to help our neighbours develop, and that’s a really positive thing for the region.

One of the other elements—look, it’s obviously like anything and is a fairly comprehensive agreement—is there’s a lot of work around labour exchange. New Zealand obviously depends on skilled workers coming in at set times of the year. One just thinks of the wine industry—for example, we get a large number of people, actually from Vanuatu, who come over. It’s a great opportunity to practise one’s French, or in my case to practise French and become quite embarrassed. But it’s an opportunity to continue those positive relationships, and the PACER-Plus agreement allows an easier movement of the nationals from across these 11 countries that are coming on board to flit through New Zealand.

As I said earlier, I’m a little disappointed that the Greens are not supporting this. As always, I reiterate it’s their prerogative to do so. They are concerned, according to their minority view, that it may undermine efforts to promote Pacific regionalism and that it’s going to create problems like aid for trade and burdens for States. I don’t agree with that. I think the opposite is true, actually: by New Zealand and Australia strongly committing through its trade and aid to our Pacific neighbours, we are affirming that we want to be part of the region. But, importantly, we want to take a regional role. Not all countries are, in a sense, the same or completely equal. We are a larger economy, we have a larger population, and, I would argue, we have a larger moral duty to work, help, and trade with those nations.

I think we’ve seen not so much a reset of Pacific aid—the amount of money that New Zealand puts into the Pacific is substantial—it’s been, certainly, a reset of nomenclature: a reset in name; a branding exercise. New Zealand’s existing aid to the Pacific is large. I think that’s been well noted, particularly as other countries try to expand their influence into the Pacific. I think it’s particularly good that New Zealand continues to stand up along with Australia and other allies to support those in the Pacific there.

It’s an excellent agreement. Again, my thanks go to the Ministers, including, of course, Todd McClay, who worked particularly hard to get this agreement to where it is, and to Minister Parker, who has brought it through to the end, and to all those on the committee and all the officials—in particular, those who negotiated this treaty. We’re almost at the end. I look forward to it being finally conclude and commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. On the odd occasion, the O’Connors on this side of the House agree; on the rare occasion, O’Connors on both sides of the House agree, and, following on from Simon O’Connor, I have to say that I agree almost entirely with everything he said. I’d like to acknowledge Todd McClay and the previous Government for getting PACER-Plus to a position of signing and, I guess, for doing the work—the Pacific reset and committing to build stronger relationships across the Pacific. So we’re passing a piece of legislation here that brings this into effect.

I have to say that in the signing of the agreement, alongside that was the labour mobility arrangement, which is probably just as important for many people in the Pacific and in New Zealand, and certainly in the primary sectors with the Recognised Seasonal Employer arrangements. It’s a scheme set up by the previous Labour Government, continued on by National, and acknowledged once again as being a core component of Pacific development. I have to say that these are not just our neighbours but, in fact, in some cases—of course, in Rarotonga—part of New Zealand, part of the realm.

Passing this piece of legislation that allows freer trade and better relationships, in fact, offers an opportunity for us to provide better support in an area that is of more interest internationally. I have to say, the Pacific was a quiet little backwater for many, many years, connected to New Zealand and Australia. Now it’s a part of an international focus, actually, for a number of geopolitical reasons, and so it’s even more important that we build relationships with all the Pacific nations. Trading with them is a good place to start. Allowing access to New Zealand for people who want work, people whose skills we require, is another very, very good way of developing that.

So I’m not going to speak for long, other than to say I applaud the efforts of my colleague David Parker as trade Minister—

💬 Hon David Parker: And his predecessors from National.

—and Todd McClay—I’ve acknowledged him, and he just came in. Todd’s done a great deal of work, and I think that, in fact, across this House, on almost all issues related to the Pacific, we agree. There’s no politics here. I think we have a passion and a commitment to support our Pacific neighbours.

I acknowledge and support the passage of this legislation. It’s almost seen as bilateral, but it’s a multilateral agreement that, in fact, gives dignity to Pacific neighbours, allows them to trade with our country, and provides opportunities for them to build their economies, and, indeed, it’s a wonderful piece of legislation. Kia ora.

It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and endorse and support this Tariff (Pacer Plus) Amendment Bill, essentially, of course, enabling legislation the technical details to allow the groundwork for the adoption of this trade deal—this Pacific trade deal. Of course, in doing so, we are embracing—it embodies the very principles of the Pacific reset that this Government has embarked upon under foreign Minister Peters. I also acknowledge defence Minister Mark here, as well, who has been pretty active in pushing New Zealand’s geopolitical interests in this space.

This is a mutually beneficial deal, and, of course, as we’ve heard, there’re 11 nations that are represented so far within this pending agreement. We have these three nations that are outstanding so far, and we do hope that Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and the Federated States of Micronesia will see the merit in joining later, because there is genuine interest, I think, on our behalf and from the Australians and the other members of this deal to make this an all-encompassing, all-embracing trade deal. It lowers the barriers to trade, and there is a focus—as has been said—on development.

One of the issues, of course, that’s very topical at the moment in New Zealand is biosecurity, and I do note the emphasis on biosecurity within this bill—the $7.7 million over two years that New Zealand is putting in to help support the development of customs services in the Pacific and customs training. There’re things also like helping to expand the trade under that scheme through online portals, helping to make the products from Pacific Island nations more accessible here in New Zealand. There are efforts to lift the domestic productivity of Pacific Island nations to offset some of the difficulties they may have. They’re also opening their borders to our products, and so we are recognising that that is a legitimate concern for them, and we’re helping them work their way through that process.

There’s also the $25.5 million over five years for a development fund. So, as we can see, this is a deal where New Zealand is looking to help develop. It’s not just a straight trade deal. It’s not just a straight monetary exchange, and I think we’ve found ourselves on the other foot, actually. In most of these deals that we’re negotiating, we are the smaller economy within the deal, so we kind of know what it looks like from their end, I guess, and we’re looking to bring that experience into helping make this a really top-notch trade deal for the Pacific. It does advance economic union, and it will grow prosperity for all.

I note in the submitters’ comments in the select committee that there was some concern about promoting gender equality—for example, making sure that women benefited from this deal as much as men. This is sort the of theme of this deal. It’s not just an economic exchange that we are looking to develop with our smaller Pacific neighbours. This is a generous agreement, and New Zealand has offered these concessionary terms over and above what we would normally do in the normal course of a trade deal. It does go with the theme that we like to see ourselves as good international citizens, and certainly in this deal, we are doing that.

It is the catalyst, I guess, for wider international involvement by New Zealand. Just recently, we have had $10 million going into Pacific broadcasting, including seeking to establish a Pacific Island TV channel. The Australians—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—have pulled out of the Pacific, and we are elevating our interests in this area.

I noted, actually, in a recent Q+A interview that the US Ambassador Scott Brown was lauding New Zealand and this Pacific reset and the leadership we are showing. He pointed out that in doing so, there’s a leveraging effect. We have dragged the Australians back into the Pacific. We have got the focus of the UK back into the Pacific, and there are those three embassies that they are looking at opening in the Pacific, which is great news. He did acknowledge our growing leadership role here, and we need to have that.

There are wider geopolitical forces at play and the emergence of some big superpower interests in the Pacific strategically—Minister Mark mentioned China specifically in his defence report, and this Government is being open about those things. We do know that the Chinese have looked to leverage their influence in the Pacific and they’re spending a lot of money up there. So we just can’t afford to sit back and expect those old loyalties to play out. We actually have to be proactive in this space, and this bill and this legislation allows us to do that.

Our trade with the wider Pacific is actually $1.3 billion per annum in the latest figures I have, which go back to 2013. We import $100 million worth of direct imports, but Australia and New Zealand are also 30 percent of the exports for the Pacific nations, so we are an incredibly important source economically for them. There’s $41 million of remittances that go back from the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme that Minister Damien O’Connor just referenced before, and what a valuable scheme that is to our primary industries. Of course, we are also the largest source of tourists going into the Pacific for holidays, so we are hugely interconnected.

However, we’re not only neighbours; there is a huge contribution that Pasifika people make to New Zealand—300,000 people of Pacific Island origin make New Zealand home, and what contributors they are. I believe that in this Parliament there are seven MPs that give Pacific heritage as their primary background, and that probably understates it. I know that it wouldn’t be widely known, but my colleague Darroch Ball actually has Tongan and Kiribati heritage, so I’m sure that influence is far greater than that.

Of course, I don’t want to be too clichéd about this, but the incredible contribution to New Zealand sport that the Pasifika community play—you know, some of the absolute greats. Actually, they are not only New Zealand greats but international greats: the Jonah Lomus; the Adams siblings, Dame Valerie and Steven; the great Michael Jones—you know, I could go on with that list. So the Pacific community make an incredible contribution to our society.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is a modern free-trade agreement and it does focus on social issues. The female influence, and looking to grow female equality—that sort of thing is part of this bill, and I think this is a modern trade deal. That’s why New Zealand First are behind it. This is not about big corporations playing off against each other. This improves business. It improves our geopolitical position. It is the right thing to do morally, given our history in this area and the huge influence that the Pasifika community have made here.

So, without further ado, I’d like to commend this bill to the House. I’d like to congratulate the Ministers that have been involved in bringing this forward—the former Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, and the current Minister, the Hon David Parker—for their shepherding of this bill through, which will be hugely positive for New Zealand and for our region. So New Zealand First has absolute pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is quite something to be able to follow a New Zealand First speaker in favour of a trade agreement. It’s wonderful that that party is seeing the value of trade and of having the ability to gather greater prosperity for all countries through the benefit of trade.

So the National Party, of course, stands to support this trade bill, which was, of course, started off by the Hon Todd McClay as Minister of Trade back in 2017. The purpose of it, as we know, is to legislate for a trade agreement signed between these 11 Pacific Island countries, including Australia and New Zealand, in the hope of lowering barriers, not just in the tariff level but also by reducing bureaucratic instruments and rules covering goods and services that get in the way of the free flow of trade. And it’s important for New Zealand in the broader Trans-Pacific Partnership right across the world, but it’s also important in our local region here in the Pacific. That’s why we stand fair and square behind reducing barriers to trade and doing it in an effective way.

But, of course, our commitment on the National Party side to expanding our access to export markets and reducing barriers to trade has been part of a broader economic development strategy that we worked on consistently throughout nine years in power—the Business Growth Agenda, it was. Expanding export markets was one of the steps that we took in order to deliver a more competitive and productive economy. And there were other planks to that that we focused on: increasing the flow of investment, access to natural resources, access to good quality infrastructure such as ultra-fast broadband, access for businesses to trade in skilled environments, and also access to a knowledge and innovation framework. That was our broader economic development and where our trade policy fitted into.

One of the criticisms that I’ve been making against this administration, which has now been in power for getting close to a year, is that we haven’t had much clarity at all about the broader economic development strategy that’s guiding this Government. We haven’t seen anything, really, at all, to replace the Business Growth Agenda—

💬 Hon David Parker: The laundry list.

—other than flummery from the Minister who has chipped in—in regard to the Provincial Growth Fund and R & D tax credits and the most important factor of all, which is the solution to every problem: the capital gains tax. And time will tell.

But we did see last week the announcement of the Government’s economic development strategy, which the Prime Minister announced, and that was to take the “growth” out of the Business Growth Agenda and call it the business transformation agenda. I suppose the point that I would make in relation to that was the absence of any great detail about how this Government is going to go about improving our productivity.

One area where there is strong overlap on both sides of the House is agreement around the importance of trade deals and expanding our export markets through the development of rigorous trade relationships. And that’s why, when people say “Oh, politicians, why can’t you all get along and work together constructively for the benefit of New Zealand?”, well, this is one of the areas where, indeed, we do. And that’s why we stand here—

Tim van de Molen: Except for the Greens.

Well, aside from the Greens. But, yes, they’re an interesting case. But we do that because most of us understand the importance for a small trading nation such as New Zealand, that only makes its living in a world by exporting its goods—and the extent to which we can reduce barriers so that we can trade more effectively has got to be good for this country. There’s been disagreements about all sorts of things over the years, and New Zealand First has waxed and waned like the horses and the hounds—and the very nature of Shane Jones’s oratory is all over the place, so you would expect that party to be a little bit inconsistent in its support for free trade. But it’s nice today to see them in support of this particular bill. But, traditionally, both National and the Labour Party have seen the value of these trades.

So when we just get down to some of the details of this legislation, I should note that it includes our good friends across the Tasman but also the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, and the door remains open for other Pacific Island countries who could join this agreement. It will enter into force once all the negotiating parties have passed the legislation. It is worth noting—and it may be a surprise to some people tuning in, listening to this broadcast—that New Zealand exports around $376 million of goods a year to the countries, excluding Australia, which, of course, we export many billions of dollars to on average.

The tariffs on New Zealand exports will be reduced over extended time frames between 25 and 35 years, but on average we face tariffs of about 7 percent. So there’s an opportunity for New Zealand to export more to the region but also equally very much the opportunity for those countries to continue to gain great access to the New Zealand environment. It’s not so much, because we have very low tariffs in this country in very few areas—so that’s not the real issue. It’s about getting consistency around the trading rules in relation to goods, services, and investment that will make the real difference here.

So, overall, I have no doubt that this is a small but not at all insignificant piece in the jigsaw of what we hope will be a successful South Pacific region, because it is fair to say that this is a region that isn’t really going as well as it could economically. Many of these countries who are listed here haven’t been able to provide a strong economy so far for their citizens. From a New Zealand perspective, given our close relationships not just economically but socially and culturally, we all want to see places like Tonga and Samoa and Niue prosper and do well and to provide opportunities for them and their families and their people. There is no magic to it. It’s about generating goods that the rest of the world wants to buy at a good price so that they can make an honest living.

As small countries—as New Zealanders experience, but they experience even more—with that lack of scale, it is very easy for the rest of the world. It is hard to compete internationally, and any barriers, whether it be tariffs or just rules and regulations that make it difficult for trading to go ahead, compound the difficulty of having such a small base with which to start. So exporters coming out of Tonga or Vanuatu, for example—and I think of the magnificent coffee that comes out of Vanuatu, which I have enjoyed on many occasions, for example—their lack of scale in the domestic market means that if they want to get any size, they have to export very quickly and face all the difficulties that go with exporting.

So, in conclusion, I suppose the point I would make is it’s wonderful to see support across the House, with the exception of the Greens—is it?—who are deeply ambivalent to the nature of growth. I suppose, just looking at our two friends from that party across the House, I would encourage them to reconsider their position and to give serious thought to whether or not they are genuine in their desire for this region to get ahead economically and to create opportunities for the next generation. I suppose the question is if you’re not in favour of this, are you ever in favour of any sort of trade liberalisation, and, clearly, they’re not. But, putting the Greens to one side—and maybe there is time for reflection on their part, but putting them to one side—I welcome the New Zealand First entrance into the fold in favour of trade, where they are a little bit higgledy-piggledy in their thinking, but between the major parties of this Parliament I think this is a good day and a real opportunity for us—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in response to my esteemed former colleague from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee the Hon Mark Mitchell. I rise not to change our position but to maintain the Green Party’s principled position in opposition to this trade deal. I begin by noting that NGOs all over the Pacific—and, in particular, the Pacific Network on Globalisation, who commissioned an independent impact analysis of this trade deal—have called this the Pacific’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA).

💬 Hon David Parker: Not all NGOs.

So they are standing opposed—not all NGOs, that is true, but at least in terms of the Pacific Network on Globalisation and their impact assessment that they commissioned independently, and it was put together by Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific academics who are experts in trade.

They raised the same kinds of concerns that New Zealanders raised over and over again about the TPPA, which were the lack of transparency in its negotiations, the lack of transparency in the text, the lack of safeguards for human rights, for environmental protections, the erosion of democracy, and the threat of deregulation, privatisation—all of the same types of dangers that came with what we now know is an archaic economic model that led to every global economic disaster, but particularly the last one, which we can all remember. We, hopefully, would have thought we would have learnt some of those lessons: trade should, in fact, be for the good of the people and our environment, rather than to benefit very few elite corporations at the very top. We know that that money is not going to trickle down. We know that their interests are not in protecting the greater good, and, in fact, we know that this trade agreement—and we can see in its text—does aim to deregulate, and it does leave our Pacific neighbours very much vulnerable to things like privatisation of their core State services, which is something that the Greens do maintain a principled opposition to, as did a vast number of New Zealanders when the TPPA was brought up on to our shores, and we know what happened there.

So this is a trade deal that’s been 16 years in the making. It was signed in 2017, and the Green Party opposed it then. This bill is aiming to bring that into effect and, in particular, to impose the preferential tariffs. The small benefit that we get in our markets, while we take away that incredibly important source of income to Governments who are already, in most cases, struggling to provide healthcare and education and other services to their people—while we get that small benefit and while we get an opening up of their markets and whatever benefit comes from deregulating them, they get really no new access to ours at all. In fact, our protectionist mechanisms—Australia’s and New Zealand’s, being the big powerful trading partners here—are maintained. Our fruit and vegetable markets aren’t being opened up in the same way that we are opening up their markets.

So we get that, and the benefit is 20 percent of our aid budget moving into trade. Already allocated money that was going to expertly delivered humanitarian and development aid programmes for promoting gender equity, programmes promoting environmental sustainability, rule of law programmes—that money was already there, going to expertly deliver those types of benefits. Now that’s going to be moving into trade—with some lip service paid to those values, of course—but trade doesn’t deliver those things, not like actual development programmes do, or not like actual humanitarian aid would.

That’s what we heard from the submitters that came, actually, specifically to talk about women’s issues. They said that most women in the Pacific are not in a position to be trading internationally. They’re not big international traders, and so the money being taken away from gender equity programmes, taken out of the local market, was actually going to hurt women’s empowerment in the Pacific. That was what the submission said. So they were not at all confident that a mention of how trade is supposed to now have some benefits for women’s empowerment was actually going to uphold that, given that this is an international trade agreement and that only elite urban traders are going to benefit. That’s not the majority of the Pacific, and it’s certainly not women.

This trade-for-aid model is spreading in the Pacific. The UK will be imposing it. We’ve already criticised China for being there; they engage in it. The EU is coming in to do the same. Why are we contributing? As a good neighbour, as a leader in this region, why are we contributing to this old-world economic order creeping into the Pacific—the most unique and beautiful island nations that are also some of the most vulnerable in the world? That encapsulates the Green Party’s opposition to this deal.

We need progressive trade. We’ve already had that promise from the Government, and we know that we are going to deliver that in future for New Zealanders. We hope that nothing like the damaging, the undemocratic trade that will come to us through the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will ever be incorporated into New Zealand law and our trade model again, but why are we imposing it on the Pacific, where we have the power to actually change that paradigm?

The Green Party doesn’t support this trade deal. We never have, and we don’t support the bill. We support progress. We support trade. New Zealand is itself a small island nation, in many ways, and we need trade, but we need it to serve the good of our people, of the environment, and we need it most of all to not undermine democracy. It is in the good of the people and our environment to regulate trade. Unfettered growth on a finite planet is not sustainable, and for that reason I don’t commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, sir, and I thank Ms Ghahraman for outlining the Greens’ position. I’ll come back to it in a little bit more detail shortly, but I’ll just make the point that when she claims that the Green Party stands for progressive trade, she hasn’t yet—and nor have any of her colleagues—ever been able to find a trade agreement that seems to fall within that description, and so they do seem to have a very consistent position in opposing trade deals which are clearly in our best interests, and, in this case, I would still maintain are in the best interest of the signatories to it.

As we are in the third reading of this Tariff (PACER-Plus) Amendment Bill, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the current and former trade Ministers who have brought it to this point, the Hon David Parker and, in particular, the Hon Todd McClay, who did much of the work in New Zealand’s interests leading up to June of last year when the agreement was reached. I think it is also appropriate in this third reading to acknowledge our Pacific partners from the other 10 countries. They are Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, who are all, with New Zealand, signatories to the PACER-Plus agreement. As the Minister for Trade and Export Growth noted earlier this afternoon when he moved the third reading of this bill—and I completely agree with him—in time he very much hopes that the other Pacific nations that are not currently in a position to sign up will find it in their advantage to do so, and I’m sure that they will be warmly welcomed.

I’d also like to acknowledge, warmly, all the trade envoys and officials who have worked so hard to bring this agreement into being. This is the culmination for them of almost a decade of hard work and negotiation, and so I think it’s valid to put on the record that the negotiation of PACER-Plus was led for New Zealand by an inter-agency team from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This team included officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and also from the New Zealand Customs Service. As this time last year I had the privilege of being the Minister of Customs, I’m delighted, in particular, to acknowledge their contribution. I have the highest regard for the service of our customs officials. They make a huge contribution in a way that isn’t so often seen. They are well known for the work they do in protecting our borders, but they also make a huge contribution to our economy, and so I thank them and note that other relevant agencies were also regularly consulted during the negotiations. It was very much a team effort, and this is their day, so let us acknowledge all the trade envoys and officials who have been so intimately involved.

The Hon Todd McClay noted when he spoke earlier in this debate that New Zealand often finds ourselves at a disadvantage in trade negotiations, both because we’re a small nation and because of our geographical isolation. We’re a long way from many of the markets with whom we wish to conclude trade deals. But in this particular instance, as Mr McClay noted, those challenges are even greater for the very small Pacific Island nations that are part of this agreement, and for once New Zealand is actually a very large party in the scheme of things. So I want to repeat Mr McClay’s observation that this should rightly be seen as the “PACER-Plus Trade and Development agreement”, because the development aspect of it is a huge part of the commitment that we’ve entered into.

As New Zealanders, we all feel very strong ties to the Pacific. So many people living here in this country are of Pacific origin. I understand approximately 296,000—nearly 300,000—people currently in New Zealand are of Pacific origin. So our commitment to them is one that we take very seriously and we enter into the PACER-Plus agreement honourably and generously, and I think it’s important to put that on record. Our Pacific neighbours are family. I truly believe that PACER-Plus will be in their best interests and will enhance their development and prosperity. I’m sure that all members in this House, even the Green members who are opposed to it, would agree with me in hoping that that will be so.

Let me just go back for a moment to the Green viewpoint. As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I’ve naturally had the opportunity to study their minority view and I’ll just quote from it. In expressing their opposition, they make the point that in their view “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.” That, obviously, was part of what Ms Ghahraman was trying to identify today.

So let us just look for a moment, in order to balance the record there, at what the intended benefits of the PACER-Plus agreement actually are. If I could just read from a list here, because I think it’s important that these are clearly understood, the intended benefits of PACER-Plus include: “a more predictable trading environment;”—and being able to predict with a degree of certainty is important—“more consistent and transparent rules throughout our region on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, and customs procedures; more liberal and product-specific rules of origin; increased investment in the region, in particular by New Zealand and Australian investors into Pacific Island countries;”—and our ability to invest in those nations is of huge importance to some of those very small island States—“greater certainty around tariffs for exporters; more opportunities for trade-related development assistance for Pacific Island countries;” and “a more mobile labour force in the region.” So, as I say, those are some of the intended main benefits.

And if I could just find where I was going with my notes, we might carry on. As I say, those are the overall objectives, but since this is the third reading of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill, I think it’s also important to dig down into some of the detail. So I’d like to just quote from this much weightier tome—the national interest analysis of the PACER Plus Agreement—and look at some of its key features. Again, if I could just write this into the record, particularly for the benefit for those who are listening, according to the national interest analysis, which was concluded in June 2017, “The Agreement will be the first reciprocal trade agreement governing New Zealand’s … NZD$654 million [worth] of goods and services exports to the Parties [to the agreement]”. It will “assist New Zealand in [the Pacific] region where”—and this is a key point—“the majority of countries are not [World Trade Organization] members, and therefore are not [subject] to any WTO limits on the maximum tariff rate that they can apply.”

So, on average, New Zealand exported around $376 million worth of goods per year to PACER-Plus parties—excluding Australia, of course—between the years 2013 and 2015. Tariffs on New Zealand exports will be eliminated under this agreement over extended time frames of 25 to 35 years. But “At present New Zealand exports face an average ad valorem tariff of 6.8 percent and attract duties estimated at NZD$24 million annually …”. Well, “ad valorem” literally means “according to value”, so it’s a tariff imposed on the monetary value of the item.

So the national interest analysis states that “PACER Plus will have negligible … revenue implications for New Zealand [importers]”. According to the briefing that we on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee received earlier this year from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, PACER-Plus differs from other trade agreements in that it has specific and significant development components. I’m running out of time, but these include—well, actually, as I say, because I’m running out of time, I might leave it to other speakers to do this. The detail there is really important. This is an agreement—and I’ll conclude with this point—that has been negotiated very carefully, looking at the best interests of the Pacific Island nations. It’s part of our commitment to them.

As I mentioned at the outset, it’s very much my hope that those nations that haven’t yet indicated that they wish to be a partner to it will in time feel that they can see the benefits as this comes into effect with others, that they can see those benefits, and that they’ll realise that they would be better in than out. I firmly believe that that will happen. As I say, I think that this is an important day for the Pacific, a good day for those Pacific nations that are a part of it, and I’m very proud of the fact that New Zealand has made its significant commitment here. I firmly hope that my comments will be borne out in time. I believe that they will be. I thank everybody who’s been associated in concluding this important work, and as today we conclude this third reading, which is another important step in the journey, I wish all the parties all the very best. I hope that we will see that in years to come, it leads to everybody’s improved prosperity and development.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief but passionate call on this bill. Hopefully, some of the members opposite will wake up and focus. Global protectionism is rising, and this is a concern. There’s been a 30 percent increase in tariffs over the past two years, which is the sharpest increase since 1995. Now, we have talked a lot about challenges taking place around the US, but also the EU and other developed countries are moving a little bit more towards protectionism. That’s why it’s so important that we take a lead as a country around open, free markets.

New Zealand is reliant on trade, and a number of speakers have touched on that before. It’s the lifeblood of our economy and it’s absolutely important that we continue to trade in a free and open way. That’s why I am very passionate about this bill, the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Ministers: Todd McClay, who’s worked on this in the past, and the Hon David Parker, who has picked it up and followed it through to its completion.

New Zealand provides leadership for the Pacific nations, and a trade agreement like this works to lift incomes right across that region, to lift the wealth of all Pacific peoples. It’s about investing in our neighbours. It’s about—as the Beatles once said, “Come Together”. That’s absolutely what it is. It’s about coming together, and it’s about—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: “Let It Be”, Jamie.

Ha, ha! That member opposite just said, “Let It Be”. Well done. Look, it’s about businesses. It’s about businesses in the small Island nations who find it challenging to achieve the economies of scale needed to compete in an international market, and it’s about us working with them, showing leadership as a country. So, I’m very excited to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too take great pleasure in speaking on the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I’m really pleased to see that this trade bill is finally coming to the House, because it’s been a long time in the making. The original concept for this bill was part of a previous trade agreement back as early as the 1980s. In 2001, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations was signed, and negotiations began in 2009 and were finally concluded in 2017.

This bill is significant, and it’s all about creating jobs and wealth right across the Pacific region. It’s about making it easier for countries in the region to trade together, and it aims to make trade transactions across borders easier, and to attract investment. I, too, like the Hon Tim Macindoe, have been a Minister of Customs, and the New Zealand Customs Service was working on this bill when I was a Minister. They were deeply involved, particularly in the transactions across borders, and so it’s pleasing to see their work coming to fruition.

The bill is designed to lower barriers for trade and to provide greater certainty for New Zealand businesses on one hand, and on the other hand to try and help raise living standards through creating jobs, through increasing exports, and stimulating investment in Pacific Island nations. These are Pacific Island nations who want to trade to improve their quality of life and their standard of living. These are Pacific Island nations who are aspirational for their communities and who want to move beyond being mere subsistence economies. It’s important to New Zealanders because, of course, the Pacific Islands are our closest neighbours and we have strong personal ties there. And, of course, it’s equally as important to those Pacific people who live in the Pacific Islands.

I think we all, in this House, across the nation, and across the Pacific, understand the value of a prosperous and a sustainable Pacific region, and that is the underlying purpose of this bill. The agreement sets a common range of trading rules covering goods, services, and investment, and it will also support economic development and growth. It will reduce tariffs, it will reduce red tape for exporters and investors, and it really will increase the attractiveness of the region for trade.

But it is of special benefit to Pacific people, because this agreement is a little bit different from a normal, standard free-trade agreement. It has specific and, actually, significant development components. The first is a $25 million fund provided by Australia and New Zealand to help build the capacity of forum islands—things like their customs services, their biosecurity management—and to promote their exports and investment. The second is an agreement by New Zealand to commit to spending 20 percent of the total Official Development Assistance—trade for aid—in the Pacific Islands for the first five years after this comes into force, and that could be up to $340 million. In addition, there is a stand-alone labour mobility arrangement. This is about helping Pacific workers access temporary work and employment in industries in New Zealand and Australia—places where we have labour shortages; places where they can increase their skills, where they can be involved in New Zealand and Australia. They can get qualifications and they can take that funding back to their homes.

It’s an important piece of legislation in terms of lowering barriers to trade, supporting New Zealand businesses, and it is also about supporting Pacific people and raising their standards of living. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on this bill. Much has already been said by members from both sides of the House about how this bill, the PACER-Plus agreement, will benefit countries across the Pacific region, including New Zealand. I just want to make two quick points.

One is that members here in this House have emphasised the development aspect of this agreement, because New Zealand will only benefit from PACER-Plus if the Pacific benefits from it, and that’s why we’ve made a big deal about the fact that this is not just a trade agreement but it has a development focus as well. A safer, secure Pacific is beneficial to us all.

The second point I’ll make is that PACER-Plus contributes also to this Government’s Trade for All Agenda, which is actually out for consultation now. If anyone watching is interested to make their viewpoint heard, it will be open till 14 October. It is exciting because it’s about making trade inclusive to women, to Māori, to small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand, and it’s about a focus on improving our environmental standards, labour standards, and gender equality through trade.

So, it’s with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to take what’s going to be a relatively short call, because we want to see the bill pass today. Can I acknowledge the Minister, the Hon David Parker, because I’ve been having trade discussions with the Hon David Parker for the last six years, and we didn’t always agree with the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but it was very pleasing to see that in coming into Government all the work that had been done by the Hon Todd McClay and, before him, the Hon Tim Groser, was carried on, and we now have a very good free-trade agreement.

I know that my colleague Paul Goldsmith made a valiant effort to try and get the Green Party, at the last minute, to reconsider their position on this. I think I agree with him: it’s unlikely to happen. But the only observation I’ll make in relation to free-trade agreements, because all of the countries that have signed this in the Pacific—we’re all small trading nations, and, actually, without good, comprehensive, well-written free-trade agreements, we wouldn’t be doing very well. We’re not big enough to trade amongst ourselves, so trading with the rest of the world is actually very important.

In the six years that I’ve been involved in this Parliament, I’ve not had one constituent, I’ve not had one business, I’ve not had one person come up to me and say, “I hate these free-trade agreements that we’ve got. They’re really bad for us. They’re not creating any opportunities.” It’s normally quite the opposite—that we see opportunities, we see new export growth. The great thing about the PACER-Plus is that it’s with our South Pacific cousins, who we are heavily invested in—all of us have got a mutual investment in the success and our futures together. On that note, I just want to acknowledge the other countries that have signed up to this agreement: Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

I want to come back to the Solomon Islands. I mean, I’m really pleased to see the Solomon Islands there, because I was lucky enough to go out there and be an observer for their general elections. Of course, they’ve come through a difficult part of their history with the tensions, and then having the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and the RAMSI draw-down. There’s quite a bit of energy and excitement there in terms of trying to get their economy going, and it’s a complicated one because they’re made up of a whole lot—hundreds—of islands. But when I was there, there was the microeconomics going on. There were people that were just making good products, and they wanted to find markets to sell them in—local markets. But now, with an agreement like PACER-Plus, I hope that we’ll start to see some of those products imported and appear in our stores in New Zealand.

Trade is incredibly important, and I’m very proud of the fact that—there’s three things, actually, that this Parliament should always work together to try to have bipartisan agreement on. These are my own personal beliefs. One is national security. We should always be working across parties to try and do the best in terms of our own national security. The other one is defence policy. We should try to have as much agreement on defence policy as we can across the House. I acknowledge the Minister of Defence in the House now. The third one is trade. Fundamentally, getting good trade agreements is critically important. I think the country has got an expectation that we as parliamentarians will come here with a view to working and delivering the best possible trade agreements that we can for our nation. That’s why it’s nice to be able to acknowledge not only the Hon David Parker but also the Hon Todd McClay, who have worked very hard as our respective trade Ministers with our Pacific Island partners in putting together what’s a very good trade agreement in the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I’m very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.