Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Whew. Just about—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry I couldn't see. There were so many people standing up.ALASTAIR SCOTT: 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.ALASTAIR SCOTT: 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.ALASTAIR SCOTT: —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.ALASTAIR SCOTT: 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.ALASTAIR SCOTT: 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."