Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2116] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I was totally enthralled by my colleague Tim Groser’s comments. We are indeed fortunate to have in the House one of the foremost negotiators in the world not just from New Zealand— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Stop crawling Eric. That won’t get you into Cabinet. 
ERIC ROY 
: I know the member is interested. I can see that he has woken up. I would encourage him to take another call and continue from where he was interrupted by the bell. For myself I am happy for us to get on with this. But I was somewhat incensed I guess or challenged by the comments made by the Green Party member Mr Locke. I took the liberty of reading the Green Party minority report. I assume he wrote it; it is somewhat anonymous. Is this his? 
Keith Locke 
: I was a member of the committee and— 
ERIC ROY 
: I thank the member for his confirmation. I know he is a pacifist but if he were ever in the army someone would say: “Why isn’t everybody marching in step with Mr Locke?” because I am sure he would be out of step with the rest of the battalion. 
In the Green Party minority report Mr Locke says he believes that the Government has not demonstrated an overall benefit to New Zealand. Yet everybody else on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee identifies a huge number of benefits some direct and some indirect. The first objective on page 7 of the agreement states: “A fundamental objective of New Zealand’s trade policy is to expand the opportunities available to New Zealand by removing barriers …”. 
 If we are to thrive as a community then we have to get rid of barriers. Barriers can apply in all sorts of forms. The most visible way is by tariffs where a country we want to access puts on a cost. In this particular case Chile is identified as having a 6 percent tariff on almost everything. That is nowhere nearly as prohibitive as in a lot of other places. Some of our Asian trading partners have 30 percent tariffs and that is a significant barrier. 
But why would we want to prevent trade? I would like the member to take another call and tell me why. Why would he not want New Zealand to have an opportunity? The member said words to the effect—I do not want to take it out of context—that we have a problem with countries that have a wage structure lower than ours. That is the point he made. Several questions can be raised about that. Why do we have a problem? With wage structure normally goes technology and we have some significant advantages in the area of technology. My question to someone as altruistic as Mr Locke is to ask: why lock in people who are in a low-wage structure so that they stay in a low-wage structure by preventing them from partaking in trade? I want him to take a call and explain that because to me it makes no sense. 
In terms of a country where workers are in sweatshops National members are saying they would like those workers to enjoy some of the market opportunity in our country but Mr Locke is saying that those workers cannot do that because their wage structure is lower than ours. I am saying the workers should do that and we should invite them to come in. We want them to grow their opportunities for several reasons. Firstly we do not like where they are at. Secondly when we grow them by sharing trade they will become wealthy and they will become a market for us. So we gain and they gain. 
That is what knocking down barriers is about. It is clearly spelt out in the report—in all parts of it apart from the minority report—that we need to engage with our neighbours. This period that we are in now the last half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century is the longest period of global peace for four centuries. Yes there have been skirmishes around the world but in reality that is what is happening. Globally that is the case.