O'Connor SimonREPORTSInternational Treaty Examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) PlusSIMON O'CONNOR (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): I move That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus.I'm pleased and confused to take a call on this—pleased in so far as this is a very good treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations which we basically know as PACER-Plus. It's a good treaty. It was led primarily by the Hon Todd McClay when he was the Minister of Trade. I acknowledge though of course our current Minister who will be bringing this to conclusion. But it was Todd McClay in particular who's done a lot of work to bring this about and I'll elaborate on that a little bit further soon.I do say I'm slightly confused as well. Here we are after a two-week recess and the first Government order of the day is not work around welfare or a Kiwi housing bill or the like. We are here talking about a foreign affairs piece of process which is the examination of a treaty. I find this I suppose again confusing in that as the chair of a select committee we always welcome the opportunity to speak on our work but it's highly highly unusual for us to be spending time as a House actually debating these topics. But seeing that we've been given the opportunity to do so I will point out a few aspects which I think we should draw attention to. As I say this is a good agreement. Todd McClay's worked very hard at it and I do look forward to the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Export Growth bringing this to a successful conclusion. The agreement is interesting in so far as when this committee reported back in August—and I should acknowledge Todd Muller who was the chair at the time and is with us here; he was the one who was chair of the committee at the time and brought this report to the House in August. They worked very hard to examine this treaty to point out obviously its benefits. The long and the short is enormous benefits to New Zealand and to the Pacific. No one's losing out here.What was interesting though is that New Zealand First actually spoke and voted against PACER-Plus. It's in the report itself. I was a little surprised I must admit. I was flicking through the notes when I took over the chairmanship of this committee looking particularly at the trade agreements and yeah was a bit surprised to find New Zealand First opposed—and now I understand because of a coalition deal in behind it. I would be interested to hear a bit of a further discussion today on that. The Greens as well have thrown up a number of red or perhaps green flags around this treaty. It will be interesting to get their sense of where they are now and if in particular they are now supporting this trade agreement because they've transferred onto the Treasury benches. I'll be interested to know why.Look the agreement affects the Pacific Islands Forum so it's about 18 countries in effect; 11 of those have signed up New Zealand being of course one of them. The report itself as tabled in August refers to 10 but since then we're up to 11. One of the first things I did as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was to ask for an updated briefing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I acknowledge the Minister in allowing the officials to come in and speak to us and bring us up to speed there.So 11 countries have signed up. None yet has ratified but that is coming. I understand New Zealand and Australia are committing to be the first two countries to do so; I'm looking forward to that happening. Three countries are working to finish their negotiations at the moment—that's the Federated States of Micronesia Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands—and four in my own parlance are still thinking about it. That's the likes of Fiji and Papua New Guinea and I think it's in their interests and certainly in New Zealand's that they come on board. So 18 countries in total; 11 have signed up. We now have to go into this ratification process. Obviously this debate today has nothing to do with the ratification process. As I mentioned earlier on it is slightly confusing that this is what we're choosing to spend the House's time on but I look forward to that ratification process. It's my understanding that eight countries are needed out of those to effectively bring this into effect and most of the changes are just on our domestic legislation.What I think this does though—this agreement—is really show New Zealand's continued commitment to the Pacific. Obviously it's a trade agreement but this is slightly different than many. One difference is that it's not just obviously wanting to trade between these countries but I suppose we understand there's a bit of an imbalance between a number of the Pacific Islands and New Zealand particularly in the space of trade. We are a stronger economy compared to many so it's pleasing to see in the agreement that there is a readiness package as part of this agreement. The long and the short of that is that New Zealand and Australian aid effectively will be going into these islands into these countries that are signing up. So over two years we'll actually help those countries—the likes of the Cook Islands Kiribati Nauru and the others—to help them move through the ratification process. Their Parliaments often are still maturing or evolving so assisting them with some of the legal and ratification processes will be important. We're also proposing a $25 million fund to help develop trade to develop that economic development. If we want to work with free trade well then we want those Pacific Islands to be operating very well.Finally I suppose a part of it is around the aid for trade as it's called. We're looking along with Australia—you can see we're working quite closely—to work towards a 20 percent target of our aid in the Pacific going to these islands ultimately to help facilitate their trade. We know I think on both sides of the House and certainly this side that trade is good and not just for the respective economies. It actually flows right through those countries and having lived and worked in the Pacific more trade I can say will be very well welcomed and have excellent flow-on effects on everything from their healthcare through to anything like welfare social development and the like.So I'm pleased as I said at the start that this is progressing—pleased in some ways that we do have a chance to discuss this today and still a little miffed to use the vernacular that this is how we've chosen to use the time. I am pleased though that the Government is engaging more on the trade space. I think engaging with our closest neighbours is really important and while obviously this side of the House sees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been primarily worked from the last Government I do acknowledge the Minister for Trade and Export Growth being in Chile recently and signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think it's a great step forward for us. Speaking personally I am keen to see that we continue to have engagement particularly with the EU and with Great Britain—that we proceed there. I do have reservations around the continued statements around Russia in and of itself but certainly with what has happened in recent days and I would ask the Government to consider that more fully as we continue working towards these free-trade agreements.So I will leave it there. The committee has been very pleased to examine this. We are very pleased that we've been able to have further briefings from officials and the chance to better understand it. I look forward to this returning to the House for ratification at some point and look forward to seven other countries joining us so that we may proceed with this agreement for the betterment of this country and those in the Pacific.