McClay Todd; Tolley AnneHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): 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.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is someone taking a call? Simon O'Connor: Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Simon O'Connor."