Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This is not a free-trade agreement. In fact I'm not sure I've ever seen a genuine free-trade agreement. It's a managed-trade agreement. And that indeed is why it's a good agreement for the Pacific nations and also for New Zealand.It's with some disappointment that I see the Green Party doesn't support this because if we do look at the terms of the PACER-Plus agreement—and it is 806 pages so I can see why perhaps it hasn't all been read—we'll see that it's much much more than a carte blanche. In fact it's quite different to any of the other free-trade agreements we've seen.It recognises the disparities between the various nations. What it really does is look to provide a pathway and in doing that it isn't a sudden leap into a borderless world without tariffs or barriers. It is therefore with some sadness that I disagree with both the Greens view on it which seems to think it to be an evil neo-liberal document and also to an extent the last speaker Alastair Scott who presented it as if it was an entirely free - trade agreement. In fact free trade we know is indeed an illusion. What we really have in any agreement is managed trade—a set of rules around which trade may be liberalised in some respects and not liberalised in others.It's also important to recognise that this agreement—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm sorry to interrupt the member but could the hui that's taking place over there go outside? Kia ora.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Assistant Speaker thank you. This is of course much more than just a treaty about trade in goods. It's a treaty about trade in services and also the flow of investment. If I may say investment in the Pacific Islands is of particular importance because we know that investment in infrastructure investment in businesses is very very important. What we do need is to have some transparent rules around that which will give investors from New Zealand from Australia and from other nations the confidence to be able to put their money in those jurisdictions.So it's heartening to see that that is the case and also of course trade in services. We know indeed and we must of course value extremely highly the fact that many Pacific Island workers come to New Zealand and those services move relatively freely across borders. It's great to see that we're now having that approach that is much more widespread so we can have trade in services of all kinds between these various nations.What I want to say is that this agreement the PACER-Plus agreement is in fact not just an agreement in which New Zealand is seeking to advance its own fiscal and financial interests. I would put it that this agreement is in fact part of New Zealand stepping up and playing its role in the Pacific. In fact on a purely financial basis it would be a close-run thing. The national interest analysis makes that very clear—that it's only when we look at the much wider perspective and the fact that we are a citizen of the Pacific and that when the Pacific flourishes New Zealand flourishes that we can say that this is in fact in New Zealand's national interest.It also does something else and that is that it throws the mantle of legitimacy over a lot of the trade between these various Pacific nations. A number of these nations are not members of the World Trade Organization. They do not have well-developed international jurisprudence. And it brings them into a trading and a legal framework so that when there are disputes there's a disputes resolution framework that introduces them to concepts such as most favoured nation clauses so that ever so slowly these nations can be brought into the international fold.So whilst over time and I must say it will be over a very long period of time tariffs will be reduced that is by no means the only thing. There's other rules—for example the rule whereby those nations all agree that there will be no arbitrary expropriation by the State. In New Zealand that almost goes without saying. It's not something we think we need to talk about. But in some of the smaller nations where the rule of law is not as well entrenched it's important that we have that—have it expressed in an international treaty so that in fact it can be set there. It can be there for international investors to know so we can also have international investment rules so that once again international investors will know the rules by which they're bound.It is interesting also to note that the indigenous nature of these economies is also recognised. There's not a suggestion that these economies westernise. One of the things that's carefully recognised is the unique nature of many of the landholdings and the fact that land is not freely transferable and that that is a matter that is in fact very close to the hearts of Pacific nations. The sale of land is not something—and this is something of course we're talking about ourselves—that is encroached here. In fact it recognises that leases are important but freehold sales are not likely and aren't necessary.So it recognises disparities. It recognises that many of these nations are very very small nations that they are developing nations and that they are nations with particular cultural and indigenous approaches. And that's a really good thing. If I may say it is a real step forward in trade treaties in trade deals to recognise that not all nations are equal—that we need special approaches to bring different kinds of nations into the fold whether they be very small Pacific Island States or whether they be elsewhere in the world.It's also important to recognise that these States are fragile States; we know that. Their economies are fragile and their geography is fragile. The freeing up of trade in this way in fact will give them greater resilience. They're not necessarily going to be dependent entirely on food. They're no longer going to be subsistence economies that are reliant entirely on food produced in their own backyard so to speak. And further if they enter to trade they will be able to generate cash reserves they will be able to earn foreign exchange—something which is a real challenge at the present time for many of these Pacific nations. So this is a way for these nations to diversify their economies and it's simply not the case to say that any free-trade deal is a deal which is bad. One of the things is that the linking in with aid and development—and I entirely endorse the foreign Minister's approach which is that we need to have another look at aid and how it works. We certainly need to examine the split between humanitarian aid and development aid. That's something which is being looked at actively now. But absolutely it's appropriate in this context to look at the use of aid to build economic resilience to build trade and to build trade networks.So if we think about this agreement standing back it is an exceptional deal. It is perhaps unfortunate that the net couldn't be cast so wide as to capture all Pacific nations but the door is still open. I suspect that as this progresses as States accede to it and once it comes into force other nations will indeed be very interested in joining the PACER club because it will be very much in their favour. Why they didn't is a matter for those nations. I don't think it's accurate to say that it wasn't in their interests. There are many and complex questions for those nations. Papua New Guinea in particular had a lot of matters before it.But if we look at it this really is New Zealand being part of a cooperative network—a network which recognises differences and where we can use our economic strength and our knowledge in a way which is beneficial for our Pacific partners and equally we can benefit from what goes on in those islands. I entirely endorse this PACER treaty. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.