Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2158] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I also to wish to make some comments as we wrap up the debate on the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. I may well be the last speaker from any side of the House on this debate and I would certainly like to summarise a few of the points that I think are pertinent on this occasion. 
Firstly I acknowledge the comment made by the Hon Jim Sutton that there was a degree of will on both sides of the House to see the bill progress. He is correct. Across the work of Parliament trade is one of those areas where there is a great similarity in approach at least between the two major parties. That is appropriate because it sets a standard that says trade is important and significant to this nation and that we concur that every trade opportunity we can get will benefit this nation. As the previous speaker John Hayes said that helps to create wealth and opportunity. It is also significant for this reason: trade is a commitment and it is also an investment. The fact that we have this area of stability around policy between Labour and National provides security and stability for our exporters who know that if and when there are changes of Government there will not be a radical shift in trade policy. So exporters know that their investments in personnel and infrastructure—or whatever is needed—are secure. It is appropriate that our two major parties are in broad agreement on the principles of trade. We certainly acknowledge that that is the case and we are keen to support the bill which takes the notion of trade agreements to another level—but I will speak more about that in a moment. 
I want to respond to the member of the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell who raised some valid concerns about the impact of trade on Maoridom in New Zealand. I just say to him that a trade policy is a nation approach and any subset that wants to claim that it is disadvantaged needs to look at where that approach is taking the country as a whole and at its part and its opportunity in those opportunities that are presented through increased trade. One can look at the countries that have said they are not in trade and see where they have gone. 
 Let us look at some countries and at their position on trade. We can take as an example a country that has had the very broadest attitude to trade that is possible—maybe Singapore would be that country. That is a country we used to give aid to in the 1960s but by embracing trade as a wealth-creation process its economy is now ahead of ours on the OECD list and is ahead by any measure. We can contrast that country with countries who have said that trade is not where they want to be. So on the other end of the scale is maybe Albania or North Korea. I ask the member from the Maori Party whether he wants to embrace the kind of economy that North Korea finds it is now saddled with—with the restrictions and implications of an economy that is not performing. I would say very clearly that a great deal of the position North Korea finds itself in has been the result of shutting its borders and saying: “We are an island and we do not want to engage in global world trade.” So trade as a principle is significantly important. 
This particular trade tariff agreement this strategic alliance requires the signatures of the four players in it: Chile Singapore Brunei Darussalam and New Zealand. Those parties have to be signed up and this bill will come into effect on 1 May. We look forward to a network being created. There are a lot of firsts about this bill and it is significant that this step takes place. We are members of the Pacific and it is good that in the wider global trading environment we will have that network arrangement emanating around the Pacific. It is a web that will cross from New Zealand to Latin America and South America—Chile is the country that will be a signatory—and into Asia. Again we will strengthen our relationships in Asia by signing up with Singapore and Brunei Darussalam. 
Singapore and Chile are two significant platforms that reach each way. Singapore is the hub of Asia; it is crucial that we acknowledge that country. Its population is a similar size to ours. It is entirely different geographically but it is the hub of Asia. We do ourselves a great service when we work towards a trade opportunity with Singapore and become a signatory to reducing tariffs in that direction. Similarly Chile is a platform into Latin America and South America. It is our nearest country in that continent and its ports are our entry points for many of the opportunities that exist as we head east into South America. So that is significant. We have similar values and similar types of economies. No we are not the same but we have a similar sort of ideology. 
The second thing that occurs from this bill is that we set a standard. We are saying to the world that we believe in trade. We believe in reducing tariffs and increasing opportunities. That is a significant statement to make. We are not a big player in the world as a trading nation. Trade is probably more important to us than to most countries but in terms of volume of trade we are not huge. But we can set some standards. As I mentioned earlier Singapore today is a model of where we can go if we embrace trade. North Korea on the other hand is an example of where we can go if we do not embrace trade. Through this bill we can say to the world: “Here is an opportunity and we will be the net beneficiaries.” and the Maori Party and its constituents are very much part of that. So that is important. The first thing then is that those countries are similar types of countries with similar values and the partnership will build bridges across the Pacific. As I said it is a first move into the Latin countries and it is an important platform for us to get into the important hub of Asia. 
It is interesting that if we look at other impacts besides the standard we are setting for the rest of the world we see that both Chile and Singapore have been advocates for a freer air transport environment. So that is another symbol that says to the world: “We will gain if we exchange.” Those countries have been at the forefront of the opening up of those opportunities. Through passing this legislation we are signing up four countries that will say: “Yes we want to trade clearer with each other and we don’t want to have the impositions of a cost barrier.” I have to say to the House that that has created an environment of dialogue from which there are also other benefits. Barriers are not just on the basis of tariffs but they can be imposed through a whole lot of restrictions requirements and specifications that prevent us from trading. The very notion that we are saying we want to enter negotiations at the table and not have a cost tariff also says that we want to reduce the non-tariff impositions that prevent trade as well. This is a small bill but it is a significant bill in that it sets a standard and it says that this is where we want to go—we as a nation will be beneficiaries. I support the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.