Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. It is my pleasure as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to speak at this first reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. For those who are listening from home RCEP is a treaty-level trade agreement agreed by 15 countries 10 of those members belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). They are: Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam plus five countries which ASEAN has free-trade agreements with. They are: Australia China Japan South Korea and New Zealand. I think it's important that the House and the members of the public understand what the implications of this treaty are. An estimate has been made that it will add between $1.5 billion and $3.2 billion to our GDP. Now we shouldn't scoff at anything that adds to our GDP because actually that means more jobs more opportunities for New Zealanders to contribute to the global economy. I think what also has to be shared was that before this bill was introduced to the House the select committee had an opportunity to look at this treaty-level free-trade agreement. We actually wrote a report that was released in March and really there are four things that I want to highlight from our select committee report on the treaty that has then led to this bill being introduced to the House.The first really is to highlight that this was supposed to include a 16th country this RCEP agreement and that was India. Unfortunately India chose to withdraw and for us in New Zealand that was a huge loss because we saw that as an amazing opportunity to partner India and to allow our dairy products to infiltrate their market in a way that added value to the agreement that we had before us. They chose that this wasn't the right time for them they were worried about other products from other competing countries flooding their market and potentially having a detrimental effect on their domestic market. So they have chosen to withdraw but I guess there's hope for them to be included in the future and I think the pathway going forward for us and India is to go to a bilateral agreement. I think everyone would like to have one but as a small nation we could partner them and look at other opportunities to add value—I think that going forward there is hope that that is able to be had. The reason that I've said that is that within trade agreements there has been an insertion of an agenda called Trade for All. We saw that in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and actually we see that more and more in trade agreements globally. We're starting to question trade for what purpose. It isn't just about increasing our GDPs; it is about the environment. One of the other issues that was highlighted within our treaty examination was the fact that there is no environmental chapter in RCEP. We said that was incredibly disappointing because if we don't have a sustainable environment then everything that we're wanting to do is going to be more and more difficult to achieve.In trade agreements there has and has started to be a focus on indigenous peoples and again that was one of the issues that we highlighted within our treaty examination. That is is the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause fit for purpose? It's an historic treaty clause that we when we did propose it broke ground and now we've seen other jurisdictions add treaty clauses into their trade agreements such as Canada. We also are aware that the UK is very cognisant of their responsibility as an historical coloniser of ensuring that indigenous peoples in these free-trade agreements have an opportunity for specific trade opportunities. So I'm highlighting that I think this will continue to be an issue and that as we noted in our select committee report on the treaty there are different perspectives on the treaty exception clause it is before the Waitangi Tribunal and I'm sure there will be submitters who again highlight that it is not fit for purpose as we venture into the future.One of the other issues that was highlighted in the treaty examination was the use of geographic indicators (GIs) and I actually think geographic indicators are going to provide a really interesting pathway for New Zealand businesses. They do in the wine sector and we have stunning wines that are marketed from the different regions of New Zealand. But within the dairy sector I don't think that's quite taken off. We heard from Fonterra for example who have trademarked Kāpiti Kahurangi Creamy Blue cheese. So we've used trademarks as opposed to GIs but I actually think kupu Māori going forward such as mānuka—mānuka honey—or other indigenous terms for our product I actually see developing in the future a real niche opportunity for particularly our Māori producers.I also want to highlight the issue about trade agreements also benefiting workers and workers' rights and creating minimum standards for workers. We have those standards here and we have great developments by our Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Wood. Obviously we've seen recently his announcement around fair pay agreements. Now in these treaties in these trade agreements I think embedding workers' rights is fundamental actually to making sure that trade is conducted in an ethical way. I think more and more around the world people are starting to look at how products are produced who are producing these products and are they being treated in a manner that enables them to have full participative lives. Because we are now realising that trade for trade's sake actually isn't the purpose of trade. The purpose of trade is to grow an economy that provides good quality jobs for our people that enables them to be housed that enables them to be clothed that enables their children to go to school and enables them to have a quality life which means that they can participate in other ventures that society offers whether it be sport or theatre or whatever it might be. I think the examination that this piece of legislation provides about how this particular RCEP agreement is going to add value to the lifestyle that we not only enjoy in New Zealand but in those other countries is something that we should note. Because we have moved into a space where we've seen the weaponisation of trade and the dependency of some economies on particular countries in terms of our export markets and that's actually unsustainable in a world that's focused on global peace and security.That actually is a big philosophical change for the purpose of trade agreements. Creating a trade agreement that alleviates poverty and that creates a world that's focused on peace and global security I think is the challenge of our time. So we have to make sure that when we enter these trade agreements that we are very clear about the key performance indicators that we will create to measure how successful the implementation of these trade agreements are not only within our own countries but within the partner countries that we choose to have these types of relationships with. The reason I bring that up at the end of my speech is because issues such as modern slavery exist. Other jurisdictions have addressed issues of modern slavery. It remains legislative reform that is yet to be led in this Parliament but I think it's incredibly important that we have those tools and we have the knowledge to be able to mitigate what could be detrimental aspects of trade if we get it wrong. Kia ora.