McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker thank you very much. It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill. Any trade bill that comes before the House that was started by the National Party is a good bill. But Duncan Webb the last speaker said how important trade was as part of a puzzle and about 3½ seconds later he sat down and therein lies the problem with the Labour Party when it comes to trade. When in Opposition they are lions but when it comes to Government they become the things that New Zealanders want to sell overseas a lot which is mutton or lamb or sheep. The challenge is that in this case this is a good agreement for New Zealand but it doesn't go as far as it could have and it should have.So here's the problem you have with trade agreements. You're only as good as your last one not your next one because when you next go to negotiate a trade agreement the people you're negotiating with look at the previous agreement and they decide to give you only that amount or less. I would say to the Government that I know it's very difficult when all other countries are ready to settle and they want to move on because they are not free traders or trade is not as important to them as it is to New Zealand. But I do think that whilst this is a step forward this step is not large enough and that the Government was not ambitious enough and it almost feels like they settled.I want to look at how many people have been involved in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It was started by the Hon Tim Groser who was a trade Minister for a very long period of time: 7½ years. I had the opportunity for a year and a half as trade Minister to also be involved in negotiations in RCEP. Now we have a new trade Minister who was there only a very short period of time and has had the pleasure to agree it and to sign it. Unfortunately there was one trade Minister in the middle of that who didn't get to sign any deals at all and that was David Parker and I suppose I think it could be because David Parker wanted to hold out for the very best deal he could get for New Zealand or someone else's deal and put the name comprehensive" in front of it it would do as well.But putting that aside I do fear that whilst I look at the notes that have been distributed and the report from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it talks up some of the benefits we must see those benefits delivered. One of the areas the Government is very proud of is the opening of market access to Indonesia a country that we would dearly like to have a bilateral free-trade agreement with and it talked about areas where products will go in there more easily. Tariffs will be reduced for sheep meat and for other products. It is behovent upon the Government to make sure that that happens.The thing is New Zealand always honours its obligations in trade. That's one of the reasons why successive Governments have been able to negotiate high-quality trade agreements with large countries when we actually don't have as much to offer them: a market of a mere 5 million people on the other side of the world. But when New Zealand says it will do something it generally does it or at least that is the reputation we had four years ago when the Labour Party took over. So it is important that they make sure that with the obligations that have been offered to us as we have given access and other things to countries overseas as part of RCEP New Zealand exporters can benefit from them.I want to just segue for a moment and then I will come back to some of the provisions of RCEP. I did say a moment ago that you're only as good as your last agreement not your next one and so if this is the last agreement that was signed I really hope that when our trade Minister jumps on the plane now we've learnt he's about to go overseas and heads off to Washington for a while I understand and then he goes to the United Kingdom he brings back a deal that is good for New Zealand. It should be better than the deal that has already been agreed between the United Kingdom and Australia but we'll give him a bit of a break. It should at least be as good. The reason for that is New Zealand was at the front of the queue with the United Kingdom the first country that they agreed they wanted to do a free-trade deal with and they said that New Zealand will be the first cab off the rank along with Australia. They were secondary. We were first there. We were supportive of them. We were first through the door. We had the first-mover advantage. It concerns me almost as much as it concerns our agricultural sector in New Zealand that Australia has got a deal that they say is very very very good for them. Their expectations were lower than the deal the Australian trade Ministers were able to deliver and we have now missed the deadline that was imposed for reaching agreement by our trade Minister and they've gone very quiet—the Government—about where we will head.So the problem we have is if I was sitting over there as a trade negotiator with the Minister in the United Kingdom—and it's his job to get the best he can for his exporters and it's the job of the New Zealand trade Minister to get the best that that person can for New Zealand exporters—he will be looking at RCEP and he'll be looking at things that New Zealand agreed here and actually it's woefully short when it comes to market access. The officials would have given the Minister a piece of paper that talks about the tariff eradication and market access: up to 97 percent across all products. What he won't tell this House is in the products that New Zealand exports—the ones we are most interested in—there is not enough liberalisation. So whilst it's good that Indonesia may have a look at a couple of areas across the board where we have trade agreements with RCEP countries in place that they don't go as far as we'd want them to or with RCEP countries we don't have a bilateral trade agreement with in the items that New Zealand exports that are important to us we don't get enough. Take for example when it comes to dairy and it comes to other agricultural products. There could be 98 percent tariff elimination under the RCEP agreement but when it comes to the 3 percent that we don't get the eradication we need that could be 50 or 60 or 70 percent of our trade. So the devil is always in the detail. I say to the trade Minister—he's about to jump on an aeroplane fly off to the other side of the world and then come back and probably take the places of some Kiwis who actually have a right and a strong desire with their family members to leave the United Kingdom and come back to New Zealand for Christmas who won't get those managed isolation and quarantine places—that he needs to bring back a deal that he can be proud of. It needs to at least be if not better as good as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was because a comprehensive TPP that the Labour Party is so proud of—the one they campaigned against—really only had the word "comprehensive" put in front of it. Everything else was the same. It made great inroads into markets that we had such restrictive access to—Japan is a very very good example.So I hope that when he goes to the other side of the world flies all the way to the United Kingdom he brings a deal back that is good for New Zealand exporters and is better than what we lost as a result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and that we will have free trade for agricultural products and our dairy products our butter go into there free—it doesn't have to be on day one but it must be done—that our lamb goes in there without restriction—maybe not on day one but it gets there—and that it is better than the deal that Australia has got. If it is not better than the deal that Australia has got there will be about as much worth to New Zealand exporters as RCEP is to some of the countries where we don't get the access that we need because a trade deal is only as good as your last one not the next one because you always start from the point of the last one.The reason I say this is not to give a lesson to our new trade Minister. He knows a lot about agriculture much much more than I ever will. It's because actually you only ever get one shot with this. What the officials will say Minister is "Why don't we have a built-in agenda so we can keep negotiating in the future?" But the moment he walks away from the negotiating table with a deal if it doesn't deliver on the things that New Zealand exporters need it will be an opportunity missed and when he's ready to go out and do one with the European Union they'll say "Well actually you gave this to the United Kingdom and they didn't give you much back. We're much larger than they are. How about we offer you even less?"—because he's also stopped talking about his trade deal with the EU.We are a trading nation: 600000 jobs directly and indirectly depend upon trade. We have produced enough food and fibre to feed up to 40 million people. We cannot consume it ourselves alone. If we want to rebuild our economy if we want to pay back the debt that the Government is racking up as fast as they can in spending money on things they say are about COVID but are really not we need high-quality trade deals that open the door so New Zealand exporters can go and do what we need them to which is to say "Government thanks for your job. We don't need you any more. We know how to go out and make money and we will help rebuild the economy for you." But if this trade Minister comes back from the European Union and the UK with a substandard deal if he leaves it on the table and if he doesn't get the things he needs to—in fact if it is not better than the Australian deal—he has let everybody down and the debt they've racked up which is almost $100 billion over two years will be even harder for New Zealanders to pay. We will be supporting RCEP because it is a step forward but it's not the giant step it should have been. Thank you."