Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm not going to attempt Tongan out of respect for the language but happy Tongan Language Week. I want to talk a little bit about the change in attitude by New Zealand First. I think that's great that they've had an epiphany although I don't quite follow the logic given that the Pacific reset has been criticised by officials as being poorly targeted. It just seems strange that this sudden epiphany and embracing of free trade only comes with the Treasury benches from that side. We're quite consistent in our view and unapologetic for that and I think that's what comes with—Darroch Ball: Come on Matt. Tell him he's wrong.Matt Doocey: You know he's right.STUART SMITH: Well yes absolutely and it's disappointing. Perhaps political maturity might come upon that party in time and they'll understand the benefit of trade—the true benefit of trade—right across the Pacific and particularly for our close neighbours.Actually I want to also touch on the Green Party's attitude on this. The previous speaker from the Green Party Marama Davidson was defending their position in opposing this and I did find it quite condescending really. Some of the language around it I just find quite strange. In their minority view they said We remain concerned that among other considerations the PACER Plus agreement undermines efforts to promote Pacific regionalism reprioritises New Zealand's existing aid budget into problematic 'aid for trade' initiatives and burdens Pacific states with unfair export rules." I just don't understand that quite frankly. It seems strange that the party claims to have all of these principles and that it stands by them and yet Rod Donald's principles against the oxymoronic name of a bill in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—they simply abandoned them then in what would've been so important to the Green Party. Then in this case where it's for the good of everybody they maintain a "no way will we support this bill" attitude and I think that's very strange. I don't understand those principles.I want to give an example of Pacific trade that is working well and it actually comes from the RSE scheme—the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. Around 2400 RSE workers come during the winter into my electorate in Kaikōura particularly in the Marlborough region and one of the employers there Vinepower—in Jono and Claire Bushell and Jason Kennard who are the principals of that company—employs people from Vanuatu particularly. But they've gone further than that: Jono and Claire spend six months of the year in Vanuatu out on the island of Tanna and they have helped the villagers set up a business bottling coconut oil and selling it. In fact they sell it at the farmer's market in Blenheim and other places. I think that is a small but important trade.It seems as though having anything to do with big business is a dirty word but big business like little business is all about trade. It's all about getting goods from one market into another market for the betterment of both parties and as is certainly well-known in business circles you've got to leave something in it for the next person when you're trading. If you don't then it won't work—you won't have a business for very long—and I think that's quite poorly understood.Remittances are also quite important from the RSE workers going back into the Pacific Islands but not only that: when it comes close to the end of their time working in New Zealand the groups from villages go and buy a lot of goods put them into containers and send them back to their islands. Those goods can be things from building materials to tractors to all sorts of things so that they can enhance their own businesses and their own lifestyles in their villages. Now that is I admit what you'd call a cottage sort of export industry but it is a very important industry for those villages and for the lifestyles of those people and it's lifting up their lifestyles. To sit back and say "Well we don't want to support free trade in the Pacific because we don't believe those people are actually able to make their own decisions in that area."—I just don't accept that.To draw another analogy for you on that argument if we look at the Brexit situation at the moment who's the UK looking to for help in getting a trade policy together to actually negotiate trade agreements? It's New Zealand. It wasn't that many years ago that the UK joined the Common Market and New Zealand had a complete reset in its trade policy. We were in a very poor situation and now we've become a leading trading nation. How have we done that? By being in the game—that's how we've got there.So I think that to gloss over it in the way that the Green Party did shows a very poor understanding of trade in general and a very poor understanding of business in general. That may not be surprising to anyone. I'm absolutely delighted that the Labour Party is behind this—they always have been—and now it's great to see an epiphany on the part of New Zealand First. It would be great for them to have a few more. We could perhaps have a general debate where I could point out a few more epiphanies that they might like to have in the future though that might be hoping a little bit too much. Anyway look with that in mind I commend the bill to the House."