Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Malo e laumalie. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I will indeed be rising to strongly support the Green Party's position. We will be vocally opposing the PACER-Plus agreement tonight in the House. We have long vocally opposed the PACER-Plus agreement. We believe it undermines the interests of the majority of the Island nations. I think it's worth noting that only 14 percent of the actual Pacific population are on board with this because the other bigger Pacific nations—we're looking at population here—have said This deal isn't for us. What is this deal actually going to produce in terms of benefits for us?"So I might start by acknowledging the really fantastic analysis—actually Alastair Scott the previous member might want to have a listen—of Dr Cleo Paskal who goes back to the purpose of what this trade deal says it is trying to achieve and how it fails on every count. If the PACER-Plus deal is trying to create economic integration it fails. Some of the countries are not signing up and some are pulling out. How can that be economic integration? If this deal is supposed to create stability it fails. There are internal frictions and political problems being created by this deal and we cannot deny those—not least with Tonga and Vanuatu. If this deal is supposed to ensure—as it actually says in the bill that it is supposed to—that all trade passes through Australia and New Zealand then why would other nations and other trading partners even consider this? In actual fact Washington DC and London have actually questioned this deal and asked what on earth the purpose of it is and what it is actually trying to do.So we're on good ground in the Green Party in continuing to oppose this PACER-Plus deal. We have always said that it doesn't include the largest Pacific regions and nations—as I've just pointed out for example Papua New Guinea and Fiji—and that it undermines initiatives towards greater Pacific regionalism which apparently this trade deal was supposed to be about. It actually does the opposite.We have said it provides for New Zealand to divert 20 percent of the aid budget to Aid for Trade purposes coming from the existing aid budget. What is that about? That's a bit of a rort. We know that the burden of trade rules in the agreement is on the small and the poor Pacific countries not on Australia which maintains its high barriers—so what is that about?—to the export of fruit and vegetables from the Pacific. So actually what it says—especially under the initiative of the previous Government—it is trying to do is a bit of a farce.I want to acknowledge that this Government has a new approach to the regions and the relationships. This Government has a new direction and there is opportunity therefore to reassess how this deal could actually benefit the Pacific region in the way that it says it wants to. I do want to acknowledge there is that opportunity here and particularly that voices from New Zealand's and Australia's domestic strategic community raised the undermining and the trade-off actually between what has largely been driven by business interests which can in actual fact—and an analysis says that it is—undermine the strategic and economic interests of the Pacific economies themselves. So I don't understand—and that's why we are proud to oppose the direction that this Pacific trade agreement is going in.Coming in from and led by the last National Government it was absolutely a bad deal. I do acknowledge the opportunity that we have under this Government to reassess this but the Green Party will be continuing to oppose it. If I can—yep there's time—just pick up in more detail three of our concerns that I mentioned at the start of my contribution. So tariffs: under this deal New Zealand gains privileged access to Pacific markets while they gain no new access to our markets. There has been some analysis of a little bit of bullying—that has been the word that has been used—from Australia and from New Zealand as a nation towards Pacific nations.Now if this is correct that we gain new access but they gain no new access to our markets then I think that holds true. For example nowhere in the agreement are Australia and New Zealand required to drop our protectionist policies against the export by those nations of their fruit and vegetables that are also grown here. So these small Island nations have to drop tariffs on most goods being imported from Australia and New Zealand but not on the other side—for example Australia maintains high barriers to the export of kava and of fruit and vegetables from the Pacific.So we have pointed out previously that New Zealand exporters will gain $20 million in reduced tariffs but this is lost revenue for Pacific Governments that are already struggling to provide basic healthcare and education to their people. For example Tonga spends $270 per person annually on healthcare compared with New Zealand's spend of $4016. So we may be better off but they will be much worse off.Secondly—yep we've got time—it's about deregulation and promoting corporate rights and this was clear from the get-go particularly under the previous Government. As a result of this experts have said that we'll likely see these small States face pressure for them to privatise their core State-owned enterprises and that is what allows external players to come in and section off parts of the Pacific economies—to actually fractionalise Pacific economies—when this trade deal is supposed to be able to bring in and regionalise their economies.So if we really are after a trade deal that will help integrate Pacific economies and provide a regionalised base where we can give fair trade deals that look to the long-term sustainability of Pacific business economies and equalities—social and economic—then this is not the deal. This is why the Green Party is proud to continue opposing this bill. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."