Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2111] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on this bill and to say that I think the Committee has done a good thing in agreeing to have a wide debate across the whole bill. The bill is after all only five clauses but it is a significant piece of legislation as the speaker before me the Hon Lockwood Smith has pointed out. The issues that he raised about strategic opportunity cannot be understated. I mentioned that the bill is only five clauses but if we look at the commentary it is some 60 pages which gives members some idea of the complexity and the issues that surround putting in place trade agreements. 
In the National Party we believe very clearly that trade is a positive thing. It is the lifeblood of an international community and if we want to continue to live in a world that has a peaceful outlook I point out that it is when we start limiting opportunities through trade that we create the first opportunity for dissension which can escalate into areas that we are not happy about. We are members of planet Earth and we are particularly members of the Pacific. This bill points in two directions. It points into Latin America with the strategic alliances with Chile—the first free-trade agreement with a Latin American country that New Zealand will have had—and it points to Asia cementing in the importance of Asia that we see in the region and the significance of the opportunities for New Zealand. Trade is not a one-way ticket. It is beneficial to both parties. New Zealand is a trading nation. There is no other way to refer to us. We are a trading nation; we produce much more of many goods than we can possibly consume in New Zealand. So it is in our interests not only to create free-trade agreements but also to pick up on the point made by the Hon Lockwood Smith to show leadership and that we are encouraging other companies to knock down the barriers and increase opportunities and we are all winners in that respect. 
I alert the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to something that I would like an explanation on if she is able to. I see that the bill is to come into force on 1 May 2006. I wonder why we have chosen that commencement date. Quite often on these sorts of things we say that it will come into force after the Royal assent. This particular agreement is dependent on signatories. If we look at Appendix B which refers to the date proposed for the binding treaty action it states: “… provided at least two signatories have ratified by that date.” Can the Minister inform us whether that will have happened by 1 May and why 1 May has been chosen as the date for commencement? I am not opposing it but this is a significant issue. We in the National Party are keen to see this measure go ahead and if there is some reason why we are delaying until 1 May I am not sure what signal that sends. Also it is very hard to read what the House business is over the next short while. Although we are in the Committee stage and I would hope we will be through all stages well before 1 May should something intervene I am not sure what the plan for the third reading is. If the Minister could take a call and respond to that I would be grateful. 
I again affirm the importance of this bill. It sets up a framework for dealing with strategic issues. New Zealand can only be a winner as we seek to improve trading relations with our strategic partners both within APEC and the Pacific. This bill sets some very strong planks in place. Good work has been done in order to get to the table with Chile Singapore and Brunei Darussalam to get us to an agreement and to have something that can be ratified. It requires us to affirm it by passing this bill so I commend it to the Committee. The National Party stands solidly behind trade and the opportunities that presents particularly in this area.