Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of the motion. Just dealing with the question as to why it is important that we debate issues relating to trade I would have hoped that the members of the Opposition now see that one of the mistakes that was made not by the last Minister of Trade Todd McClay but by his predecessor Tim Groser was to think that he knew best and that there was no need to engage with the public in order to build support for trade. Now there's no doubt in my mind that New Zealand is a trade-dependent nation and that whilst trade agreements are not the be-all and end-all of trade they are important to accessing other markets and for other countries to access New Zealand particularly for the Pacific Islands. But notwithstanding that obvious truth it's also clear that there is disquiet in the international community. A lot of countries around the world are experiencing a backlash against open trading relationships. That's been true in New Zealand in recent years where when the prior Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was proposed to be signed there was a protest of about 20000 people who blocked the motorways in Auckland.Hon Todd McClay: 10000.Hon DAVID PARKER: 10000. Well whether it's 10000 or 20000 is a moot point but there were a lot of people. In contrast the protests this time have been a lot smaller and I think that's in part because we've been willing to engage with people on the importance of trade agreements on their concerns about inappropriate provisions that can be found in some trade agreements and on how their interests are protected by the detailed provisions of trade agreements. Now in respect of the PACER-Plus agreement although it is a less significant agreement for New Zealand in terms of our own economic future in some ways it's more important to New Zealand in respect of the settled security arrangements that we have in the Pacific because if New Zealand's going to maintain a strong relationship with the Pacific and aid the Pacific to succeed economically in a way that means that there are less likely to be problems in those Pacific countries because they will be more prosperous and settled in their way of life then that's really important to the future security issues of New Zealand and the Pacific.That's the reason why the last Government with the support of the Labour Party—then in Opposition—concluded the PACER-Plus agreement. The PACER-Plus agreement isn't so much for the benefit of New Zealand as it is for the benefit of the Pacific Island States who trade with us. Most of New Zealand's trade agreements push pretty hard for other countries in the agreements not to be persisting with subsidies for their industries. This agreement expressly allows Pacific Island countries to take a development path that enables them to support emerging industries in a way that we would not agree for example in a trade agreement with Australia.So there are provisions in here that in strict commercial terms New Zealand would not typically accept in other trade agreements. That's important because some of the critics of trade agreements with the Pacific say that in New Zealand we are somehow being paternalistic in the Pacific forcing upon them a trade agreement that they don't want. I reject that criticism. I think that the Pacific Island States have been sovereign and considered in their decisions to join PACER-Plus partly evidenced by the fact that some of them have chosen not yet to join. I think it's a little bit paternalistic—or maternalistic—for other critics of this scheme to somehow claim that there is a naivety in the Pacific on the part of those countries' sovereign decisions to join this agreement.I certainly back those other countries to take their own decision as to whether they join this agreement and I know from my understanding of these issues that those countries have chosen of their free will to join this agreement because they think it is beneficial to their country to do so. I applaud them for doing that because I truly believe as the last Government did that one of the things that the Pacific needs to do is to grow the prosperity of their own economies for the benefit of their own people so that they can enjoy a standard of living that is closer to ours. I believe that through their trading relationships with New Zealand they will be able to sell our goods and services to New Zealand to have some more labour mobility at times to New Zealand and through those measures they will be a more prosperous economy.Having said that there are also protections in here for New Zealand should those countries that are part of the PACER-Plus agreement then do a separate bilateral agreement with another country that is on more favourable terms to that other country—then those benefits flow through to New Zealand and Australia. So that's fair. If New Zealand and Australia are at one level entering into an agreement from which a strict free-trade agreement point of view is less advantageous to New Zealand than our agreements normally are if those other countries enter bilaterally a separate agreement with another country that is more beneficial to that other country it's only fair to New Zealand and Australia that those same benefits flow through to New Zealand.In respect of the separate agreement and labour I don't have much time to dwell on that but I think most of us in this House know that some of the existing labour mobility schemes—for example the regional seasonal employment (REC) scheme. The REC scheme as it's abbreviated to has worked well for both Pacific Island countries and for New Zealand. It's assisted us to get grapes harvested pruning to be done apples harvested and at times kiwifruit harvested. Now we always have to be mindful that we owe a primary duty to New Zealanders to be employed in those industries but when the REC scheme was introduced it was absolutely clear to the original Labour Government that introduced it that if it weren't for the additional labour that was coming from Island countries to meet that labour shortage there would be less output from our horticulture and that would have been a diminution in value to New Zealand. Other people who have jobs in those industries would have had those jobs at risk and the money that was being returned to the Pacific islands would not have been earned by them.I would make a note of caution in respect of that. We've got to be careful that we are not creating additional dependency in the Pacific Islands on only low-value labour because in the next 20 years I expect many of those jobs to be replaced through technology. We are getting ever closer to robotic fruit picking and robotic pruning. When that happens the need for the summer seasonal labour for fruit picking and pruning will disappear. It would be unfortunate if we have created a level of dependency in Pacific Island countries on that as an income source which is why PACER-Plus outside of labour mobility is important and it shows a shared ambition between New Zealand Australia and the Pacific Island States in the agreement to help them build their economies to a more sustainable position and a more prosperous position.We know that as countries improve their standard of living they can afford better health services better education services and better environmental services to enforce the rule of law and the like and we hope that the development path that we want Pacific Island countries to take is improved by this agreement.So I'll end there. I deserve no credit for this agreement. It should all go to the prior Government. The final point I would say is the criticisms that were made of New Zealand First in respect of their minority view—they did not say that PACER-Plus was a bad agreement; they said that they would have preferred that all of the countries like Fiji and Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea had committed to the agreement before it was brought to New Zealand for ratification. I can understand that as a viewpoint. I think though I differ in that view and I think we were appropriate to bring it into effect when we can with the countries that have already committed themselves to it.So I am very happy to support this motion. I think if this treaty proceeds the Pacific Islands will be better off and we will be a more secure neighbourhood generally in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand I think should be thanked as should the other countries that are participating in this for bringing this advance to the House's attention.