Brownlee Gerry; Williams PotoHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I'm sure that there would have been some point in history where a speech similar to the one we've just heard was impassionedly imploring not to sail too far to the east for fear that they would fall off the earth. This claim by the Green Party that this bill is a complete loss of our sovereignty; that this bill or the proposed bill is somehow an affront to our democracy is actually to argue that the Paris climate change agreement is equally an affront to our democracy and an end to our sovereignty. It is an utterly rubbish position that should not be listened to by sane New Zealanders. One of the interesting and most important parts of this agreement is the provision that preserves New Zealand's rights to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes. Now in this sense regulate means legislate. There is no exclusion on our being able to set up law inside this country that others have to follow. And some of the scaremongering that's been going on for a long time—a lot of it I have to say fuelled by the Labour Party; fuelled by David Parker; fuelled by others from the Labour Party who spoke so passionately against the previous agreement—is completely wrong. It's worth nothing I think that New Zealand is a country that has prospered through trade from its post-European times. That is even pre-1840. We are a country that cannot afford to live the lifestyle we do with just a domestic economy. We must trade. I am heartened by people on the other side of the House saying Well we're all in favour of trade. We want it and we support it." but going along with that means that there needs to be some frameworks that provide protection and most importantly opportunity for New Zealand traders. And that is what this deal does. But I have to say putting the words "Comprehensive and Progressive" in front of it—not actually inserted by New Zealand or any New Zealand intervention at the conference that put it together; rather it was I think Canada who came up with those extra names—and then being carried along with a group that said "Let's suspend 22 provisions of the TPP agreement and call it completely new and say 'It's all wonderful all of our concerns have been solved no problem.' "Well it's worth noting a suspension is just that: it lasts for as long as the parties to the agreement are happy to have that provision suspended. So there's no great achievement here—no great achievement at all. And I don't doubt that when the United States finally gets a position that recognises that trade is actually probably their most important vehicle for influence around the world and comes back to the table many of those suspensions will be back up for negotiation. At that point we're in. So I want to make it abundantly clear that there was nothing in those suspensions that would cause us a problem if they were to be reintroduced.That takes me to the issue of Pharmac. Well what a load of rubbish we've heard in here this afternoon: David Clark saying that Pharmac's future was threatened; David Parker saying Pharmac's future was threatened. Far from it—far from it. The institution of Pharmac is unique to New Zealand. It's something that we're all really proud of. It works extremely well. Where there was a concern—seized upon by the likes of the people that Golriz Ghahraman was just speaking about—it was around the issue of copyright and patenting of particular drugs. The exercise was done by Treasury who we heard today from the finance Minister is the most reliable analytical group in the country—something that I have up to this point not actually agreed with. But none the less I'll take his word for it. They said the maximum cost should this reach its full effect would be only some I think about $50 million a year. Now we might say "Well gosh that's a lot of money." but the reality is that would have ensured that we get a massive amount of extra revenue coming into this country from the hugely expanded trading opportunities that will come from this agreement.So I think what I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult to sit here in the House this afternoon and listen to the embarrassment-filled vitriolic speeches from the other side of the House attacking us when they know full well that the only way they can get this bill eventually passed is with the National Party's vote because we have a Government that does not in its entirety agree with this measure. So it seems to be somewhat odd that there would be such an extraordinary amount of attack on the current Opposition. What I can say too is it was also very evident as we went through the select committee process just how much work the Hon Todd McClay and before him the Hon Tim Groser had done on this particular proposal. New Zealand was the driving force that started it along with the P4 group and then when it sort of started to fall apart it was New Zealand again who got the teams together and ultimately it was the Japanese who said "This is too big an opportunity for all of us." And remember that there are massive costs to their economy. All the barriers that we've got to getting produce into their country are going to be dismantled and they've agreed to that. And they're saying simply "Well we can accommodate the needs of a small country like New Zealand because we're a very big economy and we get the opportunity to expand our influence and our trade and our economic benefit through the other countries that are part of this as well." So it is a very very good agreement. Anyone who would listen as I did to Professor Kelsey who came to a select committee some time ago with her very genuinely heartfelt concerns—I don't doubt that—but when you boil them down and ask the question "What's wrong with trade?" it keeps coming back to all these other bits inside here that are about the nuts and bolts of how countries should reasonably deal with one another. And the terrible scaremongering over the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) propositions. That is where you have the investor-State dispute resolution process that protects as many New Zealand exporters as it will any importers into New Zealand. And you can understand I think the need for that when you see the just unilateral no consideration no Cabinet papers—good idea wake up in the morning have to have a photoshoot on Friday let's do an announcement get all the TV cameras there—end of oil and gas exploration in New Zealand. Well there will be hundreds of millions of dollars lost by companies in that. I don't want to stray into that territory but the extraordinary claim then that the company that is going to benefit the most—because they've now got effectively a monopoly on that—supporting them is utterly ridiculous.So why shouldn't our exporters have our Government backing them in the markets they go into to make sure that they're not poorly treated or unfairly dealt to in those markets? I think it's a reasonable thing and I think many of the concerns that have been expressed about it are just that—scaremongering. There's actually never been a case brought in New Zealand as a result of that provision which has existed in other trade agreements for quite some time.This deal gives huge amounts of access to our New Zealand producers effectively. We know that our productive base is something the Government has said they want to improve. Well the only way that will improve is if there are markets to move into if there are opportunities to sell the things we are good at producing to other countries. This is a document an agreement and a commitment to trade that will see that and will see our country prosper. It's not easy just to generate exports. I heard Dr Clark say that the volume of exports relative to GDP had fallen by about 3 percent over the last wee while. Well look it's a lot like all the other stats that you can measure around the nine months now of this Government—on the wrong track. So this is a very good opportunity to try and reverse that. And no one should think that there are people on that side of the House so good at this no one else knows about it. I recall 2007—Winston Peters export—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Sorry your time has expired. I understand this is a split call—the Hon Stuart Nash."