Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the chance to speak on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. I'll follow the convention of others who have spoken before me and adopt a shorthand version of that.I was part of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which considered the bill as well as the select committee that considered a number of submissions in relation to the agreement itself. In the second phase we considered submissions that were made in relation to the legislation that would ratify the agreement and so I'd like to focus on some of those contributions. Previous speakers including the one who's just resumed her seat Louisa Wall have mentioned changes that we did recommend. I'd actually like to focus on some changes that as a committee the majority thereof we did not recommend but that I think none the less deserve the credit for being intelligently proposed and made in good faith.I think it is important that we do have a political approach as the member Michael Wood encourages notwithstanding that politics as opposed to politicking might be different things. I don't wish to get into that except to say that I do believe in an adversarial system of lawmaking such that if we thrash out all the ideas in a way that's passionate but none the less reasonable then we have the best possible chance of arriving at the least dangerous laws for our land.So I'd actually like to focus as I say on a change that was proposed to the select committee albeit not recommended by it. That was by the NGO named It's Our Future. It was supported by the Green Party in its minority view and I think it's worth setting out the reasoning and indeed the proposed amendment itself. Essentially it's to limit the expansion of the agreement such that other countries nation State parties will not be able to join the agreement except for a couple of conditions applying. The first of those would be that New Zealand would negotiate and sign a binding instrument with that new country proposing to join in which such an instrument—as opposed to the agreement proper—would waive the right for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.The second criterion was in relation to full parliamentary examination as though the whole treaty and ratification process were to begin anew. I think those have a certain logic that is very reasonable from a certain constitutional perspective—namely that Parliament should have oversight of all treaty-making. That's certainly not the traditional case in a Westminster system whereby it's the executive that has the power to execute foreign policy originally derived from the monarch. So essentially what is being proposed here while it would be in favour I suppose of greater consultation would actually represent a considerable constitutional change and one that I think is more appropriate for a broader conversation about the way in which laws are made internally in this country and with respect to international obligations. For example if the laws that we make locally to ratify other agreements—for example the Paris climate accord—needed to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny every time another State signed up to that or perhaps withdrew from that then that would be something that I suspect those who are proposing this kind of change now for this agreement with which they do not agree would find perhaps unpalatable. So a consistent approach across that constitutional proposal I think would actually be very helpful to bear in mind.So the rules of the game are known as they currently stand. So actually what Parliament is doing now is considering a bill that will ratify a particular agreement that is known with a particular set of parties that are known and also other parties that may wish to join on the terms currently agreed in that agreement. On that basis my party is very happy to maintain our original position in favour of an agreement that we think will do very good things for our country—and other countries too incidentally—in respect of boosting trade and do that in a responsible and safe way. Other parties have apparently changed their position on that somewhat but I do note the principled consistency of the Greens at least in that regard to recognise that the things that they found objectionable before they still find objectionable now.So I'll bring my contribution to a close now with that final plea. Just to encourage those who would suggest changes to the way that we make our laws in this country—that if it is good enough for this particular agreement with which they're not enamoured then that should be the case for others as well. That would be a broader debate that as something of a constitutional geek I would welcome very much indeed.