McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair thank you very much. I want to confirm for the Minister that of course we are supporting it. We supported the original legislation and we will be supporting this but I want to just ask a couple of questions of him further based on the explanations that he gave. But first I would say when he says that actually it is technically correct that the provisions that are suspended can enter into force if the full Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) enters into force but he says that hell would freeze over before that was the case he needs to clarify whether or not if the US came back to the table he's saying his Government would not welcome a trade deal with America. Actually we're one of the few countries of the world that has a positive trading relationship with the US but we don't have a trade deal with them. If we did have a trade deal with them we wouldn't find that the tariff rates on aluminium and steel exports from New Zealand to the US would have gone up because we would have had that protection. Now we don't sell a lot of steel or aluminium to the US but that's not the point. It's a point of principle that actually we are a good friend of the US. We buy more from them than we sell to them. The US is our number one beef market and our number one wine market and our number two dairy market and in an area that actually is not important to them they have all but sanctioned us by increasing tariffs on us. Therefore if the US comes back to the table and says in a future administration we want to adopt the original TPP is he saying this Government would say no? Because actually this Government couldn't say no because we have already ratified and we've already posted the letter of ratification to ourselves and Japan has ratified and actually others would be able to and it would only take Mexico.Of course it's not that long ago—in fact it was earlier in the year last year—when he and his colleagues were on this side of the Table and we went through the final third reading to ratify the TPP when they said it was less than a token gesture because it was dead and it was buried and there was no point in New Zealand doing that and showing leadership. Of course if we had accepted their point then there is a very great likelihood that we wouldn't have the Comprehensive and Progressive TPP before this committee now—a deal that will deliver significant benefits for New Zealanders and New Zealand exporters and will deliver jobs for us.When he says a change of the name and putting Comprehensive and Progressive" in front of the title is more than a token gesture he needs to demonstrate that because actually in saying that we want trade for all if all we've seen is the suspension of clauses that wouldn't greatly harm New Zealand actually it feels token. Now I do accept that the Government wants trade for all but you're going to have to do more than talk about trade for all for it to be delivered and it will be future trade deals not this one because all that's happened with this one is there have been some clauses that have been suspended that actually don't change things significantly.For instance the Minister said when he took an intervention there that actually in as far as the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions are concerned the Green Party should be happy. The Greens are the only ones that have stuck by their principles in this debate. He said actually that there have been carve-outs when it comes to the protection of the Government. Well all the Government's done in ISDS is protect itself over a dispute when it comes to the payment on Government contracts—nothing else. And when he says that companies can't sue the New Zealand Government when it comes to tobacco they couldn't under the original either. That was there. They've carved out 81 percent of all foreign direct investment into New Zealand so ISDS doesn't apply with a side letter with Australia. That's the exact same side letter that was in the TPP. But the Government has signed other side letters with five other countries so the majority of the TPP members have signed side letters and therefore ISDS is not included in our relationship with them and it accounts to a total of 0.2 percent of all foreign direct investment to New Zealand.So what the Government has said to the country is they have protected them. Well actually they've carved out under ISDS the bit around Government contracts and dispute over payment and what they've done is protected New Zealanders from 0.2 percent of foreign direct investment. The question is: why didn't you do it with Mexico Minister and why didn't you do it with Canada? Because they said they wouldn't and they didn't want to.So I accept that this is a good deal. The original deal was a good deal but you need to be more upfront with New Zealanders in saying that you've made it comprehensive and progressive otherwise the name change is merely token."