Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to stand up this Thursday afternoon and outline National's support for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill here at its first reading and to reflect on both the content of the select committee report and this legislation but also the content initially of Minister Twyford's observations.One thought that struck me listening to the Minister's pretty fair assessment of the benefits that this bill and this legislation will have for the country is his complete omission over the history of this and where it started back in 2012 under the guidance of Tim Groser. This is a trend that I think is very disappointing. For a number of decades the Labour Party and the National Party regardless of who was in Government had very much a shoulder-to-shoulder approach to trade because we both could see that regardless of our political perspectives it actually is in New Zealand's interest for trade deals to be negotiated negotiated well and to have the support of the country. In my view there was a split from this tradition when we were seeking to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and it split the party and indeed the Labour Party—indeed the Hons David Shearer and Phil Goff split away because they were disappointed in their own words with the politicisation of the TPP process. You see it here a little bit today with the complete omission of the fact that the genesis of the RCEP concept was heavily driven by the Hon Tim Groser and they're completely silent on the fact that actually most of the heavy lifting occurred under the previous National Government. They quite rightly have taken it forward. I think that's a missed opportunity to remind the country about the importance of trade the importance of actually having a degree of bipartisanship around the execution of trade strategy. So my door is open but of course I don't hold out much hope that this Minister will return us to the sensible bipartisan approach that existed when we were last in Government.To the bill itself a couple of observations. RCEP in its genesis was an attempt by particularly the ASEAN countries who were not part of the TPP negotiations to be able to engage with countries from the wider Pacific Rim who had fair-trade agreements particularly with China—to be able to have them China in particular as part of the framework. It did have India in as well and actually when you look at the opportunity that would have presented for New Zealand exporters having India as part of the RCEP agreement would have been quite a substantial step forward and in my view would have elevated this legislation and this trade deal to the level of TPP. Alas that wasn't the case. We were very disappointed on this side when India pulled out. We had seen Todd McClay actually pull some remarkable rabbits out of the hat when TPP looked like it would fall over with the United States pulling out and had hoped that that same energy and effort and focus would have been present in our New Zealand Minister to try and keep India at the table. I have my own view that we were a little bit too passive in those negotiations lacking in innovation lacking in thinking of ways that we can keep them in the tent. That is disappointing for us that that wasn't the case. The Minister stepped through the benefits—not huge but you know a benefit between $1.5 and $3.5 billion by 2030 is not to be sneezed at. It really is around the ease of doing business that is implicit in the detail of this legislation particularly in terms of the reduction of non-tariff barriers particularly of course for some of the horticultural seafood and agriculture businesses that get greater tariff relief getting into Indonesia. But essentially it reinforces for our part of the world a collective commitment to multi-party rules-based frameworks to enable trade in goods and services to continue unabated and to be amplified over time. That is only good for New Zealand—it is only good for New Zealand exporters and it is only good for the New Zealand workers and wider community and should be embraced and supported in that context. A couple of chapters that were perhaps missing and caused us some concern when we reflected on it at a committee earlier—there wasn't an environmental chapter. Sometimes you know on our side of politics when we hear environmental chapters" we see that as potential challenges. Certainly I am keeping a very close eye on where the New Zealand - EU and New Zealand - UK negotiations end up in this space. But because we produce the most emissions-efficient animal protein in the world we should embrace environmental chapters if they are negotiated and written in a way that amplifies our competitive strengths. So we shouldn't have a view that any environmental chapter is bad. We should say that if it gives our exporters who already are the best in the world in this space the opportunity to amplify their competitive advantage we should grab it. The fact that this was completely silent I think was a missed opportunity and it's a shame that we couldn't in this multi-party negotiation get it there. I've already touched on the loss of India. We need to ensure that we keep very very close to that country to that fine country which—this House and I know I can speak for all of us watched the dreadful scenes in that remarkable country at the moment. Our heart goes out to them. We hope that they can get through the tragedy of COVID. They are remarkable people with great innovation and great energy and they are going to be a big part of the Asian century that sits in front of us. It's really important for this country and this House to strengthen our relationships not only people-to-people but also business-to-business. It is the National Party's fervent hope that we stay very connected with India both at a Minister-to-Minister level but definitely officials and business-to-business to get them into this agreement in time. We are concerned about the increasing development of geographical indicators. It didn't get progressed too significantly as a concept but we are seeing this being built into negotiated trade agreements and we've signalled that we are concerned that both the UK and the EU might build on what's here in a way that actually provides impediment for our exporters as opposed to opportunity. But overall we'll support this. It is a step in the right direction. It connects us with our Asian trading partners that we already have deep trading relationships with—amplifies it; allows the ASEAN countries to feel connected with Australia New Zealand China and others. That works for their evolving economies and it works for us. Of course there are a number of consequential amendments that we will need to make to the Tariff Act and the custom and duties Act. We will work through that. They are not particularly consequential. They are in a sense required to enable what has been negotiated. But my final message is that trade is critical for all of us in this House for the wider country and it does deserve the best of us in terms of our negotiating strategy and our political perspectives and contribution. I do feel that opportunity and value is being left on the table with the fact that the experience that sits on this side of the House in terms of trade and commercial export arrangements—not only in my context but many other of my colleagues—is simply not being used in a way that benefits "New Zealand Inc.". When we were the Government we reached out to David Parker we reached out to Phil Goff we reached out to David Shearer when they each had time in the trade spokesman role to ensure that they were well-briefed shoulder-to-shoulder with the Government so we could present a "New Zealand Inc." face. What I'm seeing back is too defensive not engaging at the level that should be occurring and actually I don't think that works in New Zealand's interests and it certainly doesn't work in our communities' interests who want the best of our thinking brought to negotiations. Thank you Mr Speaker."