Macindoe Tim; Williams PotoHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd like to start with a number of positives because this is actually a very good moment for the House. I'll surprise Golriz Ghahraman the Green member who's just resumed her seat by praising her in the first instance because while I disagree with her position as do members of all the other parties in the House I do respect the fact that it's important to have a voice in the House for those who are opposed to this agreement. I want to both acknowledge the very courteous way in which she engaged with all members of the committee and those who made submissions and acknowledge the fact that today she is being the voice for those who are opposed to the agreement. So in a healthy democracy that's a good thing and I acknowledge her for that. I also want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker and his predecessors the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Tim Groser because each of those three Ministers has made a very substantial contribution to this very significant development in our trading relationships which is going to have an immensely positive benefit for our economy and for jobs in our primary production and export markets. But I dare say that members of the public who may be watching this debate today will be having a degree of puzzlement about the fact that we are even doing this because they'll feel that this is an argument that has been held now over a very long period of time and they're correct. I dare say that they'll be experiencing a degree of déjà vu perhaps wondering why do we need to do all of this when they have such vivid memories of all the argy-bargy and the protests that accompanied the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) debates and we can all remember those. I certainly remember those who were camped out—well not camped outside my office but who protested outside my electorate office in Hamilton and who scribbled on the cobblestones and did all sorts of things. The passage of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—which is an agreement simply reincarnated in this new agreement—was something that was contentious and not least was opposed by members opposite who are now so quick to embrace it and yet essentially what we are talking about is an agreement that has two rather fancy words added: comprehensive" and "progressive". They sound good but they are actually fairly meaningless. I doubt whether anybody could tell us why adding "Comprehensive and Progressive" is substantially changing an agreement that is in all other respects apart from some very minor changes the same. Why those two words should make such a difference is beyond me and so I commend the Hon Shane Jones for ditching them when he stood up and said "Well I'm just going to call it for what it is: the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement." Hon Member: Did he say that? Darroch Ball: He didn't say that. Hon TIM MACINDOE: He did. That's exactly what he said. But it was his colleagues in New Zealand First and Labour who huffed and puffed for a very long time when they were in Opposition. They expressed outrage about the enormous damage that the TPPA would do to our country and yet now because they're in Government it's the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as trade arrangements are concerned. Kieran McAnulty: Now it's great. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well the member opposite is interjecting but it's worthwhile—he wasn't on the select committee; I was—pointing out that those who came to submit to our committee on this bill essentially said "It's the same thing." and particularly those who opposed it could see no significant difference at all. They put in their submissions opposing the original TPPA with great feeling and conviction and came along and argued their point and had some support from those parties who are now in Government. Now those parties who are now in Government have turned their backs on these same submitters who are feeling quite dispirited and defeated by the fact that they actually feel really badly let down by those who claimed to express the views that they felt were so important. Of course the real substantive difference between the TPPA and the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is the absence of the United States but I very much doubt that anybody in either the Labour Party or the New Zealand First Party is claiming any credit for the election of President Donald Trump and the fact that one of the first things he did on taking office was to sign his notice taking the USA out. Who are the countries who are left? Well it is important. They're very substantial economies in some respects. Others are small like New Zealand. They include New Zealand Australia Brunei Darussalam Canada Chile Japan Malaysia Mexico Peru Singapore and Vietnam. When—Dan Bidois: Some good countries there. Hon TIM MACINDOE: There are some very good countries you are quite right Mr Bidois—particularly Japan. It is particularly significant that Japan is in there because that's been a market New Zealand has wanted to be able to deal with—a hugely significant economy—and it's been fiendishly difficult to have a trading relationship with Japan up until now that would maximise the benefits. Here this agreement does that. Kieran McAnulty: Yep we got that. Hon TIM MACINDOE: So that is as Mr McAnulty is acknowledging—and I'm happy to agree with him. This makes a real difference. But I remember that I was driving to Auckland—it must have been the morning of 8 March or the next day—just after Mr Parker and other trade Ministers had signed the agreement in Chile and I remember listening to Radio New Zealand interviewing the Minister of Foreign Affairs because the Minister for Trade and Export Growth was obviously away in Chile. So the Minister of Foreign Affairs a certain Mr Peters was invited on to the programme. Even by his particularly cantankerous standards that he tends to adopt when he's asked to be awake in the morning he was extraordinarily aggressive and the Radio New Zealand interviewer became more and more incredulous at the fact that Mr Peters was effectively arguing black was white. Everything that he had previously stood by he was now completely denying had ever been his view. He was trying to argue substantive differences. Nobody was taking it seriously—in particular not the Radio New Zealand interviewer—and it was probably one of the least edifying experiences that anybody in broadcasting or those who listen to Radio New Zealand has had to endure for some time. When we were in the select committee we heard that there is a very good reason for New Zealand being among the first countries to ratify the domestic requirements for implementation of this agreement—and of course by doing what we're doing now we should be on target to ratify the agreement by the end of this year and I am very pleased to be able to contribute to that process. I've mentioned that many of those who came along to submit expressed their considerable disappointment but there were some very substantial submissions from leading export groups that represent our exporters who were naturally very strongly in favour and delighted to see that what they thought had come to an end was back on the table again. We heard oral evidence from 33 submitters at our hearings in Wellington out of the 577 written submissions that were received. I wasn't on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament when all of the consideration of the original TPPA was going through but I hazard a guess that probably the submissions would have been at least 20 times that number and probably took 20 times as long. I certainly remember that the committee had very long days and nights of meetings including a lot of meetings outside of Wellington so it was an extraordinary sort of experience to see how quietly this was all being dealt with. But as I say it was because those who were opposed to the agreement felt really badly let down by Labour and New Zealand First members who had completely changed their minds on something for reasons that really no one who had made a submission against the bill accepted made a substantial difference at all. So let me just conclude by noting for people who might be listening what is so important about this particular agreement. The economies included in the CPTPP account for 13.5 percent of the world's GDP. It's worth a total of US$10 trillion. Those 10 economies are the destination for 30 percent of New Zealand's goods exports worth NZ$15 billion and 31 percent of our services exports worth NZ$6.8 billion annually. So this is very very significant. As I've mentioned it includes four of our top 10 trading partners: Australia Japan Singapore and Malaysia. It also includes four countries with which we haven't previously had a free-trade agreement: Japan Canada Mexico and Peru. We currently export over $5.5 billion of goods and services to those four countries but imagine where things are going to head now. This is unlocking tremendous potential and opportunity. This will be not only great for our economy but it will create jobs in the export sector. It is a very good thing that it's happening. I'm so pleased that those parties have had a change of mind and I strongly support this bill and this agreement. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call."