Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I take a call on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. As the comments that the previous speaker Rino Tirikatene has just made are fresh and hot off the press—where he talked about the sham he talked about pulling the wool over the eyes and he talked about all the things that could go wrong—I just want to read a comment that has been made which may be of some concern to that member. Here is the quoted comment: What always haunts one as the New Zealand Prime Minister is 'will there be a series of trade blocs you're not part of?'. Because that's unthinkable for New Zealand an exporter and small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can." That is a quote from Helen Clark. So that member may stand up there and he may turn around; he was previously the chair of the Federation of Māori Authorities which knows the importance of a trading nation—he knows the importance of that—and yet the quotes of the previous Prime Minister the Labour Prime Minister clearly indicate that this is an important process to be a part of. So I want that member to actually think about that because that goes to the heart of his comments. He can talk about all the things that he has talked about but when this quote actually states that it makes it very very hard. I want to make some comments. I was not on the committee; I was actually over in Geneva with the Hon Annette King and also the honourable member for the Greens David Clendon. We were there for the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) which is in actual fact the oldest parliamentary association in the world—it started in 1889—and it is where parliamentarians can come together. In that process there was correspondence from Mexico through to New Zealand and to our Speaker which asked whether there was an opportunity for a multilateral conversation in a meeting in which members who are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) who were at the IPU in Geneva would be willing to come together to have a conversation to be able to talk about things. Obviously we were not in the position as others who are members are to do any negotiations; it was merely to be able as part of the IPU to have the dialogue and to maybe update each other on our processes of ratification. So in that meeting which was hosted and called for by Mexico we also had the delegation from Singapore the delegation from Malaysia and the delegation also from Vietnam. We were there—and I have to say that my honourable friend and colleague over here David Clendon was there with us as well—and also the Canadians. Unfortunately they went into the wrong room but they finally eventually found their way to us as well. The conversation was actually about asking those different members—so five of the 12 who were present at that time—to talk about their process of ratification. That is actually at the heart of what this bill is. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill is about the ratification of domestic legislation that is in agreement with the objectives of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). First we had the delegation from Mexico and they talked about its process. I want to say first of all that there have been comments across the House that there has been an international process where people are pulling out of the deals and are actually suspending their ratification process; that is not what we heard. I know that I have a witness in Mr Clendon who was there. In fact Mexico talked about the importance of this deal. The Mexican delegation talked about the fact that not only is TPP significant and important but they also talked about NAFTA which is the North America Free Trade Agreement which is between Canada and Mexico and also the United States. They also talked about their concerns and also about seeing the outcome of the US presidential race at the moment because for them that is important. They talked about the rest of the world and hearing some of the comments about the fear but the importance of that free-trade agreement for them was that in regard to the United States that is 5 million jobs that they provide. Mexico is the second-largest export market for United States goods—through into the Mexican market as well. So that became important. Mexico's process of ratification was quite critically important and it was progressing on. We then heard from the Singaporean delegation which was quite interesting. They were a little bit more matter of fact. They talked about the fact that for them they had already gone through a process. Their consultation I have to say probably was not as extensive as we have had through our select committee. However Singapore too was progressing. Again their comments were about seeing the importance of this TPPA as well. We then had the Malaysian delegation. They too talked about the importance of the TPP. Again Malaysia's process of ratification was going through its process. Its delegation saw the importance of being prepared and ready. Obviously with the US being the larger portion of this agreement it is quite critically important but those delegations realised that they needed to progress their ratification process in their own domestic forms of legislation as well. We then heard from Vietnam. I know that comments from Fletcher Tabuteau who has talked about the fact that they have heard that even Vietnam is not going forward with the TPP. Well unless something has changed that is not what we heard from Vietnam. Vietnam again has a process different from ours in its own jurisdiction but what we heard from that delegation was about the importance of the TPPA and most importantly that they were also progressing it as well. I can then say having spoken to the chair Mr Mark Mitchell and also having sat on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and being subbed on for some of the process of the hearing of submissions that I was able to report back our process and progress of ratification here in New Zealand. I talked about the opening up of submissions. I talked about the roadshows and going and engaging with our communities. I talked about the consultation process that had taken place the engaging with advisers the regulatory impact statements that we had had and also the second round of consultation that had gone out as well. It was significant. It was important. I have to say with some pride in comparison with the other jurisdictions—and not to be judgmental of them at all—that we certainly had gone quite a fair way to engage to consult and to ensure that the wider public of New Zealand was informed about this agreement as well. I think that was significantly important. At the end of that we also eventually had the conversation with Canada's delegation. We do agree that in regard to agriculture we would like to go a lot further but they did say that they think this was an important step as well. I also want to say that there has been some talk around the fear of the US in regard to this. The conversations that I heard and was privy to were that we know that the US sees this as an important part of its trade negotiations. It has to go to the heart of its reputation as well as to the opportunities that it will avail to them in regard to its own economy as well. So I think that is really important. I wanted to just add those comments. Having just recently come last week from Geneva having heard the conversations and having been part of those countries the comments that were made previously by other speakers that supposedly other partners to this agreement were being gun shy were being afraid were pulling out and were slowing down their process—that is not what we heard and that is not what we saw. In fact what they would see as being more important is the ratification in their own domestic legislation and hopefully the opportunities that will be available to them to be able to continue to progress this as well. Those are just my brief comments that I wanted to make to this Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation. I believe this is important. Finally I just want to add that on this side of the House those who support it are united. We are united. I have to say that on the Opposition side surely that cannot be the same story. When Opposition members get up and they talk about that from the Labour perspective surely they have to question the credibility of their comments when they know for instance in their midst in their own caucus there are those who will not come into the House and speak and be present in here because they—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot refer to the absence of members—[Interruption] Order! I am ruling. The member cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House.ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I do apologise for that. I do want to just finish on those comments. I think it is important to say that on this side of the House we are united. We are supportive of this agreement. We see the importance of this agreement to our economy and to our communities. We think this is important. I commend this bill in its second reading to the House."