McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair thank you very much. I do take pleasure in speaking in this part of the debate in the title and in the commencement. The Government whip has just asked me to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to change the name but there's no need to because whether it's called Comprehensive and Progressive" or just the same old Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) the public understands that it is the same deal that was negotiated over a very long period of time under the previous Government particularly when Tim Groser was the Minister and since then there have been some changes which almost every submitter bar none thought were only slight changes. In fact those who submitted and came before the committee who had heard the Government say that it was a completely different trade deal had a very very different opinion. And these are some of the very same people who when Government parties were in Opposition were out on the hustings out on the campaign trail out on the protest street saying that it wasn't a good deal.So it's called the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It could be called the "Revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" because actually it's just been revised. It could be the "Same Old TPP with Some Very Minor Changes Bill". It could be "Just the TPP". It could be "Look It Actually Looks Exactly the Same as the TPP". There are many ways to describe this.Hon Amy Adams: How about the "National-Negotiated TPP"?Hon TODD McCLAY: Well there we heard it: the "National-Negotiated TPP". But here is the interesting thing: how did the Labour Government in a very short period of time—in fact in a matter of days—come up with the words "comprehensive and progressive"—Hon Tracey Martin: There is no Labour Government.Hon TODD McCLAY: —to put at the beginning of this? How did they do that? Maybe it was New Zealand First—the Labour-led Government. Well it's quite straightforward. At a previous meeting that had been held in Vietnam the Canadians came up with the idea. The Canadians said that if they were to go ahead with the TPP without the US there they agreed there would have to be some changes perhaps some of the things that the US had wanted or had negotiated should be held back. And all of the remaining countries got around the table with the officials and they started working this through—long long before we had an election in New Zealand this was worked through.The Canadian trade Minister who is still the Canadian trade Minister said in that meeting "We would need to change the name and we would need to show the world that this is a different agreement." And others—I think the Minister from Australia—said "How would we do that?" He said "Well we would need them to think it was comprehensive and it was progressive. So why don't we call it the comprehensive and progressive agreement? And if we change nothing else but the name then actually we will show that it is a new agreement." So I want to congratulate the new Government—the Labour-led Government followed closely behind by New Zealand First—for actually accepting the great wisdom of the trade Minister from Canada who said "If we merely change the name that will be enough."Now we know other things were changed as well. I think it is good that what's happened is that the issues around Pharmac—and about biologics and patents and so on for medicines—have actually been suspended because at the time of course that they were negotiated in the original TPP we as a Government said "The Pharmac model is not up for negotiation. It has been protected." And now what we hear from the new Government is it's been taken out and it was protected anyway but it's protected even more.But what they haven't told the public is that the original TPP deal remains there on the books and it can still enter into force if the original requirements of that deal are met. And if it does every single suspension that this Government has spoken of up and down the country to assure people enters into force—every single one including every part of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). So for New Zealand First who has proudly said they've fixed ISDS—actually they haven't because this legislation doesn't stop that. It doesn't say that biologics are protected more or less than under the original TPP. Should the original TPP enter into force and it's on our books and it still can because all this legislation does is change the name and the other countries have agreed to hold back these suspended clauses—they enter into force.The Minister needs to get up and confirm whether I am correct in this or not because actually I am relaxed about that. I have no fear of these clauses. The original TPP was negotiated in the best interests of New Zealand but the Government shouldn't be saying the problem has gone away when it actually can come back."