Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's great to take a call on this on Part 1 seeking to change this name: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). I think we'd probably have far less of an issue if the CP" were instead to be renamed "Carefully Presented" because in essence that's all the Government has actually done with these changes. They have carefully presented a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is still the TPP that we all knew and loved on this side of the House but they pretend that they've somehow made some substantive change to it. But in doing so they perhaps are careful not to say what would happen to this CPTPP if the US were to re-enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership as it had been originally agreed. So it's actually the Minister Damien O'Connor's comments that I want to take the time to talk about in this my first contribution on this part. The Minister claimed—in response to one of my colleagues saying that "Well what happens if the US actually changed their mind and decided to enter this thing under the terms and conditions that were agreed to by all the parties?" The Minister tried to claim that (1) that was incredibly unlikely and (2) that we would be able to do certain things. Well let's take a look firstly at the first part of that.Even under the name CPTPP this agreement affects a huge amount of the world's GDP particularly in the region of which we are one of many inhabitants. So as those nations that are a part of this use this agreement to mutual benefit—each of us growing our opportunities growing our economies creating jobs and lifting incomes in our country—it is not by some far-stretched hypothetical to think that another country that could still be a member of it the US will stick to a position that it is not good enough for them. In fact the more successful the nations under CPTPP are under this agreement the more likely it is the United States will review its position and look to find a way to re-enter because it's only alternative against that entire bloc if you will of economic might across the region is to seek to negotiate bilateral agreements independently with each of the nations. That is a very very difficult thing to do whilst maintaining the sort of opportunities that a multilateral agreement can yield.So I think Minister it is not some amazing far stretch of the imagination that the US would seek to re-enter the agreement under its original terms which they are unable to do and which would then have significant impacts to those not quite substantive changes the Government did negotiate into the renamed CPTPP—most or all of which would go out the window if the US decided to re-enter the original agreement.The second part then the Minister raised that I think is extraordinarily troubling for this Government and for New Zealand is he made the statement that if the US did choose to re-enter then we have a reserved right to withdraw our consent to the TPP. So he's just sent a message to every business in New Zealand and every exporter that they cannot be certain of what would happen to their international market access and their opportunities under this agreement should the US unilaterally decide they will re-enter TPP which they are absolutely able to do. The Minister has sent a message to them that they might lose all of that opportunity because this Government would have the option to withdraw from it. Well given the environment that this Government has existed in pretty much since it came into being of low and decreasing business confidence that one statement in this Chamber by the Minister can only have made that worse. That comes on top of the news tonight in the Colmar Brunton poll that more people think the economy is headed backwards into the future than is heading upwards.So really the Minister has introduced a sense now of absolute uncertainty across those businesses—the businesses we need to prosper under CPTPP or whatever you want to name it; the businesses we need to grasp the opportunity and make the most of it. Ultimately when we talk about the economy we are simply talking about jobs and incomes. Harnessed well this along with our other trade agreements is all about growing jobs and growing incomes. The Minister has just really put a huge at-risk component into that."