Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. Well now I do get to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 140. Thank you for your guidance Madam Chair. We just heard the person whose name this SOP is in Golriz Ghahraman and when I look at the commentary and the Green Party minority view it really was a bit hard to follow in a lot of ways. They say that they're for trade but when they explained the qualifications that would be required for them to be in favour of it basically they're not in favour of free trade at all. But this SOP as the member who just sat down said the new bill—the CPTPP—is a change in name only and then she goes on to talk about a number of things in there: it has very little to do with free trade. And then she mentioned corporate privilege. I'm not quite sure what she means by that. She didn't explain what that means.Her SOP seeks to ensure that the executive must not agree to any country joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership or any other changes to that agreement unless the House of Representatives has examined the resulting amendments. And it's basically I suspect to try and keep the US out and it seems a very strange thing for the Green Party to have a hatred of the United States which I can't understand why that would be other than the fact that they're successful—perhaps that is what is driving that. So that doesn't make a lot of sense.She said there was no transparency and that they really don't like anything without transparency and yet they signed up to a coalition agreement that they had no idea what they were signing up for. So I think on transparency it's a bit rich for them to start complaining about that when they were very keen to sign up to their coalition and had no idea they were agreeing to supporting the waka-jumping legislation which was anathema to Rod Donald et al. who set up the Green Party in this Parliament. So transparency is just very odd. It really hurts—you can see it hurts when you talk about it. The truth hurts. We do hear that.So OK they feel there wasn't any transparency. Well no one would agree on any trade agreement negotiated in an open forum. You would never get anywhere and people wouldn't agree on anything. I think everyone understands that except for them. They said it was sold to us in lots of ways.The investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) which seems to be lost on the Green Party protects us from other countries doing what they're afraid that we might be sued for—that is a Government coming in over the top and bringing in a law that would single out a company. So the example could be let's say a motor vehicle producer from a country that is banned—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me could we just have a bit of quiet.STUART SMITH: —because the other country doesn't support it. That would be an unfair practice and that has to be dealt with in free-trade agreements. We have used those provisions—not those provisions directly but provisions within these trade agreements—to our advantage going to the World Trade Organization. If we don't have those things spelt out very carefully in our agreements—and ISDS has that all spelt out for us so that if a country's Government steps in over the top and disadvantages our producers we'd have recourse for that. There are serious sanctions for that and the ability for a small producer to protect themself. I just can't understand how the two sides of their argument are so opposite—they're arguing against one another—and they don't seem to be able to see that.In short the Supplementary Order Paper we won't be supporting. It is poorly drafted it is poorly thought-out it is actually against our best interests and it's against the best interests of trade around the world. Trade is what puts food on the table: it gives people jobs and it makes societies far better than they would have otherwise been rather than being a Fortress New Zealand with a very low standard of living.