Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my great pleasure to take a call on this the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister in the chair Todd McClay and can I open by saying that I would like to acknowledge the Hon Tim Groser and the role that he had in delivering this free-trade agreement. I also want to acknowledge the advisers and our head negotiator David ah—Hon Todd McClay: Walker.MARK MITCHELL: —Walker sorry. Thank you Minister. I want to highlight one point. Former Minister Groser has copped a bit of criticism in the Committee tonight around transparency and around consultation. I just want to say that I remember when we were hearing submissions at the first go-around with the treaty. We had the trade unions come in to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and one of the things that they raised and were quite upset about was that there was no consultation. Of course there was a fair bit of public debate going on about that and we were trying to listen very closely to it but on closer questioning it actually turned out that there had been a fair bit of consultation and that the trade unions had actually been given three meetings with the negotiators and with the Minister to discuss what was in the free-trade agreement. That was a trend that continued throughout the process. I just want to set the record straight a little bit in terms of former Minister Groser and the work that was done around consultation.I do however want to acknowledge Minister McClay because on taking over the role as our Minister of Trade he embarked—it was very clear I feel that we had listened and there were genuine concerns in the community about the lack of consultation and transparency around the agreement—on a series of over 50 public meetings around the country. He took other senior Ministers with him. He took David Walker and our officials who had been dealing with the free-trade agreement and he embarked on a very comprehensive programme of public meetings.I think the best way to highlight the effect that these public meetings had is to talk about the number of submissions that were received on our first go-around with the treaty and then the number of submissions that we received when we actually had the legislation come to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. In the first go-around when the committee went out and asked for submissions in relation to the treaty it received over 10000 submissions. Admittedly many of those were pro forma submissions but it received over 10000. When we went back out and asked the submitters as to who would like to actually come in front of the committee and make an oral submission we had about 300 people come back and say that they would like to make an oral submission to the committee. We went to Auckland we heard submissions in Wellington and we travelled to Christchurch in the South Island to make sure that everyone had easy access to the committee.I want to acknowledge the committee. I would like to acknowledge David Shearer and David Clark from the Labour Party Dr Kennedy Graham from the Green Party and Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First. On the Government side of the committee we had Shane Reti Lindsay Tisch Todd Muller Jami-Lee Ross and David Bennett. Although it was very obvious that the Labour Green and New Zealand First members had taken a position against the agreement and that of course the Government members were in support of it I have to say that the committee decided right from the get-go that submitters who were coming in front of the committee would be listened to very very carefully that their issues would be recorded and that we would address those with our advisers. That was a process that worked very very well. I want to acknowledge the whole committee which came together and worked in a spirit of making sure that the submitters were heard and that their issues were addressed. I am not a cynic—some people would say that that was just purely part of the process. Yes it was part of the process but it was an important part of the process in terms of giving people an ability to raise their concerns and have their say.I just want to address one issue that was raised—I think it was by Dr Megan Woods—and that was around Pharmac. Yes in relation to Pharmac there are some additional costs. For a programme that is funded at about $800 million and growing—and I do not have all the details in front of me; I may need to be corrected and the Minister can do that if so—from memory the only real change to the Pharmac model is that there is allowed to be an additional review asked for inside the model. That meant that basically we had to budget around $2 million as a one-off cost up front. When you think about the size of the actual programme—over $800 million annually—that is a very very small and insignificant cost. It does not change the Pharmac model in itself at all.I would just say too that in relation to support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) of course we are all watching with bated breath to see the results of the American elections. I would have to say that in the House tonight it has been stated that Senator Clinton has taken a position against the TPP. That is not entirely true. She has actually stated that they would have a fresh look at it. However it is true—and I do agree with the Opposition members—that Mr Trump's policy in relation to the TPP is very closely aligned to the Labour policy on the TPP.The only other point that I would make is that there has been some support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership from the Opposition parties—from highly respected leaders within the Labour Party—and that is of course the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the Rt Hon Mike Moore both of whom have come out publicly and very clearly in strong support of the TPP. So it is with great pleasure that I stand and support in this Committee the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Thank you.