Penk ChrisTRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (CPTPP) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Title and commencement of principal ActCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. I start by noting perhaps an obvious point—but one with some significance which I'll spell out in a moment—that this is an amendment Act. I say that because not only is the word Amendment" in the title but it will perhaps surprise some to realise that we are in fact amending here an Act of Parliament that's already been passed. It is referred to here of course as "the principal Act" and that in turn refers to the fact that a treaty commonly referred to as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has already been signed entered into by New Zealand and indeed ratified in the form of that parent legislation. So just to be clear then as Part 1 does explain very clearly it is the principal Act that we're amending by this amendment Act in the act of—excuse me I'm using the word "act" in two different senses with a lower case "a" in the second example there within the same sentence. We are in fact using this process now to amend that and from a political perspective I think it highlights some of the confusion that's been experienced by members of the public even before I started speaking about this process and in particular the fact that some political parties did not support the TPP—as I shall henceforth revert to—yet supported the revised agreement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The wording of the clauses in Part 1 really actually highlight that pretty well as we'll see with reference to clause 5. In clause 5 "Section 1 amended (Title)" new section 1(2) points out that "Every reference in any enactment and in any document to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Act 2016 must unless the context otherwise requires be read as a reference to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Amendment Act 2018." The construction of that looks pretty straightforward and benign in that it's a pretty standard formulation setting out that every reference will mean one thing unless it's specifically noted to the contrary. Again the political significance of this is that essentially what we're saying is that everything is the same except for some things that aren't but that really in effect means that most are. So from this side of the House we've noted with some bemusement the apparent change in heart regarding the value of trade—this agreement specifically—again we're granting that some amendments have been made and we're really noting that in the context of an amendment bill that actually makes it pretty clear that not many amendments are required to the previous legislation. Hence again one agreement is not far different from the other. As for the way that this will come into force in section 2 of the 2016 amendment Act  we see that it can be done by one or more Orders in Council that will be used to make this new law effective and it's stated that different provisions can come into force on different dates and that there might also be different dates for different purposes. The significance here is that there are different moving parts within the revised agreement that by necessity and operation of the TPP or—excuse me—the CPTPP come into effect at different times. So that's quite an unusual way of highlighting the fact that actually we might have somewhat of a piecemeal approach. That's not an error or a mere indulgence in the drafting of legislation but actually something that's needed quite specifically to ratify the terms of the treaty itself which is after all the very point of this parliamentary scrutiny. Of course the commencement of the amendment Act can't be before the commencement of the parent legislation and we don't yet know that date. I think albeit it was a matter engaged with by the previous Parliament none the less of course this amendment Act won't come into force until such time as this House passes it and the other one previously being in place and then naturally the date of effectiveness for various parts of it will be after the commencement date and the effectiveness of the parent legislation itself. So I think there's probably no confusion on that but perhaps some other colleagues might have some views on that and certainly if the Minister's got any thoughts he'd be prepared to share that would be good to hear."