Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to take this final call in this debate and in the passage of this piece of legislation and in doing so I feel a small sense of poetry in that it was my successor as the member for Mt Roskill the Hon Phil Goff who of course was one of the integral political players in the development—Hon Judith Collins: Predecessor.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Predecessor.MICHAEL WOOD: Well who knows what might happen in the future. Hon Judith Collins: Why? Are you going?MICHAEL WOOD: In many many years. Phil Goff is a politician of considerable longevity as should be clear already.My predecessor Phil Goff was of course one of the politicians who was central to the negotiation of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). I well remember discussions with Phil when I was his electorate chairperson before becoming a member during which I expressed my concerns in the fact that I wasn't across the line in respect of the TPPA at that time. That was a position which was shared by many on this side of the House and in fact was shared by many across New Zealand and many internationally.One of the points I want to come to in my comments in this closing speech is to say that for those of us who believe in the principles and the benefits of free and open trade and I believe that the vast majority of members in this House do and for those of us who see the benefits flowing through in a particular way through this agreement—and they are manifold in respect of market access the lifting of quotas and tariffs and economic benefits for New Zealand exporters—we can't just ignore the concerns that the community holds about these agreements.The concerns that were held by many at the time that the TPPA came to the fore were real ones. We had tens of thousands of New Zealanders who marched to express their concerns. We had public opinion polling which showed that it was a pretty even split across the country between people who favoured the agreement and people who didn't and at a meta level the concerns that people had at that time were that agreements such as the TPPA were agreements which potentially shaded out our democratic institutions and may contribute to growing inequality and indeed that's been the experience of many people in our community over recent decades.The concerns about the TPPA were expressed more specifically at that time by the Labour Party. They were concerns around the right to regulate concerns around investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) concerns around control of our own land and concerns around Pharmac. I am proud to say—and I said this in previous debates—that it was the Labour Party in this House which was in fact the only party that didn't take a predetermined position at that point. We said These are our tests these are our values and we'll judge the outcome of the negotiations by whether or not the agreement at the end meets those tests and meets those values." At the time the TPPA came out of the negotiation process we didn't believe that that was the case.When the new Government took over only one year ago one of the first things that we did was to get to work on this. The process was led by the Hon David Parker and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern who went overseas and went to work negotiating to try and deal with those concerns. I'm really happy to say that we made significant progress in all of those areas.Let's start with the right to regulate. To be fair much of this was settled before the coalition Government came into power but it's my view that many of the protections around the right to regulate—particularly in respect of social services health and education—came about as a result of pressure that came from those who were concerned about those areas.In respect of ISDS we have made significant progress in terms of the side letters and in terms of exclusions to ISDS. It is the view and the position of the Labour Party that we would prefer that ISDS provisions were not in this agreement whatsoever. I just want to pick up on actually the very reasonable discussion that the Hon Mark Mitchell launched in this area. It is true that ISDS provides New Zealand companies who may be engaged in investments overseas in jurisdictions where perhaps you don't have total trust in the local justice system with another avenue and potentially additional protections. That is a benefit to those private entities. The flip side is that those provisions can be applied within New Zealand where we do have a justice system and where we do believe that justice system should be the one that governs disputes. That is the reason that the Labour Party prefers that ISDS provisions are not part of these agreements and will not negotiate for them to be part of these agreements in the future. But we made progress and have excluded them in respect of 80 percent of the likely flows of investment into New Zealand.We made progress on the control of land not through negotiations in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) itself but by having a legislative process in this House that we got done in time before the ratification process kicked in and that means that this Parliament retains its sovereign right to control the sale of our own land. That's something the Opposition said could not be done. This Government did that and I just cannot emphasise how important that is for New Zealanders that they do not need to worry under this agreement—that we have protected the sovereign right to control the sale of our own land.In respect of Pharmac it is true that before the coalition Government came in most of the protections for Pharmac had been achieved after significant public pressure and pressure from the Opposition. But we still had to pay—the New Zealand taxpayer still had to pay millions of dollars per year for a monitoring regime—to have an intrusion into our Pharmac system. We've managed to negotiate that out as well. So progress has been made on each of those areas in which there were concerns.We've heard a couple of times in the debate today and the debate earlier in the week that we should try and take the politics out of trade and what I've argued previously is that is the wrong approach to take. If we make trade an elite technocratic project—if we say it's not in the sphere of democracy and it's not in the sphere of debate—then we will lose people. Members of this House should remember that the most significant event in the passage of the TPPA/CPTPP was of course the withdrawal of the United States and that is because the man who was running to be President harnessed the rage of people who felt left out—who felt that agreements like these left them out and felt that their concerns were not being taken seriously. So what I say to members of the House who do believe in free and open trade is don't pretend this is beyond politics. Don't make it an elite project. We have to take these concerns seriously and we have to deal with them in a meaningful way and I'm very proud of the fact that that is what this coalition Government has done.I want to note in particular the role that the Hon David Parker has taken in this area. Beyond the CPTPP he has picked up the Trade for All project which is about going out to New Zealanders and not just selling the benefits of trade—although of course we need to do that—but actually listening to the real concerns that people in the community have: concerns around sovereignty concerns around loss of control concerns around whether we are sharing the benefits of trade in a fair and equitable way with New Zealanders. I believe that it's by having that debate by listening to those concerns and bringing them in that we will build more support and build consensus rebuild consensus for trade and for future trading agreements.So if I can end my comments by coming back to my conversation with my predecessor the Hon Phil Goff. I'm happy to say that at the end of this process with that consideration with that discussion with the changes that this Government has made to get us to the point of CPTPP I'm very happy to be able to talk to my old friend Phil Goff and say that I agree that this agreement does have benefits for New Zealand and that we have addressed so many of the concerns that people held and I am very happy to commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."