Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I think the members opposite would have known—but it is clear; and I probably need to make it clear for them—that this bill was kept simple for their benefit. The profundity was missed by those members. I just want to note that I had no idea that the National Party's definition of democracy was needless complexity". Hear hear—brilliant! Despite knowing exactly what the Government members would say tonight I am still frustrated perplexed and disappointed—disappointed by what turned out to be personal attacks on myself. I would have said that it was beneath those members; apparently I was wrong.As expected the National backbenchers turned to their historic and ongoing spin that somehow New Zealand First is against trade. It was sad that they could not and would not refer beyond their tired spin and the tired rhetoric that somehow New Zealand First is anti-trade. The whole premise of this bill is about debating trade or international treaties. It would have been nice to have gone to a select committee and said: "What is it that we should bring to the House that is of such significance that the people of New Zealand must be represented by those whom we call their representatives?".As Dr Reti ably noted we have been here before in 2001-02. A bill of a very similar nature was defeated in its second reading. That was then and this is now and I say to the members opposite that so much has changed. What passes for a trade deal today would not have been recognised by members 10 or 15 years ago. I put it to this House that the same objections can no longer apply. Funnily enough those were the exact objections 15 years later—the same objections used by the backbenchers tonight. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has shown—and it is a shining example—that the executive must be constrained in its power; that Parliament must play a more significant role in our international obligations and what we would sign up to.This is a House of Representatives and under MMP the diversity of its representation has become so much more reflective of the people we presume to represent. That must be recognised in this debate tonight. For the benefit of the members opposite you can imagine—or not I suppose in your caucus—that New Zealand First has actually discussed this bill. We say that in fewer than 10 years trade treaties—or partnerships now actually—have changed beyond recognition. They are no longer fundamentally bilateral trade agreements; they are investment agreements that exceed 6000 pages in length. They are huge they are complex and they discuss so much more than trade liberalisation through the removal of tariffs and the movement of goods across borders. They go so far beyond that. This House absolutely deserves to be part of that conversation—in fact more than that this bill says this Parliament must be the ultimate arbiter.Hon Simon Bridges: Oh you don't believe that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They are so sure of themselves—oh and here is a perfect example of arrogance here tonight. They are so sure of themselves so confident that they want to close off the debate. They want to shut out the public. This is what is wrong with the globalist movement today. This is what is wrong with the National Government. It wants to shut the discussion down. We want to remain open to the world and we need to undertake profitable business through the form of exports. We want to see New Zealand businesses succeed but we cannot sit back and watch international corporates take over New Zealand.I just want to end by closing with former Minister Richard Prebble because I am disappointed with the vote of the ACT Party tonight which I admit I presume. Richard Prebble called it absurd that the executive could sign up to international treaties without parliamentary approval. And in that New Zealand First would agree with him. Thank you."