Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a privilege to rise to speak in opposition to this bill again as a lone voice representing the Green Party in this House. We remain opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) and to any Act of this Parliament that would enable the implementation of that agreement or those agreements that do seem to overlap eerily.Kieran McAnulty: They're different.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Not according to Professor Kelsey.We do support trade. New Zealand needs trade. We're a small country and we need trade but not much of the 6000 pages of this particular deal seem to relate to actual trade. They do however lay out in minute detail the privileges of foreign multinational corporations that we're giving up over the rights and interests of New Zealanders of ordinary people and of our environment.We agree with the two-thirds—two-thirds; yeah it was actually as high as that—of submitters who oppose this bill and who know the chilling effect that that agreement and through it this bill will have on New Zealand's democracy. Most submitters—the overwhelming majority—raised concern with the remainder of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in this bill through the trade agreement. That is to say that this House of Representatives this elected body this supreme Parliament is about to pass into law an Act that allows a mechanism to sit above New Zealand's law above this House of Representatives and above our courts in giving privileges to foreign multinational corporations saying that this Parliament will take account of their profit margins alongside the interests of Kiwis our workers' rights environmental protection and our commitment to the founding constitutional document of this nation Te Tiriti o Waitangi.We say that no lawmaker no policy maker should be taking account of the profit margins of any private body let alone foreign multinationals but that's what we're being asked to sign up to through this bill. That's what the submitters knew and they begged us not to do it as they begged us not to sign on to this agreement and as they begged us not to sign on to the TPPA and it does remain largely unchanged. It represents an archaic form of trade and we've seen that model collapse. We've seen the suffering that was caused by the latest global financial crisis and we're signing on to the same model. That's not what New Zealanders voted for this election.To focus back on the bill what we've found most alarming in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—and there were questions from both sides. There were questions from the Hon Todd McClay and he made this clear and the officials in answering him made it clear that what we're signing on to here with this bill means that the old TPPA can be reactivated through the joining of say the United States without further parliamentary oversight without a select committee process and without public input. This deal was sold to New Zealand through promises that it was changed but we've found out since then that even the old TPPA can come into law without further scrutiny.Now some of the changes that were made are real—between the TPPA and the CPTPPA—and they came in the form of suspended provisions. Some of those were for example the provision that now protects Pharmac in this deal so that Pharmac can independently protect the price and quality of medicine for New Zealanders. That was one. There are provisions that protect our patent and copyright law so that New Zealanders can compete on an even playing field against these large established multinationals. These are good things. But we also learnt through the process and the officials told us that there is nothing in this bill that says that were a new member State to join whether it's the US or any member State those provisions could be lifted—those suspensions could go—without parliamentary oversight. So we are signing away our ability to oversee these changes—the very changes that the coalition parties relied upon to sell this deal as a changed new progressive deal. All of that could go and there'll be no parliamentary oversight no democratic process. That is chilling.So the Green Party doesn't support the bill; we support democracy for New Zealanders. And we do support It's Our Future's call for essentially changes to the bill that say that no further ISDS can be added to this agreement without Parliament coming back and having a look at it. That's a big change but it's also still limited. But if we could at least say that if new member States are going to join and they will be signing on to a deal with ISDS in it with that mechanism sitting above our law at least Parliament should have a say. We should at least get to look at it again and that's how the bill could introduce some meaningful protection.But what's more we are saying that trade should change that trade deals—international agreements—should always come to Parliament that those deals shouldn't be allowed to be made with complete lack of transparency in those dark corners of the international financial markets where corporate lawyers agree to the text and it's years before the public are allowed to look at it. It's as a result of leaks that experts like Professor Jane Kelsey get to look at those deals and tell us what's in them and tell us what's been signed away. We say that it should be Parliament who decides what we sign on to in such a critical area.Trade and a trade agreement particularly like this one affects everything in our lives. If our health and our environment are on the line—and we heard from so many sectors about the way they would be limited. The most chilling was hearing from the doctors. They asked what would happen if they want to introduce warnings on alcohol packaging to warn mothers against foetal alcohol syndrome. That's a problem in New Zealand. What happens if we want to introduce a sugar tax to protect the public against toxic junk food that's clogging up our health system and our standard of living?Mostly as a Green I want it noted that around the world where ISDS clauses identical to this have been used they have been used to stop environmental protection from being implemented. This bill could affect our ability for example to reform our mining sector and say that exploration permits won't automatically turn into mining permits. Those are the types of progressive changes that we promised New Zealand this election and they could be at risk.So we won't support this bill because we support a truly progressive transformative Government and change for New Zealand. We say that we owe it to the global order and we owe it to New Zealanders that we do trade differently from now on and we say that the vast majority against and the incredible overwhelming opposition to this trade agreement and to this bill should mean that the Government rethinks ratifying the agreement through the bill. We say that's the only way to honour democracy in New Zealand. Thank you.