Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair for an opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement. It's interesting that when we think back prior to the election the Labour Party campaigned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) and then did the right thing in my view and made some changes that were really just based on symbolism to get it across the line to appease some of their voters who were against this particular bill. If you think back to Jane Kelsey and her public views they were very much along the lines that she saw this as essentially the same bill.So I'm following on from Todd McClay who gave two very good contributions on the title and commencement. I don't want to go through and propose different titles like the Essentially the Same Bill" like Jane Kelsey did because I think that's really a waste of the committee's time. What I want to do is ask a couple of questions to the Minister. We heard from Damien O'Connor who said that it's more than just tokenism and that the commitment is real in terms of "comprehensive and progressive"—two words that came on the front of the TPPA. What I really want to ask the Minister and he will know this is when they went and effectively changed these clauses and tried to strike a new deal—and it was good to hear from Todd McClay that this all came about from the Canadian minister of trade—did David Parker or Damien O'Connor go and seek greater market access for our growers and farmers? I'm interested to know. So that's a question to the Minister in the chair and all he needs to do is look up and nod or shake his head. Did he or David Parker seek better market access for New Zealand exporters as a result of making this deal comprehensive and progressive? He nodded. OK. So it would be good for Damien O'Connor to take a call—because I've got all the details here—and show us and tell us this evening: what is so comprehensive and progressive about this bill from the original TPPA bill focusing directly in on gains to do with market access? If he can produce any evidence that will show that it got a better deal for farmers for beef processors into Japan a better deal for our dairy farmers and dairy exporters into other countries a better deal for our horticulture growers into 10 countries as a result of this being comprehensive and progressive then I would welcome that. I would welcome the Minister taking a call and pointing out to me where those gains are as a result of an original bill that's now a comprehensive and progressive bill in terms of market access.What is also interesting is to acknowledge the hard work that's gone into this. We talk about the politicians who have put the hard work in. I know that Tim Groser and Todd McClay did a huge amount of heavy lifting. I felt for Todd McClay when the US came out. President Trump just did what he said he was going to do in the campaign. In January 2017 he came out and said "The US is out." I felt that in the depths of my stomach and I thought "How can we resurrect this deal?" And I want to acknowledge Todd McClay for getting in the plane flying around these key countries and brokering a deal. Maybe in time the US may indeed come back in. But while it's worthwhile noting that Ministers and the Prime Minister and David Parker got this to where it is now—and we support it—I'm keen to hear how it's even more comprehensive and progressive for our farmers and growers. I'm not sure we'll get a decent answer.I just want to take a couple of moments and acknowledge the officials. The officials have done a huge amount. Ministers fly in and out of the world and negotiate deals with their counterparts but officials work tirelessly with their contacts around the world to get a comprehensive deal. We have heard there are 6000 pages in this deal—it's massive. I just want to pay a tribute to all of the officials that have done a huge amount to get this bill to where it is."