Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I'll concentrate my remarks on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Golriz Ghahraman of the Green Party who has spoken to those already herself and I think has made some good points that certainly make sense in terms of the Greens' position in relation to this bill and they have some interesting constitutional points about them. On this side of the House we're comfortable with not only the arrangements that we in Government in the previous Parliament and through our executive had implemented but also those that have been made by the Government subsequently and I acknowledge the Minister in the chair Mr Damien O'Connor for his contribution to the debate as well.The Supplementary Order Papers that would be within Part 2 if agreed to are numbered 140 and 141. They are similar in structure but they do have a couple of significant differences between them which I'll highlight as I go through. First I'll note that it could be said that these are themselves comprehensive and progressive so perhaps they would have a certain appeal to the Government of the day seeing as it has some penchant for renaming legislation and perhaps allowing things to slip through to the keeper on that basis. Perhaps they will be moved by that or perhaps not but in any case we will find out whether they agree or not in due course.But Supplementary Order Paper 140 talks about new countries being prohibited from entering into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and it does actually set out both of those so it's certainly comprehensive in that respect. I thought the wording would be helpful to look at rather closely because if it is the case that the fellow Government parties join their Green colleagues in voting for this SOP then it will be as well that it's well-constructed and fit for purpose in that regard.So it starts by saying that The Executive must not agree to any country joining the [CPTPP]"—excuse the acronym again—"unless New Zealand has negotiated and signed a binding instrument with that country" and it then goes on to talk about the investor-State dispute settlement provisions or ISDS. So the words "The Executive"—I think that's the Green Party member looking to be as broad as possible about the nature of the agreement. That's actually a sensible thing in itself as a matter of good drafting I think because it includes not only the Minister for Trade and Export Growth but actually the whole executive which would mean presumably the officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who always do a good job for our nation in negotiating such agreements and also the Cabinet colleagues who would no doubt be working alongside the Minister himself—or herself as the case might be from time to time—in a collective Cabinet responsibility kind of a way.So it's the executive then who the Green Party by way of SOP 140 would look to preclude from agreeing to any country joining this revised agreement. Their proposal is that such a country would prohibit its own investors from being able to access the ISDS provisions against New Zealand and in the Green Party view of things that's a necessary safeguard for New Zealand sovereignty.I wonder if in fact their phrase "existing or future agreements" is perhaps a little broad. I expect that they mean trade agreements specifically or even trade agreements with other elements added but trade agreements rather than for example—oh I'm lost for an example—other agreements in any case on non-trade matters. So perhaps as a matter of good drafting that could be amended but most significant actually is really the substance of the SOP that they're putting forward.The other significance of the phrase "The Executive" I think is that it highlights exactly who within our constitutional arrangements would be prohibited from making such a change. It's balancing or setting the executive against for example the legislature. So the Greens I think are anticipating that it would be Parliament as the legislature that would be a check on the power of the executive because it would be Parliament that would be scrutinising each new individual country that would seek to join the CPTPP in that scenario.Of course the word "executive" does mean by its very—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk.CHRIS PENK: Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I was just pointing out that the word "executive" etymologically means the body that executes so it's executing Government policy. So it's a group that this Parliament—and indeed this nation more generally—says can go out and execute policy on its behalf can sign up to agreements significantly in the current context and of course can negotiate agreements too before they enter into force.Hon Tim Macindoe: That's eliminated any obfuscation thank you.CHRIS PENK: I'm grateful to Mr Macindoe for saying that I've eliminated any obfuscation. I'm assiduously pursuing hyper-verbosity he will no doubt also observe. So it is that the historical basis is of course the executive being sovereign—being able to commit a nation State or a realm to certain actions—and in the Greens' view that should be limited somewhat in the 21st century in the New Zealand context by way of parliamentary scrutiny every time a new party wishes to join.I do note that the phrase "any country" is pretty broad. Again it's comprehensive in that sense and I expect that that's intended quite specifically to include the United States of America which may or may not wish to join subsequently and so they've certainly covered their bases on that one.As for the proposed amendments being progressive which was the other half of the "comprehensive and progressive" phrase that I referred to earlier well as far as the progressive nature of it goes I suppose in a general sense it might be said to be progressive—in the general political sense that is. But also it reflects a notion that changes such as this that the Greens feel strongly about from a sovereignty perspective should be incremental—so just take steps progressively or incrementally in that sense. It is at least consistent with their position that the TPP should not be signed. Again I note for the record that our party disagreed with that to the point of course of having been the ones to have promoted negotiated and signed that in the first instance.So it's consistent with the Greens' position on that that they would also oppose the CPTPP at least in the sense that they maintain that there is little or no change between those two agreements. That's a position that we also hold but from the perspective that what was acceptable before remains acceptable now. Of course other members of Government parties have taken a different view but it is as I say again at least consistent of the Greens to maintain that caution in wanting a progressive approach in the sense of limiting progress. That's slightly Orwellian perhaps—not my fault; it's not my SOP not my position—by saying that progress should be limited in respect of any new countries that would join. So that's in relation to SOP 140.SOP 141 is along similar lines in emphasising the need for parliamentary scrutiny but this one is actually somewhat broader because it seeks to prohibit changes in general to the CPTPP or the TPP—again setting out both. Actually the way that this is phrased it talks about the executive being disallowed from agreeing to any country joining the agreement or any other changes to that agreement.So actually my observation is that the two SOPs do overlap somewhat so actually if the Greens are successful in convincing their governing party colleagues of New Zealand First and Labour that they should support SOP 141 that would preclude other countries from joining without parliamentary approval and other changes—meaning SOP 140 which is in relation to other countries only—would actually become completely redundant. So perhaps that's food for thought for any members opposite—or parties opposite I suppose inevitably in this MMP environment—who might wish to vote for one or the other but maybe I would suggest not both.So that I think brings to a conclusion my remarks on these two different SOPs. I'll watch with interest to see if the Government agrees about the logic of their colleagues and can accept any kind of comprehensive and progressive nature within that. If the Minister has any views on those and can indicate to us whether his party and his Cabinet colleagues on the New Zealand First side are likely to support it that would be very interesting indeed."