Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for Trade for bringing this bill the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to the House and thank the Hon Damien O'Connor for landing the agreement.I want to make a reference to some of the comments that were made by the Māori Party. With respect the comments by the Māori Party are incorrect; the Treaty provisions in this agreement are as good as they have been in any other agreement. There is no other country in the world that manages to secure the level of protection that we do for a founding document like the Treaty of Waitangi than New Zealand does. It was hard hard fought to get in the first place and it is only defensible if it is carried on in identical form in every trade agreement. It cannot be reopened and won in any of them—so the member is incorrect on that. There is also additional protection for geographic indicators in this agreement because the Europeans are really into them. So if there was a geographic indicator—for example to be attached to mānuka honey—that would be possible under this agreement in a way that would not be under many other agreements in the world.In respect of the long journey to get to agreements like this they take a long time—you've got to take the gap when it appears. The gap appeared in the period between 2017 and 2020. We tried to launch negotiations while Cecilia Malmstrom was a European Trade Commissioner. She was very supportive of the New Zealanders. We had a number of other countries who were wanting New Zealand to have a free-trade agreement with the European Union because of our shared values on many things including environment and labour. Unfortunately she couldn't get it through the European Parliament by that time and it was handed to my colleague who took over as the trade Minister after I left.Can I pay my accolades to the New Zealand trade team: one of the best trade teams in the world led by one of the best public servants in New Zealand: Vangelis Vitalis. We're just so lucky to have him—so respected around the world tough as old boots but as principled as anything and really does a fantastic job for New Zealand to land these agreements. He of course was the witness for the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of complaints that were made about process in the trade division to the Waitangi Tribunal. Their report was a little critical but it wasn't hugely critical of the Government processes throughout.The final thing I want to say is in respect of the consensus around trade. The consensus around trade frayed for two main reasons. One was disagreement around investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. Interestingly ISDS clauses—where companies can sue Governments rather than Governments sue Governments under trade agreements—are becoming less popular in the world and it's interesting that Europe agreed to no ISDS clauses in this agreement. It's something that if the new Government and their future trade aspirations bring back ISDS clauses there will be difficulty in New Zealand.The other point that was to be made is in respect of investment protocols. It is fine for different political parties to have different views as to what investment controls ought to be on inbound investment. Where the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) went wrong was that the class of investments that could be screened for was closed by that agreement and therefore after that agreement came into effect New Zealand could not introduce any new areas of investment to be screened under our screening regime. It was a point of political controversy because on this side of the House we thought we should ban foreign buyers of residential land. We also thought there needed to be the ability of the Government to control inward investment in forestry which also was not properly controlled under the old overseas investment regime.If those two matters had not been concluded before the CPTPP came into effect no future Government in effect could have controlled that and it would have flowed into earlier trade agreements under most favoured nation clauses which apply to investment protocols not tariff levels.So the current Government says that they're going to change the screening regime in respect of inward investment in some asset classes. That's within their power to do but I would encourage them to do it in a way that doesn't take the investment class out of trade agreements in a way that future Governments cannot put it in because that too would cause a fracturing of the agreement that we have around trade investment. And for the record Tim Groser in retrospect agrees that under his watch investment protocols were taken too far in some of those trade agreements. I commend the bill to the House.