Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. During question time today and in his third reading speech the Hon Todd McClay made a virtue of the speed at which this legislation is passing through the House. I just wanted to take a moment to address this because whilst it is a faster process than normal it's still slower than pretty much any other bill that this Government has passed this year. And it had the luxury of a select committee hearing which meant that New Zealanders were able to contribute and a select committee was able to review it and to test things which hasn't really happened so far in this parliamentary term when it comes to the passage of any of the other bills that this Government has passed. So it is on a slower track actually than is this current Government's general forte.Now having said that actually the Green Party did support a truncated process in this regard because we've always said that you should use urgency or truncated debates and so on when something is actually urgent and there is a material difference that can be made to New Zealanders as a result—as opposed to We just wanted it to go faster" which is how the Government has been treating the process so far. In this case we felt that it was warranted to have a truncated process on this bill because it does make a material difference when the agreement comes into effect. So in this case we actually felt it was justified as opposed to pretty much any other bill so far.Because as a result of that truncated process we didn't have a second reading on the bill I just wanted to make a couple of reflections about what we heard in the select committee and some of the things that we interrogated because I do think it is important that we put those on record. There were some concerns that were raised I want to say by Te Pāti Māori in the first reading debate which we did take some time to test with submitters as well—just recognising that unfortunately Te Pāti Māori doesn't have a seat on the select committee. Nevertheless we did still try to represent those concerns and to test them with some of the submitters.Those were around Te Tiriti obligations of the Crown—those were raised in first reading speeches and were raised also by some of the submitters as well. So we wanted to really test—because we also heard from other Māori submitters that they were strongly in favour of the agreement and also wanted it to get passed very quickly because it makes such a difference to the Māori economy. Really what decided it for me when we were interrogating this kind of tension was that both things can be true at the same time—that there is an assessment that the Crown is continuing not to fulfil its obligations fully under Te Tiriti and at the same time that the passage of the bill and the ratification of the agreement and its coming into force would also make a huge difference to the Māori economy. Those two things can be true at the same time. And so certainly where I landed was to say "OK well on balance given the potential enormous benefit to Māori of the trade agreement it should be supportable."—even whilst acknowledging that the Crown continues to not live up to its Tiriti obligations.Having said that there were some real breakthroughs here. There were some big advances—not that perfection has been reached but there were some very big advances—in the way that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade engaged with Māori. They had a specialist negotiating group called Te Taumata which provided a lot of advice directly but also hosted hui up and down the country which hundreds and hundreds of people came to and this agreement has a specific chapter on indigenous trade and so on which has never happened before. It's a new and unique and innovative provision. So it does in that sense also represent an advancement in the way that Māori have been engaged within the development and in the negotiations and in the actual outcome that's represented in the agreement as well.The environmental provisions it won't surprise you were an area of particular concern to the Greens. Historically our trade agreements have tended to pull away from our environmental agreements and in this case there are enforceable provisions in this agreement particularly in relation to our climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement but also extending into other areas around sustainability and environmental outcomes as well. This is I think the first time in any trade agreement that we've had enforceable provisions where if we fail to live up to our agreements we can be held to account by our trading partners and that actually brings—Hon Member: That was the UK.Hon JAMES SHAW: Oh sorry I'm just being corrected—the UK free-trade agreement; I'd forgotten where that was in the process. But yes that did sneak through before this one. So this is the second time that we've had an agreement like that.That is really important because it actually then means that our trade agreements and our environmental agreements are coming together and can be mutually reinforcing rather than pulling away from each other. That is really important because the social consensus around trade had been fraying over many many years as a result of essentially people seeing that trade provisions were being used to undermine our environmental commitments. So to bring those things together in this enforceable way is really significant and quite different from previous trade agreements. So we tested that as well because as I said in my first reading speech I was a bit worried that there might be language that suggested that it could be enforceable but we wanted to test that with officials. And their view was that yes it is properly fully legally enforceable in that regard. So that is significant.Other concerns that we had around previous free-trade agreements—the most contentious of all is investor-State dispute settlement mechanism which had been used in a number of cases overseas to undermine environmental provisions and outcomes. Those are not included in this agreement. So something that had meant that essentially for us previous trade agreements hadn't been supportable—that barrier was removed there. Some of the concerns we had in previous trade agreements around needing to ensure that the Pharmac model was protected—that's kind of safe here as well. The previous concerns around intellectual property and so on—that was quite well aired in the select committee. So ultimately where we land in the Green Party is that this agreement is substantially different from previous trade agreements that our country has entered into in a number of ways that are very very favourable. So it's a breakthrough not just for New Zealand exporters and people who want to buy in goods and services from the EU but it is also a breakthrough in the nature of free-trade agreements here in this country and potentially around the world as well. It's a good model for others to follow.Now the Hon Todd McClay said and the Hon Damien O'Connor said it's not perfect. No one gets everything that they fully want in any agreement and there are certainly areas that we would like to push out in future free-trade agreements as well. But ultimately this is a very different agreement and that is because—and I do want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker who's here as well because when he was the Minister for Trade in our first term in Government he put an enormous amount of work into the Trade For All programme talked to New Zealanders the length and breadth of the country to say "Well what do you want from our future trade agreements? What are your concerns and your worries about them?" And that was then pulled forward into these negotiations in a way that means that you have almost complete unanimity in the House for the first time in years on this agreement. So I want to commend that work. I hope that the current Government continues on with that work because you can see the value of that reflected here in the quality of this agreement. So we do support this bill."