Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e Te Whare. I think I'm the penultimate speaker in this debate and I have to say I've thoroughly enjoyed it at this late stage on a Thursday afternoon. Could I acknowledge in particular the member for Manurewa Louisa Wall. I always enjoy listening to her. I want to thank her for another thoughtful contribution and I also enjoyed the contribution from the Hon Stuart Nash before. All the contributions on this side of the House have been outstanding. I particularly enjoyed the member for Helensville bringing it to us in the letters—the new letters of course are CTP". After listening to him I decided those letters stand for "Chris the Penk" because everything else about the agreement is pretty much the way it was but it was good that he managed to bring an original flavour to it. At the outset it is appropriate for me to acknowledge as others have done the former and current trade Ministers for the great work that they have done and also the trade negotiators who worked so hard over so many years—both on the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) and on this revised version of that agreement—to bring us something that just about everyone who has spoken today has acknowledged is very important for our country. To the Hon Tim Groser who was the Minister of Trade for most of the time under the Rt Hon Sir John Key—he is now of course our ambassador in Washington but the work began in his time—to the Hon Todd McClay who was described by one of the previous speakers as having done much of the heavy lifting in this particular agreement and in having brought the TPPA to its conclusion; and to the Hon David Parker who has been the Minister since the change from the TPPA to this revised version the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) I congratulate all of them and thank them for the work that they've done in our interests—Hon Andrew Little: You've diminished Mr Parker. Hon TIM MACINDOE: —because this is a very important achievement for New Zealand. I assume that even Mr Little thinks that although his incoherent contribution a moment ago leaves me wondering. In this morning's Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Estimates hearing where of course both trade and foreign policy issues were on the agenda we had the dubious pleasure of hearing from the current Foreign Minister. I made the point to him when I was raising some questions after his initial opening remarks that his repeated flip-flops and inconsistent positions on matters of policy relating to his current portfolio have not only undermined the traditionally bipartisan approach that New Zealand MPs have brought to foreign policy—and he reminded us that this is I think the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—but it has also done considerable damage to our standing in the international community. We have looked a bit of a laughing stock under his tenure on this particular issue and many others. I have to say not surprisingly the Foreign Minister wasn't overly delighted with my assessment and he demanded evidence to back up the claim that I'd made. So I was only too happy to do that and in fact—thoughtlessly—some of the other members of the committee thought that they had a right to ask some questions as well and I ran out of time before I could give him all nine that I'd jotted down. But I did make the point that one of the things that he had insisted upon—and that became apparent when the coalition agreement was released in October of last year—was a commitment to restarting negotiations for a free-trade agreement with Russia. Now of course he denies that he ever did that but that's there in the coalition agreement. He also was not particularly pleased by the evidence that I presented of his claim in a TV interview just a few months ago—in fact in March—that there was no evidence of Russian involvement in the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over Ukraine. Now of course he's confronted with the fact that there's a very credible international report that shows that that is exactly what has happened. I went through his position on the Skripal father and daughter and the nerve agent attack but the point I'm making is that I would have liked also to have been able to get to his total about-face on this CPTPP agreement which was previously known as the TPPA because an about-face it most definitely is. For no matter how many times Ministers Parker and Peters have tried to argue before today and again in the House this afternoon—and methinks they doth protest too much—nevertheless this is the revised TPPA agreement with just a few minor changes which the vast majority of people will never notice and never be aware of and which certainly do not satisfy those who opposed the original TPPA. And as Golriz Ghahraman rightly pointed out when she spoke earlier they came back to the committee to protest against this time as well. They—led by Professor Jane Kelsey and others—without exception all made the point that there are no significant changes and that the reasons for their opposition to the TPPA remain in their opposition to the CPTPP. Well I congratulate the Greens for at least remaining consistent in that because when Mr Parker's supporters and Mr Peters' supporters and some of the Greens were protesting outside my electorate office in Te Rapa about a year ago and they left a little bit of graffiti and some documents and possibly didn't notice that I wasn't there at the time—there can't have been very many of them—all of them Labour the Greens and New Zealand First were all in there together opposing this agreement. Now we find that suddenly it's wonderful because Labour and New Zealand First are in Government and it's a great thing and yet none of the protesters see any material difference in the agreement at all. But I have to say we do welcome the change of heart by Labour and New Zealand First because this agreement is—as Mr Penk said a moment ago—something that was good for New Zealand when it was the TPPA and it's good for New Zealand now and I'm delighted to see that it's there. So today when Mr Peters who frankly is neither right nor honourable departed quickly from the facts and resorted to his customary abuse particularly of me—and that's his standard tactic whenever he's confronted with the inconsistency of his positions. Today we've had him in the House insulting all of my colleagues—Hon Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I just ask if it is within the Standing Orders for the member to say that another member of this House is not honourable. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Well I would say that would tend to lead to disorder so I would encourage the member not to do that again. Perhaps a first warning—a first and only warning—given that it is Thursday afternoon. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. How very kind of you. The point I'm making is that that Minister was insulting all of our colleagues and I think he did have a go at everyone who had spoken. He insulted just about all of Fonterra. He insulted frankly the intelligence of everybody who was listening to him in his incoherent rant and the only thing that I could discern from it was that he resorted to his old chestnut about the baubles of office and fancy limousines. Well in the brief time I was a Minister I never rode in a limousine but that's beside the point. He went all over the traps. The one thing he didn't do was talk at all about the agreement. So let me just bring to his attention what I think he would have liked to have said had he not thought of talking about its benefits only 13 seconds before his time finished. If you look at the document that Louisa Wall has just brought to our attention this excellent national interest analysis of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership it makes the point that international trade stimulates individual productivity employment growth and higher wages in New Zealand. It acknowledges the tremendous advocacy of the Hon Todd McClay which was integral to the formulation of the CPTPP. It makes the point that internationally tariffs are escalating on such products as steel aluminium alcohol and soya beans. So when you get to the section—and I'll cut to the chase—on what's in the CPTPP for New Zealand it makes the point that strategically the CPTPP promotes New Zealand's voice in shaping the dynamics of the regional economy. Commercially the CPTPP will increase New Zealand's export trade agreement coverage by 9 percent—that's phenomenal. The CPTPP delivers new free-trade agreements for New Zealand with Canada Japan Mexico and Peru and greater benefit for our existing agreements with the other parties to the agreement. The CPTPP will facilitate a minimum $222.4 million annually in tariff savings. What a fantastic thing that is for our primary producers. The CPTPP gives New Zealand exporters equal trade power to Australia and Chile with markets like Japan one of the world's biggest economies and one of the hardest to get an agreement with. So key outcomes include removal of tariffs from kiwifruit wine lamb forestry apples beef and fish. In various partner countries it reduces dairy export tariffs boosts horticultural sector profits and reduces non-tariff barriers. These are all vitally important for New Zealand. So I encourage every New Zealander who has an interest in this to get hold of the national interest analysis because I couldn't possibly do justice to it in this brief contribution. But I conclude it as I commenced—this is another compelling example of the flip-flops that are typical of the current Minister. I'm just delighted that we've got to this point. Let's get on with it now and make the legislative changes that are needed before he has another flip-flop and we find ourselves back to the position he held about 20 minutes ago. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member. Your time has expired. Before I call the member I just need to remind the House that this is actually a time-limited debate limited to two hours. The member will have approximately just over seven minutes to speak and I'll set the timer for five minutes."