O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): How unexpected. Ha ha! Madam Chair thank you very much. I think this may well be my last contribution to Part 1.Matt Doocey: Two more.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you to the whip who very helpfully said that I have two more but we'll see how we go. Now look Part 1's around obviously the amendments to the title and commencement of the principal Act and that being again the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Act of 2016. In my prior contribution which I still welcome the Minister in the chair to engage with if he so chooses if only for academic fullity" just to elaborate a little bit on the one area I touched on is the question which was raised in committee—and is in fact referenced in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee's report—around whether or not the previous Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could come into effect.In other words the current legislation passed in 2016 for the TPP is about to be renamed in this Part 1 clause 5 to call it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). However even with that change of name the previous Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement remains. So the argument as was brought up in committee—and it would be good to get some surety from the Minister in the chair or perhaps other Ministers who are keen to opine—is that strictly speaking and I hope I've got this right; I'm more than happy to be corrected—Kieran McAnulty: Probably not.SIMON O'CONNOR: But if the likes of—in fact that's probably the one truthful thing that Mr McNulty has said for a while—McAnulty sorry.Kieran McAnulty: McAnulty!SIMON O'CONNOR: Um actually that's probably getting close to breaching a Standing Order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes it is. Ha ha!SIMON O'CONNOR: Look the long and the short—ha! The current situation to illustrate the point is in theory if the likes of the United States of America and probably two other countries who have not engaged—well sorry if the United States of America and other parties came in ratified and signed up to the terms of the previous TPP agreement that we passed domestic legislation to approve in 2016—if that were to occur we would find ourselves beholden to that. We would all of a sudden find ourselves linked in to those previous conditions.So the changes in this piece of domestic legislation and the changes—and I know colleagues have argued they are minor—in the CPTPP would likely continue. But there is that academic if you will chance that if the previous agreement was to come into force then New Zealand would be bound to follow those. So any clarification the Minister would care to provide would be welcome.I know it was something we interrogated the officials on at length. I think we have a relatively good handle on it both in terms of what would happen and how it might happen. There was discussion on whether it would need to come back to the Parliament or not. We looked into the Standing Orders whether it would be a further examination whether it remains in the hands of the executive or whether in fact because we've already agreed that treaty that we've already passed legislation on in 2016 that in fact there would be no need for further discussion because we'd already agreed with it.So it's just raising the question of whether we've got that right. I would stress to the Minister—as I'm sure he appreciates as do the officials—it is a relatively academic argument. It would be rather odd for it to come into being. But a little bit like my previous contributions particularly around Part 1 clause 6 around the commencement and the title of the Minister of Trade and Export Growth we've just got to be absolutely clear. There's been a few too many times in this Parliament where we've sort of overlooked something thinking it was all OK at the time and then circumstances arise and we go "Hold on we should have thought about this more clearly."So if the Minister would like to engage with that again. I'd like to stress it's more academic than actually an existential issue that we have to face. But it really is just in this contribution to highlight that simply amending Part 1 clause 5 around the title—while it makes sense it tidies up the statute book a little bit it does not as I understand things materially change a possibility that actually the former TPP would come into effect.Again it is highly unlikely. The Americans have indicated that they as far as I'm aware are not interested in coming on board and without them this couldn't be enacted. So that's really my only further contribution on this part. Elements around the Copyright Act and the Patents Act and so forth are touched on in the commencement—that they will be in a staged fashion—but the particular changes themselves I'll address later in the contribution."