Muller Todd; Tisch LindsayTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well well well. This is a day of infamy in my view for the bipartisan trade policy that has underpinned this country for 30 years. To stand in here and listen this afternoon to Labour which for 30 years has stood alongside National in fighting for New Zealand's interests on the world stage and which has had David Shearer Phil Goff Mr Parker and Clayton Cosgrove in the select committee all shaking their heads at their party's position all former trade Ministers or involved in trade policy—they know that what their party gives voice to today is disgraceful and is the end of bipartisan trade policy agreement.Quite frankly when you listen to the case that Labour members have put here today it is abysmal. They know it and they know that when they stand on the platform next year and argue around the vision of New Zealand—connecting it with the world and ensuring that we have the systems in place to back our small businesses—everyone listening in the audience will know they are hollow because it means nothing to stand here and oppose a trade agreement that supports small businesses and exporters in their efforts around the world.To hear Grant Robertson articulate as he did his anxiety dream—which perhaps was a disclosure too far but putting that aside—and to listen to him talking about trade and the feedback that he is getting around the country through the lens of the corporations versus the small New Zealand individual and family reflects typically a class welfare view and perspective that he learnt at university and has not grown up from. When is he going to realise that the companies of this country that spend all their effort negotiating and trying to sell their products around the world are full of New Zealanders? The company I worked for Fonterra—17000 New Zealanders work for it on behalf of 10000 farmers. That is another example of a corporation that those members feel does not reflect their perspective of New Zealand. Well with respect they are so far out of touch with how this country makes money and how families in New Zealand are successful that their argument today like I was saying is completely hollow.Then they talk about the future of work—well Mr Robertson this agreement is the future of work not some esoteric academic exercise. It is creating an opportunity for New Zealand exporters to succeed on the world stage. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the future of work and the sooner that party understands the reality the better. But with their current leadership I have no hope. Is it not interesting that all their former trade Ministers their former leaders—Helen Clark Mike Moore people whom they salute to on the 100th year of the Labour Party people who have underpinned their success for a generation—are the ones who are saying that the TPP is something that they could not even imagine not supporting. But the hard left members of the Labour Party would rather be pure in their own mind and commit themselves to the fourth consecutive elective defeat than front the reality of what it is like to be part of a global environment and support our small businesses and exporters.Barry Coates made a comment earlier that I simply have to rebut. He talked about Jane Kelsey getting access to our report. It was not our committee report; it was a draft that had been leaked earlier and we certainly as a committee had not finally reviewed it or indeed deliberated on it. So your reference there is inaccurate and it would pay you to just circle back with those who are involved in that process and get closer to it.Fletcher Tabuteau who unfortunately—some of his comments I would also like to rebut. For him to stand up and say that this agreement is going to drive greater inequality in New Zealand—Denis O'Rourke: And so it will.TODD MULLER: Yes again—and of course you are going to echo it because that is your small narrow-minded perspective. It is because you simply have not understood the reality here of standing beside owners of small businesses who get up every day and put their capital at risk to try to sell a product and service on the world stage.When there is an agreement that provides New Zealand the opportunity to connect with close to 40 percent of the world economy which 40 percent of our exports currently go to and we have negotiated agreement with 12 parties—an agreement that successive Governments have been seeking to achieve and we finally get that—someone who stands and says that this is going to drive greater inequality simply does not understand the economy of this country and the importance of trade to it. That is what I take issue with. He is a fine man personally but on this particular point of issue he is way off the mark.It has been an extraordinary process. We had 80-plus submissions and we have already heard some of the themes that came through those conversations and submissions. But one of the things that I found very interesting listening to them is that they were largely the same theme or view that somehow this was going to constrain New Zealand businesses constrain New Zealand Governments able to make law as we see fit despite as we have heard again this afternoon very clear confirmation from the Attorney-General—and it is explicit in the agreement—that that is not the case.It is a view that somehow the Pharmac model is going to be impacted when again we heard from the officials very explicitly that New Zealanders will not pay more for subsidised medicines as a result of TPP. The fact is that for each one of these submitters who raised this issue we would point to the particular component in the bill and in the agreement and they would say: Oh yeah but that's not what I feel. That's not what I think." Although I respect their opinion the fact is that this agreement and this bill does not in any way impact our Pharmac model.There is the same thing in respect of investor-State disputes. There are high hurdles that have been put in and again we have had investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in our previous trade deals and despite the fact that that in no way has challenged New Zealand's success in implementing both those trade deals and also our Government policy that again did not seem to hold water for those who were philosophically opposed actually in my view to trade as a vehicle for lifting the quality of life and direction of this country.In terms of some of the specifics certainly from my perspective there has been some talk here around the economic analysis being light. Well actually I agree that it is light in the context that the number that was provided I think will be well less than the actual value that will accrue to this country from being part of the TPP. I do not say that just in a carefree way. Look at the facts: for the Chinese free-trade agreement it was significantly greater—a factor of four greater—in terms of the actual economic benefit that has accrued to this country from being a part of it. The officials' view is understandably conservative because they take the current trade figures and they remove value and quantity and remove the tariffs that we are paying on that.But of course what history suggests is that as you open up a market that provides an exponential opportunity for our exporters to succeed on the world stage. So I agree the numbers are light when it says $2.7 billion. When it is in effect—I think it is going to be well north of that. But more importantly and to finish this is—and we have heard from the debate this afternoon—a defining difference in the political philosophies that are represented in this House. I for one am absolutely certain that the philosophy of backing our exporters with a trade deal that connects us with 40 percent or just under of the world's economy and providing them with a platform for them to succeed and grow through the reduction of tariffs over time is exactly where we should be. It reflects exactly what small and medium and large businesses across this country would expect from this Government. It is the leadership that I am very proud to support and I am very much in favour of this bill moving to the next stage. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes."